DOJ INVESTIGATIONS: DEAD ENDS EVERY TIME

And heeeeere's Curly, Mo and Larry. 


Q: How many DOJ investigators does it take to change a light bulb?
A: NONE.
DoJ is completely in the dark. 


Michael HOROWITZ is a DUD, a leftover from Bush/Obama.
His 'investigations' since Trump took office have resulted in ... not one single grand jury indictment.

Durham?
Ditto. 



Fail, fail, fail.

We see it every day...
"Urgent update! Breaking news! Heads are gonna roll when Durham gets through!"

NOPE! NEVER. 

"Liberal heads will explode tomorrow over Durham's findings!"

LAST I LOOKED, ALL HEADS INTACT. 

"Any day now Durham is gonna send big names to prison!"

NAME ONE?
NOBODY CAN NAME EVEN ONE.

Durham has a history of long, dramatic investigations that end in nothing, as you'll see below. .

Durham was already investigating leaks to the media from the FBI at least seven months before his role was revealed by William Barr, months before Barr took office.

Durham has enlisted the CIA's head, Gina Haspell, to "aid in his probe".

Expect the CIA to aid Trump ?

If that isn't reason enough to snug Durham into a straitjacket or question whose side he's on, what is?
CIA has covered up so much manure for Leftist crooks that they should take out a patent on the technique.

Who was the CIA Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action over Europe, while John Brennan and Peter Strzok were running their European 2016 counterintelligence operations?

Haspel.

Who was in charge of a “black site” prison in Thailand where she oversaw the torture of terror suspects during the presidency of George W. Bush?  

Who directed the "Interrogation Sessions" (aka, illegal torture)  with Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri?

Haspel. 

Who was the man that got the CIA off scot-free every time, including the incident of the destruction of the Gitmo torture tapes, even after cables from Haspell were declassified which graphically described years of torture of the WRONG man, all under her direction?

DURHAM. 

When Haspel initially seemed to NOT be "protecting the identity of the whistleblower" in the Ukraine incident that began the serious "impeach Trump" movement, she was taken to task by the likes of old John Brennan whose hatred for Trump is rabid

"Former CIA Director John Brennan, a Trump critic and NBC News contributor, said intelligence leaders should be pushing back both publicly and privately against what amounts to a campaign to punish the whistleblower."

Brennan added, "Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul's appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate."

BUT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CIA IN AN ANONYMOUS COMMENT TO NBC STATED,
"I think you would have to tell the president we cannot unveil this person — it will create a very bad feeling in the building that will not be good for national security or you personally, Mr. President."

CIA personnel in particular are watching Haspel closely, since the whistleblower is one of their own.

Remember Chuck Schumer's statement to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow?

Schumer said Trump is "being really dumb" by taking on the intelligence community because if he does "they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

Maddow, perhaps realizing the gravity of what he just said, questioned Schumer further asking skeptically: "What do you think the intelligence community would do, if they were motivated to?"

"I don't know... but from what I am told, they are VERY upset with how he has treated them and talked about them...," Schumer said.

What's Schumer scared of and what does he know about CIA REVENGE? 

Haspel, the CIA, help Trump?

NOT a smooth move by Durham.
Why not just let Hillary handle the investigation?

More on Durham later.


MICHAEL HOROWITZ
HOROWITZ first went into DoJ in 1999-2002.

He's been DoJ IG since 2012.

Here's his anything but stellar accomplishments:

1- 2012:  After Horowitz halted the Fast & Furious 'investigation' (F&F had been ongoing since 2006, tho' some claim 2009), he CLEARED AG Eric Holder and 'recommended' 14 low-rank federal LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) for 'discipline'.
He issued a 471-pg report for a 3- to 6-year probe.

Result?
-Horowitz called their treasonous crimes "Missteps and failures."
-There were demotions/disciplinary transfers to new ATF posts/1 fired/ 1 quit, no LEOs went to jail.

[Reminder to the LEFT: Holder was able to ignore a Congressional subpoena, actually be held in contempt of Congress for doing so, without even losing his j-o-b.]


Hororwitz's excuse for stopping the phony investigation?
-'White House ‘Made it Impossible.’

"The Obama White House’s refusal [REFUSAL...gasp! What!?] to release communications related to the Fast & Furious gun-walking program and the refusal of a White House official to be interviewed about the matter “made it impossible” for the inspector general (IG) of the Justice Department (DoJ) to “pursue that aspect of the case.”

Kevin O’Reilly from Obama's National Security Council [Full of people like Ciaramella and the Vindman twins?] refused to cooperate.

Here's Kevin, listed as employed at State ... AUGUST 1, 2018 - PRESENT.



Where's Kevin been for 8 years since 'Fast & Furious' shut down in 2012?
He's been away.
Assigned to Mexico City, Mexico; Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Jakarta, Indonesia.
He's in Panama now, they say.
They keep moving our Kevin.


In the fall of 2011, O’Reilly had been reassigned from the National Security Staff to a position with the State Department in Iraq.

[Anyone besides me doubt that's Kevin in that pic? That does NOT look like a bad-ass who would have the set of stones to tell an IG to go pound sand. I'm being facetious, nothing else.]

Horowitz said: “We reached out to his lawyer, requested an interview. We have no basis to compel interviews from individuals who work outside the Department of Justice. He was not working in the Department of Justice so we had to ask for a voluntary interview and he denied.

[Horowitz, tell us, did you say 'Pretty please with an explosive device on top"? That might have helped.]

White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler stated that O’Reilly will not be permitted to give an interview.

[Is Kevin the kind of guy who would cave in to a mommy figure?]

But, now the State Dept. tells CNS News that O’Reilly has left Iraq and it will not reveal his whereabouts:
“I can confirm that he [Kevin O’Reilly] is no longer in Iraq but he has not yet started in his next position.”

Position? This one?



“So, I can’t confirm what that position is. I just don’t have any information on that right now, what his next position will be or when he will be starting.”

For the record, CNS News repeatedly asked the State Dept. WHERE O'Reilly was, not WHAT his new job was.
(Presumably, he didn't just vanish from the face of the earth, so you'd think they'd know their employee's whereabouts).

Good plan, Obama staff!
Let Hillary's old department hide him out.
Hillary can hide anything.
Talk about 'disappearing witnesses'!

Why did Horowitz stop the investigation? Was it really because an agent was killed?
Because agent Brian Terry was murdered and they arrested someone, but NOT his murderer.

"In January 2010, a 'straw purchaser', Jaime Avila – well known to the ATF -- bought three AK-47s at a Phoenix-area gun store. Two of those weapons were later found at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.

After Terry’s death, Operation Fast and Furious, we're told, was halted and Avila was arrested.

REALLY?
Come on, people! Think!         
What gun-runner, what criminal is going to run down to the local gun store, show ID, fill out the forms and buy multiple 'assault weapons'?

I can hear Avila's reasoning now: "I'm gonna take a small arsenal of traceable guns with me to go off this agent and I'm gonna leave 'em near the body so they can find them and come arrest me for the murder. Should I leave all my fingerprints, a map to my house and a good, clear selfie, or not?"

Horowitz & Co. found "no evidence" that Attorney General Holder knew about Fast and Furious before early 2011.
It found no evidence that previous Attorneys General had been advised about gun-walking in Operation Wide Receiver, under G.W. Bush.

ALL CLEARED!


Republicans accused the Justice Department of a cover-up and of concealing crucial details of its investigation. 

Attorney General Holder conceded to lawmakers that the operation was "fundamentally flawed"

NO! THAT 'AIN'T WHAT HAPPENED', CADETS.
But that's what the IG wants America to believe, and most will.

HOROWITZ'S RECORD...BATTING ZERO: 

In 2015, Chuck Grassley reminded ATF that 9 of those "Furious" gun-running agents were STILL employed by ATF, including super-screw-up, William (Bill) Newell.


2015, DEA's & Secret Service's sex parties in Columbia with prostitutes provided by Colombian drug cartels, for years.

Results?
-131-pg report.
-Only 10 LOW-RANKS charged, 7 confessed.
-High-ranking DEA agents bribed by drug cartels they were supposedly fighting against?
That's a bit crazy, isn't it?

NO punishment for them.
Each received short suspensions, some less than a week.
-DEA chief Michele Leonhart, deemed expendable, announced her retirement.
THE END.

Read some on that BS [HERE].


January, 2017, DoJ OIG 'launched an investigation' into disputed handling of 2016 Clinton email inquiry.

Here's a pic of that launched investigation.




'A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election'.   Final report was released on June 14, 2018, after several delays.

Findings?  
NO 'eggs' were found, even though they were all in plain sight. 
No charges. 
AGAIN. 

-The OIG (Office of Inspector General) discovered text messages and instant messages between three FBI employees which expressed hostility toward 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and support for his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

-The report stated that while there was evidence of political leanings found, the bias "did not affect any decision the agents made in their professional capacities relative to the email investigation."

-Horowitz did NOT examine Mueller’s operation.
"Zero effect on Mueller."


The 2016 Clinton-emails report was a lousy 81 pages after 18 months.

Results? Not a damned thing.


4- January, 2017, 2nd Clinton emails probe.

Here's a pic of that probe.




Results in June, 2018?

The expected.

BS.

