SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TideGlider who wrote (1079241)7/20/2018 1:51:40 AM
From: Heywood401 Recommendation

Recommended By
sylvester80

  Respond to of 1580538
 
Trump, the fucking moron, just realized The Apprentice was about apprenticeships:

‘I never actually put that together until just now’



To: TideGlider who wrote (1079241)7/20/2018 2:17:31 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1580538
 
Opinion: One FBI text message in Russia probe that should alarm every American

thehill.com

By John Solomon
Opinion Contributor

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trump from becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.


The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

Is that an FBI you can live with?

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.



To: TideGlider who wrote (1079241)7/20/2018 2:23:49 PM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1580538
 

How $37 Million from the Clinton Foundation Disappeared in Baltimore

A grant went to the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, but the group had an office address in Washington, D.C. What happened to the cash?


lifezette.com
By Charles Ortel | Friday, April 6, 2018

Here’s a question for which Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, special counsel Robert Mueller, and former FBI Director James Comey may well know the answer to — but aren’t likely to want to talk about in public, under oath:

Why did the Clinton Foundation send a $37 million grant for the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund in 2010 to a Baltimore post office box when the CBHF told federal tax authorities that its only office that year was in Washington, D.C.?

For the rest of us, the answers to that and many other questions posed by those who wonder why investigations into obvious and rampant frauds involving Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and their purported foundation never go anywhere are complex. But they’re worth following if you care about combating charitable fraud.

Be prepared, because the answers also make clear that too many powerful people were and are covering up an odious set of scandals that implicate Establishment Republicans and Democrats alike.

So let’s get started, shall we?

Origins of the Clinton Foundation frauds. From Oct. 23, 1997, until Jan. 20, 2001, President Bill Clinton had the power to ensure that no prosecutions might move forward in the Department of Justice (DOJ) against the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, an entity that still has never bothered to file a mandatory federal income tax return for Oct. 23, 1997, through Dec. 31, 1997.

Though there is abundant evidence in the public domain of defective filings made under oath, across state lines, using the mails, Clinton likely felt secure that government officials, even in states controlled by Republicans, would never bring solicitation fraud prosecutions against his nascent “charity.”

0.5x1x1.25x1.5x2x
Auto 406p1080p720p406p270p180p
More from LifeZetteThen, as it became clear that former Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush would be inaugurated as his successor in the Oval Office, Clinton and others took steps to ensure that allies would occupy key roles inside the IRS, DOJ and elsewhere in the federal Establishment.

Enter Rosenstein, Mueller and Comey. According to his official biography, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “from 2001 to 2005 … served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He supervised the division’s criminal sections and coordinated the tax enforcement activities of the Tax Division, the U.S. attorney’s offices and the Internal Revenue Service.”

Records available through the FBI vault confirm that the FBI and DOJ attorneys conducted investigations, empaneled grand juries, and issued subpoenas, yet they were unable to bring indictments or gain convictions against the many individuals and entities linked to the Clinton charity, which clearly engaged in a raft of frauds, across state lines, and in numerous nations.

These FBI records, many of which are heavily redacted even now, clearly show that former FBI Director James Comey played “leadership” roles in these epic failures and that Comey’s predecessor as FBI chief, Robert Mueller, was personally aware of the course of these ineffective efforts after he assumed his duties in September 2001.

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund Psa
0.5x1x1.25x1.5x2x
To see how badly Rosenstein, Mueller and Comey flubbed the Clinton Foundation “investigation,” visit the organization’s website and try to find audits for 1998 through 2004. You will not find them there, but you will find noncompliant accounting work product for 2000 through 2004 here, here, here, and here.

You will never notice charity fraud when you refuse to look at key evidence including fake audits that ineffectively mask the brazen theft of at least $64 million.

Recent years that matter: 2009 forward. The Clinton Foundation filed an amended federal tax return for 2010 on Nov. 16, 2015. The largest single expense declared for 2010 is a grant of more than $37 million to the CBHF at a post office box in Baltimore, Maryland.

This recent — within the statute of limitations — declaration on page 36 of the amended return is boldly incorrect. Sworn declarations made using the U.S. mails across state lines to New York and Minnesota declared that the only office and mailing address that CBHF had during the year in question was in Washington, D.C.

So why was the $37 million sent to a Baltimore post office address? Who retrieved the check from the P.O. box? What happened to the $37 million thereafter?

Moreover, it is mathematically impossible to reconcile declarations made in these key states to regulators that are public records with federal tax filings for CBHF. Here’s why: In total, CBHF declared nearly $49 million in grants and contributions for the entire year 2010.

In a CBHF state filing received in New York on June 29, 2010, Anita Bhatt, the fund’s chief financial officer, declared: “Because the [CBHF] did not receive its 501(c)(3) status until April 2010, the Clinton Foundation and the Communities Foundation of Texas solicited funds on behalf of CBHF at the request of former President George W. Bush.”

In a filing received July 21, 2010, Bhatt declared that contributions and grants through May 31, 2010, totaled $34.1 million, reiterated that she was in charge of CBHF funds and repeated that CBHF had only one office in Washington, D.C.

This means that if the Clinton Foundation actually sent more than $37 million to a Baltimore address, it must have done so after May 31, 2010, which would mean that CBHF collected more than $71 million during a year when it ultimately declared just under $49 million in total revenues.

Claims by the Clinton Foundation concerning its supposed grant to CBHF do not and cannot be squared with CBHF filings. Someone here is lying and many people are doing their best to cover up what looks like a crystal-clear instance of charity fraud and other serious crimes.

How much money did the Clinton Foundation actually receive during 2010, while soliciting to help poor Haitians after their devastating earthquake? More important, where did the money raised for Haiti by Clinton, Bush, and their associates actually go? And remember, 2010 was a key election year, with much at stake for Democrats.

The same accounting firm — BKD LLP — that rendered opinions to the Clinton Foundation during its early years continued as its auditor during and after 2010.

We certainly will never know the answer to that question if we must rely on Rosenstein, Mueller and Comey, who, it must be remembered, were failing to catch obvious frauds during those early years.

And one more thing: The same accounting firm — BKD LLP — that rendered opinions to the Clinton Foundation during its early years continued as its auditor during and after 2010.

President Donald Trump has been too patient with too many powerful swamp creatures. Americans deserve a real, empowered investigation into Clinton charity and allied frauds, and it should be convened as soon as possible.

Charles Ortel, a retired investment banker, concentrates on exposing complex frauds in his new career as an investigator, writer and commentator. Since August 2017, he has been hosting the “Sunday with Charles” podcast and covering the Clinton Foundation case in depth, using publicly available source materials.? See his previous LifeZette contributions.?