-Emails probably hacked. NO BIAS by FBI, except maybe Strzok.

-Further investigate 5, McCabe & 4 low-rankers.

McCabe just got off scot-free. 

-Comey called 'insubordinate'.


-Strzok was fired, sued the FBI for reinstatement, and is currently allowed back into the building and into a building across the street from FBI "according to sources".

[NOTE: I wouldn't trust one word from the likes of "True Pundit", but "American Thinker" has seldom been wrong on the articles I've read there and has the decency to correct when/if they are wrong, so their take on "Peter's baaaack" can be found <HERE>.



"Demon Pete".

-Strozyk's 'lover' Lisa Page, is still whining and also suing.

-NO CHARGES ARE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.

-NO prosecutable case against Clinton.

Next?


5- March, 2018, Investigation of FBI & DoJ's filing of four FISA applications/renewals.

Dec. 9, 2019, Horowitz released a 'POS' REDACTED report.

This is the phase-1 OIG report that the “Trust the Plan/Go get 'em!” crowd said was going to be explosive.



Nope.

"It ain’t", like this Conservative TreeHouse article shows.



JOHN DURHAM
The GOP's Great Hope

1- Janet Reno named Durham special prosecutor in 1999 for the Whitey Bulger case.
Oh, wow, standing ovation for that one, right?

2- CIA interrogation tapes destruction investigation.
Outcome?
We will never know.
It's 'top secret'.
But NO ONE in CIA got so much as a slap on the wrist.

In 2008, Durham was appointed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations.

On November 8, 2010, two long years later, Durham closed the investigation without recommending any criminal charges be filed.

Durham's final report remains 'secret', subject of a failed lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act filed by The New York Times reporter Charlie Savage.

And the title of that article by NYT?

"Gina Haspel's Testimony About C.I.A. Torture Raises New Questions"

Haspel.
Old pals working together again today?
More like handing the keys to your house to a known burglar.


3- CIA Prisoners' Torture investigation

In August 2009, A. G. Eric Holder appointed Durham to lead the DoJ's 'investigation' of the legality of CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the torture of detainees at GITMO & in Iraq.

Funny thing happened on the way to the investigations:
Holder allowed Durham to look at "only those interrogations that had gone beyond the officially sanctioned guidelines", that interrogators who had acted in "good faith" based on the guidance found in the torture memos issued by the George W. Bush DoJ were NOT to be prosecuted.

WHAT???
Yup.

But, but...University of Toledo law professor Benjamin G. Davis said he attended a conference where former Bush officials had told conference participants 'shocking' stories, accounts of illegality on the part of more senior Bush officials. Davis publicly urged those former Bush officials to take their accounts of illegality to Durham.
Did they?



Davis' revelation came after Durham asked for a criminal 'investigation' into the deaths of two detainees, Gul Rahman in Afghanistan, 2002, and Manadel al-Jamadi in Iraq, 2003, was opened in 2011.
It, too, was closed in 2012 with NO charges filed.
BTW, the Obama administration said from the start that it did not intend to prosecute anyone who acted "within the scope of available legal guidance", including waterboarding, which is now officially regarded as torture.


But Durham, OH, DURHAM!
"A former Abu Ghraib prison guard at the time of al-Jamadi’s death, Lynndie England, was ordered to testify in a grand jury probe in Alexandria, Va. 

A subpoena signed by Durham for England’s appearance says her testimony is needed in a probe of federal criminal laws involving war crimes, torture and other offenses.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the subpoena.

On his last day as CIA director, Leon Panetta emphasized the wide scope of Durham’s preliminary review.
"I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta said. "We are now finally about to close this chapter of our agency’s history.”

[PANETTA, as Secretary of Defense, was never required to be held accountable for the major screw-up of Benghazi. 

After Obama, Panetta was next in line in the Chain of Command (CoC), then the Pentagon boys, especially Gen. Ham of Africom. Hillary was NEVER in that CoC, but she was damned well guilty of not providing proper security there and for her part in the CIA gun-running and torture at Benghazi.]

The American Civil Liberties Union faulted Durham’s review as failing to scrutinize senior officials."

[I abhor ACLU, but, in this case, they were right.]

'Mack Daddy' Bush, another former head of the CIA, was still alive back then, and his son and Bush family best friend, long-time crony Dick Cheney, would have both suffered politically if Junior Bush's CIA guys had dished any dirt on the Prez & VP at that time.
They were suffering enough after Colin Powell and others turned on them about those WMDs.

Lest we forget (and I never do) it was debated in Congress WHY the U.S., under Reagan and Daddy Bush, had sent Saddam biological weapons and had made monetary payments in the form of CCC agricultural loans to Saddam/Iraq right up to the Iraqi invasion of 1991.

The transfers came in the 1980s up to 1990 when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.

"Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs.
One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene.
Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three."

[See also: 'How the US Helped Create Saddam Hussein']

In coordination with USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), our U.S. government became Saddam’s prime source of funding. 

Iraq used a total of $1.1 billion in CCC loans by 1988, earmarked for agricultural purchases to acquire weaponry, as well as fertilizers for chemical weapons-making.

Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion.
Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers.

NO "investigation" would be allowed to drag up those old bloody bones.

NO investigation will be allowed to incriminate, to the point of prosecution, any big name in American politics...except maybe Trump, because he's not really a filthy politician?

He's a business tycoon.

He wouldn't mind sending Hillary, Obama, Biden, maybe even Bush to prison.

In April, 2019, A.G. Bill Barr announced an "Investigation into origins of FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".
In May, Barr said he had assigned Durham to lead to lead the new probe.

He shouldn't have even bothered, for all the good that did.
Or will do.

So far, Kevin Clinesmith, a low-ranking FBI attorney, is looking at charges for altering an email to acquire a FISA wiretap warrant renewal on Carter Page.

Hell, MISTER Vindman and Adam Schiff both altered a Presidential transcript and got applause in the press for that.

[Well, actually, a bit ago, Vindman (and his twin brother) was escorted out of the White House, fired.]

Maybe this Kevin #2 can join Kevin #1 in Panama?

What about the big names in FBI, CIA, NSA, DoJ, NSC, etc, who took part in the "stop Trump movement"?

NYT reported in December, 2019 that Durham was examining the role of former CIA director John Brennan in assessing Russian interference in 2016.

Brennan's reaction to that does not scream fear, exactly, does it?



Brennan, a devout Trump-hater still has top security clearance. 

I've often said that Brennan's sour, nose-wrinkled expression is because of the stench ever present in his nostrils of all that deep, deep sh*t he has on every man, woman and creature in the USA.
He'd dump that manure all over anybody who came after him, Durham included.

Funny how many "Never-Trumpers now PRETEND to be on Trump's side.

Old Teddy Cruz called Trump a liar, philanderer, bully, etc, how many times?

Lindsey Graham said often that he wouldn't vote for Trump.

Do we need to review the long list of "Never-Trumpers", Republicans, guys I wouldn't trust in a sh*t-house with a muzzle on, if I were Trump, but who are considered "good ol' boys now?

Here's that list.
And it's growing. 

Look what 'heroes' some of those are now, especially Cruz & Graham?

Anyway, on October 24, 2019, Barr said the investigation was now a criminal probe into the matter, outed Durham as his big, bad junkyard dog who's going to bring down the Deep State, drain the Swamp, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Don't hold your breath on that one.
It would just be suicidal.

And Barr? A Daddy Bush to Obama man, another deep state holdover.
First appointed to DoJ by Bush #1, 1989.

He wrote wonderful legal justifications for the practice of rendition/ (and 'extraordinary rendition'), so that the FBI could enter onto foreign soil without the consent of the host government to apprehend fugitives wanted by the United States.

As Bush #2's A.G., Barr went up against the Inslaw Scandal which accused the DoJ of more corruption, perjury, conspiracy to drive Inslaw into bankruptcy, that DoJ used its automation program, 'Project Eagle', against Inslaw, etc, a bunch of etc.

The U.S. House report found that "There appears to be strong evidence" supporting Judge Bason's finding that DOJ "acted willfully and fraudulently" when it "took, converted and stole" INSLAW's Enhanced PROMIS by "trickery, fraud and deceit."

Barr appointed retired federal judge Nicholas J. Bua as Special Counsel to investigate the nasty old allegations.
Bua "got 'er done".

NO charges, DoJ off the hook again.

Although Janet Reno had succeeded Barr by the time it was all over, some credit the DoJ WIN to Barr.

Do you just love the NSA eavesdropping on your phone conversations, America?
THANK BARR. 

In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of all Americans' international phone calls.

Also in 1992, December 24, 1992, Barr got departing Bush #1, Daddy Bush, to pardon Caspar Weinberger of Iran-Contra infamy, who had said he had evidence against Bush, that Bush had lied about his knowledge of Iran-Contra.

Weinberger's upcoming indictment meant Daddy Bush would likely have to testify.
So, with his magic wand, Barr waved away the troubles of both Weiberger and Bush and his reputation as a "get me out of jail free" man was set in stone.

With Barr's unwillingness to appoint an independent counsel to look into a second scandal known as Iraqgate, New York Times writer William Safire began to refer to Barr as "Coverup-General Barr."

IraqGate: June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

Barr fixed that. 

I could go on for days on Barr's unique ability to wheel and deal and get the big boys off when it's about to hit the fan.

But I want you to stop and think and reason with your own minds for just a few minutes.

WHO WOULD GO DOWN IF TRUMP IS 'SAVED'?

The FBI, FISA, CIA, NSC/Dept. of State, some in the DoJ, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (eventually), Mueller, Brennan, the Congressmen of the recent Coup, all those who betrayed Trump and got kicked out...for starters. 


Is Barr playing "good cop" to set Trump up for the big fall?
Has he been called back from making millions every year in his private sector rolls to take lousy government pay to save Trump....or all those big names, those 'intell agencies" who surely have dirt on everybody, Barr included?

If YOU were the Grand PuppetMaster" who controlled media underlings and political slaves, who was powerful enough to rattle Schumer and hundreds of others on that Hill, which would you allow to be saved?

Somewhere down the path, there will have to be a "sacrificial lamb" if the globalists, central bankers, the U.N. are to have the "Precious"...America on her knees.

I'm convinced they've decided that lamb will be Donald John Trump, even if they have to assassinate him.

He'd be that one lamb, as opposed to hundreds who might get the ax if he doesn't.

I pray I'm wrong and he defeats their efforts (NOT because I like Trump...I DON'T, but because I live to see the "deep state" REALLY BIG names in prison) but everyone around him bears watching, Congress, Intel agents, Barr, Durham, on down to the kitchen staff...everybody.

Donald Trump doesn't need what all those others need so they can continue controlling this nation.

He simply wants to pound his chest, flip off the Deep State and be able to say, "I saved America! Now you see the Swamp Creatures. Get them the hell out of here! They're FIRED!"

I want to see him alive and in perfect health, rubbing it in the faces of the Liberals every single day for the next 4 years and 10+ months that he's unstoppable, unbeatable.

Yeah, I wanna see this, while Nancy Pelosi shrieks in the background and Schiff's head pops off his little pencil neck...

NOT because I like Trump, NOT because I voted for him (I VOTED "NONE OF THE ABOVE" and wrote-in a name.) but because I abhor the Deep State, the globalists, the banking cartel, the INTEL overlords who control MY America.

If Trump lives another 4 years, even one more year, it will fool me.



Parting shot, with a hemlock arrow:

At the bottom of OIG 'reports', we find this:
"The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DoJ OIG) is a statutorily created independent entity whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s operations.

To report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct regarding DOJ programs, employees, contractors, grants, or contracts please visit atoig.justice.gov/hotline or call the DOJ OIG Hotline (800) 869-4499."

That needs an edit:

"The Department of No Justice Office of the Inspector General (DoNJ OIG) is dedicated to statutory rape of the Constitution and any who seek true justice, created as an independent entity whose mission is to aid and abet waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within the Department of Justice, the Intelligence Community, Congress and any other brothers who need us to clean up your messes, and to promote bigger payola, better cover-ups and devout inefficiency in the Department’s operations, for a fee.
We live to serve, but it'll cost you.
We accept PayPal but prefer bitcoin.

To report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct regarding DoNJ programs, employees, contractors, grants, contracts or any other criminals or criminal activity, please visit aintnojustice.wasteyourtime.gov/hotline or call the DoNJ OIG Hotline (800) 000-0000.
You will need our decoder ring to follow instructions to speak with an agent and we only speak Klingon at this point in time"


UP THE ORGANIZATION!










//WW

AMERICA'S ONGOING COUP D'ETAT... FOR MY FOREIGN READERS

THIS IS A SUMMATION OF 5 OTHER ARTICLES I HAVE POSTED:


1- UKRAINE ADMITS IT AIDED CLINTON IN 2016 ELECTION

2- 7 TIMES LEFT-WING MEDIA REPORTED THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN 2016 U.S. ELECTION

3- CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY CRIMINALS BUT NO POLITICIANS GO TO JAIL FOR TAKING THE MONEY

4- UKRAINIAN TIMELINE, FROM PRE-COUP 2014 TO ELECTION 2016, OBAMA, BIDEN AND THE CIA INTERFERED

5- TRUMP IS THE LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT YOU MAY EVER SEE


A coup d'etat is the illegal, often violent overthrow of an existing government or leader by a small group.

Coups d'etat are typically conducted by aspiring dictators, military forces, or opposing political factions.

Unlike revolutions, coups d'etat usually seek only to replace key government personnel rather than forcing sweeping changes to the country’s fundamental social and political ideology.

“The matter before the House today is based solely on a fundamental hatred of our president,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said. “It’s a sham, a witch hunt—and it’s tantamount to a coup against the duly elected president of the United States.”

AS OF TODAY, JANUARY 12, 2020, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE HERE IN AMERICA. 

Having cleared the House, the Democrats’ impeachment articles SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT to the Senate by now, just as they were sent within the week when we saw the impeachments of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

"The Framers never envisioned that the speaker of the House would withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate," said Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.

But Nancy Pelosi, 'Speaker of the House' (which, by the way, many here refer to as 'The Domed Whorehouse on the Hill') REFUSED to present the articles to our Senate, although she now "promises" she'll send them to the Senate next week.  

She and other Democrats "in charge" hurried us through closed-door, SECRET 'hearings' into which few Republican representatives were even allowed, transcripts of which have been classified by the Democrats as "SECRET", and then they continued their show with a few days of "open" testimonies which were highly publicized and shown live, in some instances, on national TV.

They never produced their "STAR WITNESS", whom they initially credited with the beginning of their "investigation", a man whom they demanded remain SO anonymous that they refused, in the end, to even allow him to testify, and instead produced "witnesses" from the Obama administration who, naturally, want Trump deposed.

The anonymous one is most likely a CIA/Anti-Trump gossip-monger named Eric Ciaramella.
He has been busted for lying on his submitted form to start an investigation, and others in the Trump White House/Intelligence community as well as Adam Schiff and other Democrats have been busted trying to help him cover up his failed cover-up.

His statements are all hearsay, he did NOT hear anything in Trump's phone conversation that at least 15 other listeners heard, as his boss, another traitor and liar, has stated.

THIS MAY BE THE PROVERBIAL "ICING ON THE CAKE" THAT SHOWS THIS HAS BEEN A COUP ATTEMPT, NOT A FAIR NOR HONORABLE HEARING: 

In late November, an ace investigative reporter, Paul Sperry, tweeted out a question related to secret impeachment inquiry testimony before the House Intelligence Committee related to Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community:
"Specifically, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Community chair Adam Schiff have released 15 transcripts of testimony, the transcript of Atkinson’s testimony has yet to be made public.

Why?"

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former federal prosecutor, responded: 

"I know why @paulsperry_ It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions."

Then, on December 9, while our attention was focused on the release of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s do-nothing report on FBI abuses of the FISA Court, Ratcliffe was banging away at Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, trying to persuade them to release Atkinson’s testimony.

In doing so, Ratcliffe managed to essentially lay out why Schiff & Co. are sitting on Atkinson’s testimony.
Directing his attention to Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman, RATCLIFFE asked if the counsel was present for Atkinson’s testimony, to which he responded in the affirmative. Ratcliffe noted:

"…On pages 53-73, the Inspector General’s testimony confirms the following: That the whistleblower (HE'S NO WHISTLEBLOWER. HE'S A GOSSIP, AN OBAMA HOLD-OVER, A FRIEND OF BIDEN'S, WITH A LONG HISTORY OF OPPOSING TRUMP) made statements to the Inspector General under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. That the whistleblower first made statements in writing under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct.

The whistleblower then made statements under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the Inspector General’s investigative team.
Because of the whistleblower’s statements in writing and verbally, that were neither true, correct or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that testimony reveal that the IG was not able to answer any questions.
None, from me, about the whistleblower’s contact or communication with Mr. Schiff’s staff of which Mr. Goldman is a member.
After the IG testified on October 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and Mr. Schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with each other, the whistleblower contacted the IG to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing or verbally that were true, correct and accurate…

Ratcliffe then noted further that no changes made by the whistleblower regarding prior contact with Schiff were made to the report:

On October 2, Patrick Boland, Mr. Schiff’s spokesman, acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblower’s accusations against the President had been disclosed to the House Intelligence staff and shared with Chairman Schiff.

Once again, Ratcliffe notes that the contact information was excluded from the report, as he requests release of pages 53-73, which he further notes would not reveal the whistleblower’s identity:

Look, maybe there’s a good reason why the whistleblower made statements that weren’t true about his or her contact with Schiff in writing…Maybe there’s a reason why Chairman Schiff was not truthful about his staff’s previous contact with the whistleblower…
Additionally, several weeks ago, we learned that the day after the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Schiff hired Sean Misko, a close friend and former colleague of the whistleblower, who is alleged to be Eric Ciaramella, as an aide. Misko and Ciaramella worked together on the National Security Council and are said to have a “bro-like” relationship."

Radcliffe’s request didn’t work.
The entire transcript remains hidden from the American people.

Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton announced that his organization filed FOIA lawsuits against the CIA and the DOJ to obtain Ciaramella’s communications. We know that Ciaramella “worked on Ukraine issues while on CIA detail to both the Obama and Trump White Houses.”

Fitton explained that the lawsuit was filed because neither the CIA nor DoJ had responded to FOIA requests.  The Democrats also REFUSED to allow the Republicans (GOP) to call ANY witnesses or to deeply (and without interference from one Adam Schiff, a Democrat representative from California) question the Democrat-called 'witnesses'.
Schiff would pound his little gavel and make the GOP congressmen cease questioning, time and time again.

Still, the GOP House members who were allowed questions managed to show that the charges against Trump were ALL based on hearsay evidence and did NOT constitute impeachable offenses.

Many of the Democrats' own witnesses surprised them by stating publicly in open hearings that Trump had NOT bribed or coerced anyone during his phone conversations with the two Ukraine presidents and BOTH those presidents have said publicly that they never felt threatened, intimidated, or coerced in ANY way by Trump or anyone on his staff.
They have BOTH stated that they had for years wanted AND SOUGHT their own investigation into Burisma, including a long look into the Bidens' part in that very shady deal.

BOTH Ukrainian presidents and MANY more high-level Ukrainian government officials have repeatedly, FOR OVER A DECADE BEFORE TRUMP WAS ELECTED, called for the U.S. to STOP interfering with Ukrainian governance and their position in the international community, and wanted America to STOP forcing the dismissal of their prosecutors and to STOP allowing American businessmen to swarm into the Ukraine to make big profits there and deprive Ukraine of any benefits.

They had also asked REPEATEDLY that the U.S. RECALL both Pyatt and Yovanovitch and replace them.   


If the U.S. House's 'articles of impeachment' are ever presented to the U.S. Senate, as prescribed by our Constitutional LAW, the Senate will hold another historic impeachment trial in 2020 on whether to acquit the 45th president or convict and remove him from office. The Senate will then be able to FINALLY call their own witnesses to defend Trump, who, up to this point, has been denied defense of any kind.

A 'super-majority vote' by two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes of our 100 Senators) is required to convict and remove the president, meaning 20 Republicans would need to get onboard with the Democrats.

Republicans control the Senate with 53 seats currently, while Democrats occupy 45 and Independents have 2 seats, usually voting with Democrats.

Democrats would need an additional 22 Republican votes in order to impeach Trump. 

Republicans in the Senate have shown no interest in removing Trump, who wields a 95 percent approval rating among Republican voters.

"This is a political trial not a judicial trial. If this was a Judicial trial the whole gang would have been laughed right out of court."

Well, when their initial charges of bribery, something they called "quid pro quo", interfering in the upcoming 2020 election by asking that Ukraine look into the role Joe Biden played during the 2013-2014 Obama-funded coup in the Ukraine, thereby misusing his presidential powers didn't hold up, as their own witness after witness stated Trump did none of the above, they held yet another "secret meeting" and came up with the latest two NEW "articles of impeachment', neither of which constitutes an impeachable crime, neither of which can ever be proven by hearsay evidence and third-party opinion.


House Democrats 'probed' the events surrounding a July 25, 2019 phone call between President Donald Trump and newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to “look into” the firing of former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, something Joe Biden had demanded or else the U.S. would withhold loans to Ukraine in 2014-2015.

Ukraine, according to its own government websites, had already been looking long and hard since 2013 at not just Joe Biden, but also at John Kerry and Joe's son Hunter.

Weeks before his ouster, Shokin had seized the property of the owner of a Ukrainian gas firm which, at the time, paid Joe Biden’s son Hunter tens of thousands of dollars a month to sit on its board of directors, something he was unqualified to do.

Joe Biden has bragged, in a well-publicized filmed interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, about how he FORCED Shokin’s ouster by threatening then-president Porshenko that Obama would withhold from Ukraine $1 billion in much needed loans if Shokin wasn't fired.

Shokin WAS fired and, months later, the U.S. authorized the loans.

THAT WAS 'QUID PRO QUO'! 

Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland and Obama's appointed ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt were recorded and then outed having conversations about how to DEPOSE the elected Ukrainian president,  and deciding whom the U.S. wanted to be appointed instead.

Other Ukrainian prosecutors and MPs had complained of CIA involvement in the coup, suggested that CIA snipers had assisted in the 'Maidan Massacre', protested American involvement in Ukraine's business dealings, American meddling in Ukraine's dealings with the European Union and the UK, Russia and Germany, and pointed out the withholding of funds (designated to Ukraine's internal investigations) by TWO of Obama's ambassadors in Kiev over a period of years.

They had also protested the U.S. allowing a Burisma-connected tycoon to take refuge in America to avoid prosecution in Ukraine and that America was the cause of the siphoning of almost $18 BILLION of Ukraine's wealth to offshore banks, suggesting also that the Bidens and John Kerry benefited from that siphoning.

ALLEGATIONS THAT YOVANOVITCH'S EMBASSY HAD PERHAPS EMBEZZLED OVER $4 MILLION IN DESIGNATED FUNDS FOR UKRAINE'S INVESTIGATIONS HAD ALSO BEEN MADE PUBLICLY BY UKRAINE BEFORE TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.

SO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HERE DECIDED TO INVESTIGATE, NOT OBAMA, BIDEN, JOHN McCAIN, JOHN KERRY, TWO U.S. AMBASSADORS AND NULAND, BUT INSTEAD OPENED HEARINGS ON....DONALD J. TRUMP.

WELCOME TO AMERICAN 'JUSTICE', DEAR READERS FROM OUTSIDE THE U.S.
BUT THEN, I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL BEEN VICTIMS OF THAT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN SOME WAY WHEREVER YOU ARE ON THE GLOBE.

I CAN'T SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF US U.S. CITIZENS LOATHE INJUSTICE AND LIES, BUT MANY OF US DO.

BY THE WAY, I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP NOR ANY NAME ON THE BALLOT IN ANY YEAR SINCE GOLDWATER RAN.


David Plouffe was the campaign manager for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
What he tweeted is precisely what drives the Democrats today.

MORE RECENTLY, WE LEARNED THAT THE FBI HAS LIED TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEIR OKAY TO SPY ON MEMBERS OF TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN, AND POSSIBLY ON TRUMP HIMSELF. 

POSTED TO TWITTER, AUGUST 29, 2018

Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

“Ohr told the FBI it (the Fake Dossier) wasn’t true, it was a lie and the FBI was determined to use it anyway to damage Trump and to perpetrate a fraud on the court to spy on the Trump campaign. This is a fraud on the court. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is in......
...charge of the FISA court. He should direct the Presiding Judge, Rosemary Collier, to hold a hearing, haul all of these people from the DOJ & FBI in there, & if she finds there were crimes committed, and there were, there should be a criminal referral by her....” @GreggJarrett
6:51 PM - 29 Aug 2018     


August 30, 2018 in Courts, Crime, Current Events
"Criminal Misconduct:
During an appearance Wednesday night on Fox News, network legal analyst and attorney Gregg Jarrett suggested that judges on the secretive FISA court should call in Deep State figures from Obama’s FBI and Justice Department and press charges against them for allegedly misrepresenting information used to get a spying warrant on a Trump campaign figure.

The entire concept of a “secret court” in the United States of America is anathema to our founding principles of open, transparent government and judicial processes.

We understand why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court exists in secret — because the judges serving on the court must review highly classified information before making the determination to allow the federal government to spy on an American citizen."

But as we’ve seen, Obama and those working for him have completely abused the system and destroyed the court’s credibility and Americans’ trust in it.

The only way to restore trust and send an unmistakable signal that such abuses cannot and will not be tolerated in the future is to hold people accountable for those abuses.

The ability of the federal government to collect intelligence so it can protect all of us is a power that we can’t undermine, and yet Obama and his sycophantic Deep State have done just that.     
We need to repair the damage.

People have to be held accountable.
That’s the only way to fix this.


Former officials who signed off on four FISA warrants allowing the FBI to spy on Trump campaign figure Carter Page over a bogus “Russian collusion” narrative using a fake ‘dossier’ include James Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

They have to be deposed by the FISA court.

They have to be held responsible if they’re determined to be guilty of breaking laws just so they could spy on a rival political campaign and a presidential candidate they despise.

Our system of justice and intelligence-gathering depend on it.



IT TOOK 15 MONTHS FOR FISA TO ADMIT IT WAS 'DUPED'.


THE HOROWITZ INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ONGOING FOR OVER A YEAR MADE EXCUSES FOR THE CIA, FBI AND FISA AND DID NOT WANT TO MENTION THAT POLITICAL BIAS CAME INTO PLAY.

"FUNNY THING" ABOUT MICHAEL HOROWITZ...HE'S SERVED REPEATEDLY FOR DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATIONS. From 1999-2000 he worked in Bill Clinton's Department of Justice headquarters in Washington D.C., first as a deputy assistant attorney general, then as chief of staff.
In 2002 he returned to private practice as a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he focused on white collar defense, internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.
Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of Obama's United States Department of Justice on April 16, 2012.
Since 2015, he has also been the chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization consisting of all 73 federal Inspectors General.

HOROWITZ IS MERELY ANOTHER CLINTON/OBAMA HOLDOVER WHOM TRUMP SHOULD HAVE REMOVED SOMEHOW. 

His wife Alexandra Leigh Kauffman is a former field producer for CNN, one of mainstream media's most vicious anti-Trump ragsheets. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR HAD WARNED ABOUT BIAS BEFORE THAT LONG-AWAITED HOUSE VOTE TO IMPEACH.

"Ahead of President Donald Trump’s historic impeachment on Dec.18, Attorney General William Barr warned against the president’s indictment being “trivialized” and used as a “political tool” by Democrats.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday as the House of Representatives debated two articles of impeachment against the president, Barr argued that the allegations against Trump do not meet the high standard for impeachment required by the Constitution.

Barr added that the two articles of impeachment “do not allege a violation of law.”

STOP RIGHT THERE AND REMEMBER THAT BARR IS EX-CIA (1971-1977), WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER REAGAN DURING THE IRAN-CONTRA YEARS, OVERSAW 2 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE (DoJ), ONE IN 1991, THE OTHER IN 1992, AND BOTH FAILED TO FIND WHAT EVERYONE KNEW WAS THERE...CORRUPTION.

AND...In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.
The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.


PELOSI PRESSES ON, STALLING ALL THE WAY
Mark Levin, a well-known attorney who worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese, recently spoke out to offer a solution to Nancy Pelosi’s sham impeachment of President Trump:

"Nancy Pelosi was apparently advised by left-wing Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe to delay sending the impeachment to the Senate. So she’s unilaterally sitting on the impeachment.
This is another brazen unconstitutional act.

Here’s what Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans must do in response:

The Senate has the sole power under the Constitution to adjudicate an impeachment. Therefore, Pelosi is attempting to obstruct the Senate’s power to act on its constitutional authority.

McConnell should immediately put an end to this and declare the impeachment null and void as the speaker has failed to complete the impeachment process by timely sending it to the Senate for adjudication.

McConnell has no less authority to unilaterally make such a decision than Pelosi does to withhold the administrative notification of an impeachment to the Senate either indefinitely or with conditions.

Her effort to cripple the presidency and blackmail the Senate must be defeated."


THE REAL REASON DEMS ARE TRYING TO DUMP TRUMP?
THEY KNOW NONE OF THEIR LUDICROUS CANDIDATES CAN DEFEAT HIM.  

THEY KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN IS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA AND IS SEEN AS A POSSIBLE CHILD MOLESTER BY MANY IN BOTH PARTIES.
HIS NICKNAME IS "GROPING JOE" BECAUSE HE HAS GROPED SO MANY WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
HE HAS ADMITTED HE FORCED A UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO FIRE HIS OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHO HAD SAID HE WAS LOOKING INTO HUNTER BIDEN'S DEALINGS IN THE UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY BURISMA HOLDINGS, AND INTO THE SIPHONING OF MULTI-BILLIONS IN FUNDS THAT BELONGED TO THE UKRAINE TO OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS, ONE THAT THEY ASSOCIATED WITH JOE BIDEN AND POSSIBLY JOHN KERRY.

THEY WANT THEIR BILLIONS BACK AND MAY GO AFTER JOE BIDEN TO GET IT. 

BERNIE SANDERS JUST HAD A HEART ATTACK, IS FAR TOO OLD TO APPEAL TO THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS AND IS A CARD-CARRYING COMMUNIST WHOM EVEN OBAMA HAS CLASSIFIED AS "TOO FAR LEFT'.
CHANCES ARE THAT SANDERS, LIKE BIDEN, WOULD DIE IN OFFICE AND NO ONE KNOWS WHOM HE MIGHT NAME AS VICE PRESIDENT.
FEW ARE WILLING TO RISK SANDERS. 

ELIZABETH WARREN WAS BUSTED AND RIDICULED FOR CLAIMING TO BE NATIVE AMERICAN, HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN OTHER LIES  AND CAN'T WIN A SINGLE DEBATE WITH THE OTHER DULLARDS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

HER "PLAN FOR AMERICA" WOULD COST TWICE AS MUCH AS OUR CURRENT TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT.
AMERICAN VOTERS ARE SICK OF CARRYING THAT DEBT ON THEIR ACHING BACKS AND DON'T WANT MORE DEBT. 


IT'S ALMOST A PRECISE THREE-WAY TIE ON WHOM THE VOTERS WANT AS A LAME DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE.
THEIR PARTY IS FRACTURED.

THE VOTERS KNOW NONE OF THE TOP 3 HAVE A CHANCE. 
NONE OF THE CANDIDATES CAN MUSTER EVEN HALF OF THE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS TO VOTE FOR THEM OVER THE OTHER TWO. 

TRUMP, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS A 95% REPUBLICAN VOTER APPROVAL.
TRUMP IS A SURE THING FOR THE GOP. 



HILLARY CLINTON LOST TO TRUMP BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THE RUSSIANS OR HER OWN PARTY COULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF ANY ELECTORAL VOTE.

OBAMA HIMSELF, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE,  VERIFIED THAT NO POPULAR VOTES WERE CHANGED BY SO-CALLED 'RUSSIAN MEDDLING' IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. 

TOO MANY DEMOCRATS WERE SIMPLY ANGRY THAT CLINTON APPEARED TO ROB SANDERS OF THE CANDIDACY, AFTER THE EMAIL LEAKS WERE READ.

AMERICA LEARNED THAT THE DNC (DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE) CONSPIRED WITH HER TO CUT BERNIE OUT.

SHE CHEATED TO WIN AND FAILED BECAUSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SORTED IT ALL OUT. 

"What the Democrats are attacking is the transition of power. They have never supported the transition of power from the Obama administration to a Trump administration,”
Mark Levin recenrly stated, directing his attention to the “slow learners” like Joe Scarborough:
“The president sets foreign policy. It doesn’t make a damn’s worth of difference if you don’t agree with it. I don’t care what a former Obama ambassador to Ukraine thinks.

The whole house of cards will collapse and the American people will see this was an outrageous, unconscionable attack by them on the president.

The law is on the president’s side, the facts are on the president’s side.

What the hell is going on here?" Levin asked rhetorically.

THE HOUSE VOTE TO IMPEACH WAS STRICTLY PARTISAN, BUT 4 DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE YES ON THE TWO "ARTICLES":

Two Democrats—Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)—broke ranks with their party to vote no on the first article of impeachment. Rep. Justin Amash, an independent from Michigan who left the Republican Party earlier this year, voted with the Democrats. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) joined Van Drew and Peterson in voting no on the second article of impeachment. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) voted “present” on both articles.

ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED "NO" ON BOTH ARTICLES.

The impeachment resolution alleges that Trump abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival and that the president obstructed justice when Democrats began to investigate the matter.

NO. WRONG.
ANYONE WHOM CONGRESS CALLED TO TESTIFY HAD THE ABILITY TO TESTIFY, EVEN AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS IF THEY SO CHOSE.
THEY ALL HAD A CHOICE, AS EVERYONE DOES. 

ADAM SCHIFF AND NANCY PELOSI AND POOR, SERIOUSLY ILL JERRY NADLER BLOCKED THE GOP FROM FULL ACCESS TO TRANSCRIPTS, UNOBSTRUCTED QUESTIONING OF DEMOCRAT-CALLED WITNESSES, AND DISALLOWED ALL 8 WITNESSES THAT THE GOP WANTED TO CALL.

SCHIFF WAS ACCUSED BY A FEW IN EVEN MAINSTREAM MEDIA OF LEADING WITNESSES, DIRECTING THEIR ANSWERS, RESTATING THEIR CLEAR ANSWERS IN FALSE WAYS, CUTTING OFF GOP QUESTIONERS AND OF REWRITING AND THEN READING THE TRANSCRIPTS OF TRUMPS CALLS TO TO/FROM THE UKRAINE. 

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD NOT ISSUE VISAS TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO HAD PERTINENT INFORMATION FOR PETE SESSION'S DEPT. OF JUSTICE. THESE WERE OFFICIALS WHO HAD STATED SINCE 2016 THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND ALEXANDRA CHALUPA, WHO WAS ON THE DEMOCRATS' PAYROLL, HAD COME TO THEM FOR 'DIRT' ON TRUMP.

DURING THE HEARINGS, IT ALSO CAME OUT THAT THE FBI HAD LIED TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN WARRANTS TO WIRETAP TRUMP ASSOCIATES.
TWO OF THOSE MEN ARE NOW SUING TO OVERTURN THEIR CONVICTIONS OF UNRELATED CRIMES WHICH THEY MAY NOT HAVE EVEN COMMITTED. 

IT WAS INDEED A CIRCUS AND SCHIFF WAS LEAD CLOWN. 


.LET THE NEW CHESS MATCH BEGIN! 

1- WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HOPE FOR:
"It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC (House Judicial Committee) court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.

Because the FULL House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas. No one was charged with failure to appear.

The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally, downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.

There is an argument to be made that the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for 'pending judicial proceedings', a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped.

Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.

If accurate, that perspective means the (Mueller) grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The "6(e) material" relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely, a goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered. 
We know from the alignment of interests it is likely Jerry Nadler and his legal Lawfare contractors are well aware of exactly what Weissmann and Co. created for them to discover. The problem for the House team(s) is they need legal authority to obtain it and then utilize it to frame and attack President Trump.

With the impeachment articles now approved – the DC Appeals Court is asking Nadler’s team if the purpose of their lawsuit is now moot. Essentially the court believes the prior lawsuit was based on gathering evidence for the impeachment articles:

If my suspicions are correct [SEE HERE] then Jerry Nadler will respond to the court by saying the HJC needs the 6(e) material to support the obstruction article in a Senate Trial. Per the court deadline, we will know by Monday December 23rd. The obstruction article will then become disposable; it will have fulfilled its purpose.

The original lower court ruling approved the HJC request but limited the scope of the material to only that which Mueller included in his final report.

 So it’s not accidental that Nadler’s crew shaped an “obstruction” article considering two-thirds of Mueller’s report was structured around… wait for it…. yep, obstruction.

Conveniently, a pending Senate Trial against President Trump for obstruction paves the way for the DC appeals court to rule in favor of the HJC need for supportive evidence.

While twisted, this approach screams Lawfare…. that is, to make an indictment and then go fishing for the evidence to support that indictment. Evidence that, not accidentally, carries more political usefulness than the indictment it is intended to support.

Also, it is worth remembering HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Mary McCord as part of his contracted team effort.
 McCord was the DOJ-NatSec Division head who accompanied Sally Yates, yet another Obama holdover, to the White House to confront Don McGhan about Lt. Gen. Flynn.

My suspicion is the articles of impeachment are a means to an end, and not the end itself.

Defeating and destroying President Trump is the goal, by any means necessary.

This severe type of goal is not guaranteed by relying on a Republican Senate to remove him. 


2-WHAT THE GOP HOPES FOR. 
That the Democrats will hang themselves so high that no American voter will want to vote for a Democrat.  
The Dems have been revealed in a whole new light, one of deceit, chicanery, bumbling, unconstitutionalism, dirty tricks, falsifying facts, twisting the truth, all because Hillary lost by electoral college. 
The GOP hopes to regain the House of Representatives, strengthen their presence in the Senate and hold many accountable for this blatant coup attempt on a seated President.

After all, when the U.S. military high command tried to oust Obama, they paid. 
Many careers were ruined, charges were brought against big names in our military and the GOP is hoping  against hope that the same will happen here and now.

IT WON'T, but they hope.

Republican senators have said they hope to wrap this up in a few weeks, at most. 
Trump would be acquitted and life would move on. 

I'm not convinced.  

Something sinister has been released in America. 
It began the night of the fires, riots, Democrats screaming in our streets after Trump won. 
It's snowballed, it's outgrown those who started it. 

The Democrats will try again to "dump Trump", and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some extremely crazed Democrat didn't at least TRY to assassinate Trump.

We're on a "rinse, repeat cycle" here, my friends, a bad to progressively worse scenario.

America is quickly "going to hell in a hand-basket", dragged along by a rabid mob who once demanded that Trump say he'd accept defeat and not contest the election when Hillary won.

Please pardon the dust of our demise.

It feels a bit like that fictional "zombie apocalypse" here. 

Be glad you're watching this horror show from afar. 




___________________________________




Addendum:

-- Uncovered Old Footage of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer Saying Senate Was ‘Susceptible to Whims of Politics’ in Impeachment

"Found footage of a 1999 interview between Schumer and Larry King – where Schumer claimed of Clinton's impeachment that “this is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.”

“It is not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied. It’s quite different than a jury,” Schumer said in 1999.

He sings a much different story today.
He denies political bias.


-- "One of the key witnesses in the impeachment inquiry investigation by House Democrats, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, appears to have lied under oath during her interview.

When New York Rep. Lee Zeldin asked Yovanovitch, who was an Obama-era holdover, if she had responded back to emails sent to her by a Democratic impeachment inquiry staffer, the former ambassador answered that she had not.

But recently discovered emails by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, show that Yovanovitch did, in fact, interact with the staffer, even she swore under oath that she had not.


“It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her “impeachment inquiry” deposition under oath,” tweeted Zeldin.

That's not all she didn't answer honestly.
A thorough reading of her transcript and a read of the website of the Ukrainian government shows that she has been at odds with government officials ever since she was assigned that post.

She has asked for the firing of every special prosecutor in Ukraine since she took over the embassy.

Her previous assignment was MOSCOW.

With her out of the way, Ukraine has ramped-up its long-time investigation into Burisma and into what part Joe Biden, John Kerry and others from the Obama era played in their loss of $18 BILLION.

They have admitted they tried to help Hillary get elected and apologized for that.








//WW

THE MURDER OF MUAMMAR GADDAFI. HOW 'OIL FOR GOLD' GETS YOU KILLED.

THE LAUGH OF EVIL...

READ THE COMMENTS ON THIS VIDEO OF CLINTON ON YOUTUBE.

MY ANCESTORS WERE HERE LONG BEFORE ANYONE ARRIVED FROM EUROPE.
I AM FIERCELY DEDICATED, HOWEVER, TO THE AMERICA I KNEW AS A CHILD.
BUT...MAY I BE DAMNED TO AN ETERNAL HELL IF EVER I PUT ANY NATION'S 'GOOD NAME' ABOVE TRUTH, HONOR AND JUSTICE.

WRONG IS WRONG, NO MATTER WHO IS WRONG.
A LIE IS A LIE, MURDER IS MURDER, NO MATTER WHO IS LYING AND MURDERING.

TRUTH AT ANY COST MUST BE WHAT WE ALL SEEK.

A WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED FOR SAYING THAT BARACK OBAMA HAD GADDAFI, BIN LADEN AND AL-AWLAKI MURDERED WITHOUT ASKING FOR CONGRESS' APPROVAL.

THAT WAS A TRUTH, BUT ROUGHLY HALF OF AMERICA HATES THE TRUTH.
THIS DOES NOT NEGATE THE TRUTH. 

The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama, by Allen West, October 9, 2019:

"If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible actions.

Barack Obama claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President Muammar al-Gaddafi.

There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons, intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and execute, Gaddafi.

Since when did the United States provide military aid to Islamic terrorists?

In the aftermath, the Obama administration attempted a weapons buy back program from these same jihadists. And that led to the debacle we came to know as Benghazi.

Why was it that Barack Obama lied about this very sad day in US history, and was never held accountable and responsible?"


FROM BBC NEWS, MARCH 21, 2011:

U.S. President Barack Obama has secretly authorised covert assistance to rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, US media reports say.

He recently signed a document known as a "finding", allowing support to the rebel groups, Reuters news agency and ABC News said.

Such "findings" are a common way for the president to authorise covert operations by the CIA.

The CIA and White House have both declined to comment on the reports.

The latest reports come amid an ongoing debate about the legality of arming the forces opposed to Col Gaddafi, the BBC's Steve Kingstone in Washington says.

Mr. Obama has said publicly the US has not ruled out arming the rebels. He has pledged US troops will not join the effort to eject Col Gaddafi.

The New York Times, citing American officials, said on Wednesday that the CIA has had operatives on the ground in Libya for several weeks. They are said to be gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with the forces fighting Col Gaddafi.

The newspaper says British intelligence and special forces are also involved.

"It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," Obama told ABC News.
In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

“The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are,” said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.

Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.


Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya.     Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with.

The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi “at this time.”

“We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them,” Rogers said in a statement.


THE REALITY OF WHY GADDAFI WAS MURDERED HAS FINALLY BEEN CLARIFIED. 

FROM 'The African Exponent', Jan. 11th, 2020 

New Evidence: The Real Reason Gaddafi Was Killed

Qaddafi was not killed for humanitarian purposes but for the oil and for money. His ideas of an African gold-backed currency were his major undoing.

According to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned and in 2011, it was estimated to have 144 tons of gold in its vaults. Muammar Gaddafi’s plan was to introduce a gold-backed currency which he hoped African and Muslim nations would adopt. He felt it could rival the euro and the dollar, and rightly so too.

The recent Hillary Clinton email leaks have opened a can of worms everywhere including in Africa. Wikileaks released an unclassified U.S. Department of State document emailed to Clinton, dated April 2, 2011.

Sidney Blumenthal, the sender of the email confirmed what the world already suspected. Qaddafi was not killed for humanitarian purposes but for the oil and for money.

His ideas of an African gold-backed currency were his major undoing.

In April 2011, then President of the World Bank, Robert Bruce Zoellick spoke at a panel discussion about how he hoped the World Bank would have some sort of role in the reconstruction of Libya along with other countries.

“Reconstruction now means (Ivory Coast), it now means Southern Sudan, it means Liberia, it means Sri Lanka, I hope it will mean Libya,” he said. 

Blumenthal, in his email to Hillary Clinton confirmed, “Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.”

He went on to say the gold and silver was valued at $7 billion and was one of the reasons Nicolas Sarkozy embarked on a French attack of Libya.

“Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,b. Increase French influence in North Africa,c. Improve his internal political situation in France,d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in, Francophone Africa,” wrote Blumenthal.

If Qaddafi had succeeded, the United States of America and Europe would have been forced to buy oil and minerals in the gold backed currency thus tipping the scales. This was a horror the West dared not experience. The situation would have been a more lethal re-enactment of Saddam Hussein’s currency wars when he supported the new Euro currency at the expense of the United States Dollar.

The leaked Clinton email has far-reaching implications on the fluid state of post-colonial relations with the West. If anything, it is an eye-opener. Where Africa seeks to build an independent economic structure, the West is seen to try and derail those plans so as to retain its primacy in world affairs.

With regard to the creation of a new currency, Ministry of Peace Founder, Dr James Thring said, “It’s one of those things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted.”

And Qaddafi was targeted.

He may not have been the most democratic leader in the world but Libyan citizens had arguably the best way of life in Africa. His plan of action (without the human rights violations) should be a blueprint for African development."


DID ANYONE CARE WHAT THE LIBYAN PEOPLE WANTED, WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF GADDAFI?
NO.
GREED DOESN'T CARE. 

I CARE, SO HERE'S WHAT LIBYANS ARE STILL SAYING TODAY. 

Libya died with Gaddafi. The people of Libya have never been worse off.

The country has seen a five-fold increase in the cost of food, unpaid salaries for months, the rise of Islamic State terror and worsening electricity black-outs.

Nothing improved after Gaddafi and the country sees it now.

Mahmoud, another Libyan added his own words of disappointment in the bitter fruits of the revolution, “We have had seven governments since 2011 and what have they achieved?' The only thing we can see is new dustbins because one of the early governments installed these new large bins across Tripoli. We still point to them and laugh, saying it's the only achievement of the revolution.”

The West was eager to bomb but aborted the mission to restructure and help rebuild the ruins left in the aftermath of the bombings...resulting in numerous groups claiming power using military means.

Political activist Fadiel told the Dailymail that although “it should be better than Gaddafi’s time now,” all that remained is “chaos and everyone fighting each other, it’s just a mess.”
Another Libyan who spoke about the country’s situation boldly said, “Libya died with Gaddafi. We are not a nation anymore, we have become just warring groups of tribes, towns and cities. The country has three governments all unwilling to compromise. There were two governments but another has been imposed on the country by the West through the United Nations. The country is so polarised that a former Libyan diplomat is on record saying, “The country is already divided. We have two governments, two parliaments, two Central banks and two National Oil Companies.”

Former diplomat Abdusalem is not the most objective of characters but the sense of his words is difficult to argue with.

He says, “The so-called revolution was lies, all lies. We Libyans did not even know what the word revolution meant. We had been sheltered under Qaddafi for 42 years. It was not Libya's revolution, it was NATO's revolution because they wanted to get rid of Gaddafi.”

Though it is a slight exaggeration since some people genuinely wanted Gaddafi out of power, it is true that NATO hijacked the cause and furthered its own ends with no regard for the future of the country. Obama admitted it was no longer an intervention for the right reasons but had become (France’s) Sarkozy and (Britain’s) Cameron’s shit-show.

Though NATO says it intervened to protect civilians, Salem, a 26 year old medical student from Tripoli has argued, “Far more people have been killed since 2011 than during the revolution or under 42 years of Gaddafi’s rule combined. We never had these problems under Gaddafi.

It is estimated that there are over 1,700 armed groups which rose as a result of the “revolution”; now politics in Libya cannot be determined by ballots but guns and bombs. The people of Libya have never been worse off. The democracy they hoped for has not come and to add insult to injury, there is no peace and the greatest terrorist organisation of this time is attempting to establish its base in the country.

 “Libya died with Gaddafi”.



U.S. and NATO Murdered Muammar Gaddafi

21 October 2011

"The savage killing Thursday of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi served to underscore the criminal character of the war that has been prosecuted by the U.S. and NATO over the past eight months.

The assassination follows NATO’s more than month-long siege of Sirte, the Libyan coastal city that was Gaddafi’s hometown and a center of his support. The assault on this city of 100,000 left virtually every building smashed, with untold numbers of civilians dead, wounded and stricken by disease, as they were deprived of food, water, medical care and other basic necessities.

Both the US and France claimed credit for their roles in the murder of Gaddafi. The Pentagon asserted on Thursday that a US Predator drone had fired a Hellfire missile at the ousted Libyan leader’s convoy, while France’s defense minister said that French warplanes had bombed it.

The U.S. and NATO had carried out repeated air strikes on Gaddafi’s compounds in Tripoli and other homes where they suspected he was hiding since shortly after the brutal air war against Libya was launched last March. One of these strikes at the end of last April claimed the lives of his youngest son and three young grandchildren.

The killing of Gaddafi is the culmination of a criminal war that killed untold numbers of Libyans and left most of the country in ruins.

This operation was launched on the pretext of protecting civilian lives, based on the trumped-up claim that Gaddafi was preparing to lay siege to the eastern city of Benghazi to massacre his opponents.

It has ended with NATO orchestrating a siege of Sirte, where thousands have been killed and wounded in suppressing opposition to the “rebels”.

From the beginning, the entire operation has been directed at the re-colonization of North Africa and pursued on behalf of US, British, French, Italian and Dutch oil interests."


Just two days before the murder of Gaddafi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton staged an unannounced visit to Tripoli on a heavily armed military aircraft.

While there, she issued a demand that Gaddafi be brought in “dead or alive”.

As the Associated Press reported, Clinton declared “in unusually blunt terms that the United States would like to see former dictator Muammar Gaddafi dead.

“‘We hope he can be captured or killed soon so that you don’t have to fear him any longer’, Clinton told students and others at a town hall-style gathering in the capital city.”

The AP went on to note: “Until now, the U.S. has generally avoided saying that Gaddafi should be killed.”

[THE ABOVE WAS ALSO REPORTED BY BBC]



MARCH 30, 2011, REUTERS:
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

In interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to “ultimately step down” from power. He spoke of applying “steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means” to force Gaddafi out."

GADDAFI HAD AGREED TO STEP DOWN, BUT TOO MANY LIBYANS ADORED HIM AND WOULD FIGHT TO KEEP HIM. HE HAD TO BE KILLED. 


FROM THE GUARDIAN (UK), APRIL 11, 2016  U.S. Ex-President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.  

After the former Libyan leader was killed, Libya plunged into chaos with militias taking over and two rival parliaments and governments forming.

It is not the first time President Obama has expressed regret over Libya. He told the Atlantic magazine last month the operation went as well as he had hoped, but Libya was now "a mess".

Washington had deployed surveillance planes along with large numbers of drones in an attempt to track down Gaddafi, while US, British and French intelligence agents, special operations troops and military “contractors” operating on the ground also participated in this manhunt.


AS I WROTE IN A PREVIOUS BLOG FROM 2013: GADDAFI'S "GOLDEN OIL PLAN" THREATENED WORLD BANKERS ENOUGH TO MARK HIM FOR MURDER.

SUCH A PLAN WOULD HAVE WRECKED GLOBAL ECONOMY AND GREATLY AFFECTED WORLD ECONOMICS HAD OTHER OIL-PRODUCING NATIONS FOLLOWED SUIT, OR EVEN IF THEY HADN'T. 

A gold dinar instituted by Libya would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something African activists say the U.S. wants to avoid at all costs.

AT ALL COSTS? YES! 

"Gaddafi’s Gold-Money Plan Would Have Killed the US Dollar"

"'According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause.
The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit."

EDITORIAL
Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack
By Anthony Wile - May 05, 2011   

"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks. … So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."


Libya’s Self-Sufficiency — Risk To Central Banks
April 15th, 2011    
Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries.

The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.

The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.   


REMEMBER THIS:
Iraq's Saddam Hussein (who was definitely NOT beloved by his countrymen like Gaddafi was) tried the same thing in 2000... oil for gold.

What happened next?
After being on America's payroll for years, after being funded by the U.S. in all his endeavors, after being used as a"buffer against Iran", Saddam became a target, Iraq was invaded and Hussein was hanged.

Libya/Gaddafi literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to many analysts.

Libya destroyed by the West, $7 billion in gold and silver missing.

January 20, 2016

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a threat to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

In addition to preventing Libya from breaking away from French monetary domination, Sarkozy wanted to “gain a greater share of Libya oil production,” increase French influence in North Africa and dash Gaddafi’s “long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

During the invasion of Libya analysts argued Gaddafi planned to stop selling oil in US dollars and demand instead it be traded in gold dinars. Prior to the invasion Gaddafi urged other African and Middle Eastern nations to follow suit.

“Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” stated financial analyst Anthony Wile . “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power.”

“Sanctions and then a US invasion followed. Coincidence? Hussein’s idea would have strengthened the euro, but Gaddafi’s idea would have strengthened all of Africa in the opinion of hard-money economists. Gold is the ultimate honest money and the peg against which all other fiat currencies are ultimately devalued,” Wile noted.

According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the entire continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money, not to mention international investors who have long been concerned over America's INSOLVENCY.
It would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the banking system.    

CLINTON, GADDAFI, AND THE DEATH OF AFRICA'S GOLD STANDARD IDEA

Libyan dictator Gaddafi was executed over a Gold-Backed Currency he was introducing.

The Pan-African Gold backed money would threaten the USD and French interests in the Oil Trade.

The US sent in troops to kill Gaddafi at the behest of French President Sarkozy.

Clinton’s leaked emails confirmed the long-held “conspiracy theory” that the plan to take out Libya’s then-dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, was motivated not by human rights concerns, but by Gaddafi’s plan to introduce a gold-backed currency that would unite the entire African continent.

This currency would then be used to sell oil in the global market, and the African continent would be less reliant on the American dollar, strengthening Africa’s position in the world economy to the detriment of the NATO empire.

Most astounding [about the leaked email] is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Full email HERE.




MARKET MANIPULATION OF GOLD PRICES NOT A COINCIDENCE?  
Market manipulation: $4 billion of gold futures ahead of Comey testimony.

June 12, 2017

Just minutes ahead of James Comey’s testimony that many hoped would lead to Trump impeachment, it appears someone decided it was an opportune time to dump $4 billion notional gold futures, seemingly confident this will not be a “constitutional crisis.”

Over 30,000 contracts suddenly flushed ahead of Comey's testimony.


WHO'S NEXT ON THE 'INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL'S HIT LIST'? 

RUSSIA.   Russia is dumping U.S. dollars and hoarding gold


CHINA, DEFINITELY.    China claims gold reserves at end of 2016 a massive 12,100 tonnes


MAYBE EVEN SWITZERLAND? Switzerland chooses gold over paper wealth backed by U.S. dollar.


BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT SYRIA ALSO HAD A TIDY STASH OF GOLD...BESIDES ITS OIL FIELDS THAT TRUMP STATED U.S. TROOPS WERE "GUARDING"?
WELL, THE GOLD IS MISSING.
U.S. military accused of stealing 50 tons of gold form Syria.

March 11, 2019
"The U.S. Army is transferring tons of gold from Daesh-held areas in Syria to the U.S., multiple reports said.

According to a source who spoke to Kurdish Bas News Agency, the U.S. forces transferred about 50 tons of gold from areas seized from Daesh terrorists in eastern Syria’s Deir el-Zour region and gave a portion of the remaining gold to the PKK’s Syrian offshoot People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Meanwhile, 40 tons of gold bullion stolen by Daesh (ISLAMIC STATE) terrorists from Iraq’s Mosul province was also taken by the U.S. forces.

Local sources who spoke to regime-run SANA news agency claimed that the troops relocated large boxes containing Daesh’s gold treasure from al-Dashisheh region in southern Hasakah.

Daesh terrorist leaders nabbed by U.S. troops reportedly provided information on the whereabouts of the gold, the report said.

The claim coincides with a report by the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which said that the U.S.-backed YPG was after 40 tons of gold left behind by Daesh terrorists in Deir el-Zour.

“The U.S.-led coalition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) deliberately do not target the areas under the control of the ISIL terrorists and commanders in Eastern Euphrates in Deir el-Zour as they are trying to locate this treasure by forcing the ISIL militants to speak about its location after surrendering,” the SOHR said, referring to Daesh using another acronym.


DOES IT ALL SEEM TO "ADD UP" TO YOU NOW?

AMERICA IS, INDEED, INSOLVENT AND ANY THREAT THAT WOULD ALLOW OTHER NATIONS TO DEMAND WE PAY IN GOLD, ADOPT A GOLD STANDARD ONCE AGAIN  MUST BE STOPPED. 

07/23/2010
"The US is Insolvent and Faces Bankruptcy as a Pure Debtor Nation but [U.S.] Rating Agencies Still Give it High Rankings"There is also a view among many investors that the agencies would shy away from withdrawing triple A ratings to countries such as the US and UK because of the political pressure that would bear down on them in the event of such actions.

ECONOMISTS SAW THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL LONG BEFORE OBAMA HIT GADAFFI...

Investor newsletters and commentaries had been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Qaddafi's gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts also pounced on the potential relationship, too.

“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily.

“I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago (Obama) got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”

But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year.
And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.

“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”

The Central Bank of Libya WAS 100% owned by Libya (since 1956) and was thus OUTSIDE of multinational corporation control (BIS-Banking International Settlement rules for private interests).

Libya COULD AND DID finance its own nation-building projects and did so without interest rates, which reduced the costs by half of what privately owned central global banks demand. Libya’s central bank (with three branches in the east including Benghazi) DID INDEED HAVE 144 tons of gold in its vaults. 


LIBYA WOULD HAVE BEEN A "BREAKOUT NATION", FIRST IN AFRICA TO ESCAPE THE RUIN OF FOREIGN BANKS, WESTERN DICTATORSHIP, INCESSANT THREATS OF SANCTIONS AND MILITARY "INTERVENTIONS", THE NEED FOR FOREIGN "AID" THAT DEMANDED THEY HAND OVER ALL THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES AS "COLLATERAL".

NELSON MANDELA RECOGNIZED WHAT GADDAFI WAS DOING AND PRAISED HIM. 

Nelson Mandela's Friendship with Gaddafi Irritated the West

"In 1997, Mandela decided to go to Libya for an official state visit. The United States of America State Department said it would be “disappointed” if he went to the country which was believed by the West to be sponsoring terrorism.

Mandela’s reply was simple and straightforward. He said, “How can they have the arrogance to dictate to us who our friends should be?” Though the West would love to portray Mandela as having always struck a conciliatory tone, this loyal icon who knew who supported him is rarely ever spoken off.
If anything, according to the Washington Post, that side of Mandela was an irritation to the United States of America thus explaining why it is not so often included in his list of heroics.

Mandela went ahead with his visit to Libya on the 23rd of October 1997 despite the opposition.

When played out by the media, “it was a case of a saint visiting a mad dog” but the reality is, two friends met in Tripoli that October.

Mandela’s movement had counted on Libyan support during its anti-apartheid drive while the West supported the oppressive white regime.

Mandela was always aware of this fact as when he was shown Gaddafi’s compound which had been bombed by United States operatives in 1986, he said of the USA’s interventionist approach, “No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do. Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi. They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.”

In a further speech delivered in Tripoli, the South African icon said his delegation was overjoyed with Gaddafi’s invitation to visit Libya and had been waiting impatiently for the occasion. These were true friends." 

WHAT MANDELA AND GADDAFI AND MOST OTHERS IN AFRICA KNEW IS THAT THE WORLD BANK, THE IMF, MOST WESTERN NATIONS AND THE U.N. ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF DESTROYING AND KEEPING NATIONS SUBSERVIENT TO THEM, ESPECIALLY AFRICA.


READ "HOW THE WORLD BANK AND THE IMF DESTROY AFRICA", BUT BE AWARE THAT MANY CORRUPT AFRICAN DICTATORS HELP THEM DO JUST THAT.

ONE CAN SIT AND WATCH OLD NEWS FILMS, 'HOME VIDEOS' BY LIBYANS ALL DAY LONG OF HOW OFTEN GADDAFI WENT RIDING ABOUT IN AN OPEN CAR, STANDING AND WAVING FOR MILES IN THE OPEN AIR, OR STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF HUGE CROWDS, STANDING ON BALCONIES, AN EASY TARGET FOR A SHOOTER, WITHOUT ANY SECURITY GUARDS TO BLOCK SHOTS AT HIM.

WHO ATTEMPTED HIS ASSASSINATION IN ALL THE YEARS HE BOLDLY WENT ABOUT AMIDST THE PUBLIC, OPEN TO ATTACK FROM THOSE WHO LINED THE STREETS TO SEE HIM?
ONLY THE USA!

Through state subsidies funded with oil export sales, Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa with free, universal health care and free education, with the possibility of studying abroad at state expense; $50,000 for each new married couple to get started with; non-interest state loans; subsidized prices of cars much lower than in Europe; the cheapest gasoline and bread prices in the world (similar to Venezuela at that time, but look what happened to Venezuela when it's president suggested oil for gold), and no taxes for those working in agriculture.

WHY WOULD A PEOPLE LIVING UNDER SUCH PERKS, SO MANY BENEFITS HATE GADDAFI?

ACCORDING TO OVER 83% OF THEM, THEY NEVER DID HATE HIM, AND THEY DEEPLY GRIEVE HIS DEMISE!

1.7 MILLION GATHERED IN TRIPOLI TO PROTEST THE FIRST NATO STRIKE. 

I AM NOT SAYING GADDAFI WAS "SWEETNESS AND LIGHT".

NONE of this is to say that Gaddafi was REMOTELY all that one could want in a leader, for he was NOT, but he was definitely not as bad as most of U.S.-NATO's allies, such as dictators in the Middle East (e.g., House of Saad/Saud, the madman Erdogan of Turkey) and many in Africa, or in Asia/India.

What NATO/ U.S. calls "friendly" governments are anything but, especially Saudi Arabia—which sent troops to 'good neighbor' Bahrain to murder hundreds of unarmed protesters, all condoned by the U.S.

[ALSO SEE THIS REPORT.]


WHO REMEMBERS THAT THOSE 9/11 "HIJACKER/TERRORISTS" ALMOST ALL CARRIED SAUDI CITIZENSHIP?
DID YOU FORGET THAT PART?  

YES, OBAMA HAD GADDAFI "REMOVED", WAS TRYING TO "REMOVE" ASSAD IN SYRIA, AND I SUGGEST THAT THE U.S. WILL CONTINUE TO DO THESE THINGS AS LONG AS NO ONE IN GREAT NUMBERS CALLS IT WHAT IT IS...PREMEDITATED MURDER AND UNLAWFUL INVASION AND MEDDLING IN OTHER NATIONS' AFFAIRS, ALL TO KEEP AMERICA FROM SUCCUMBING TO ITS INSOLVENCY.

ALL FOR POWER.  







//WW