Loretta Lynch got orders from Bill Clinton, and she is James Comey’s boss, so now finally we know why James Comey saved Hillary from indictment.
He should start packing for jail from tonight! According to Conservative 101: It’s a fact that Bill Clinton had an hour long, secret meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch aboard a plane. The sickening aspect of this is that this meeting took place at the same time Hillary Clinton was supposedly getting investigated by the FBI. As Director of the FBI, James Comey was the head of that investigation of Hillary’s email crimes. Since Loretta Lynch is Comey’s boss, she is someone who, of course, had the power to dictate the outcome of that “investigation.”
Sweet Cakesby Melissa officially shuttersSweet Cakes by Melissa hasfinally officially succumbed to the backlash received since refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. It closed its storefront back in 2013, but owners Aaron and Melissa Klein had been trying to reopen. Their farewell message on Facebook reads, "We have closed Sweet Cakes. We appreciate everyone's continued prayer and support." The Facebook post has been currently shared 148 times, received over 600 comments, and been liked by more than 1,300 people.The Kleins are currently appealing a ruling ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that had ordered the couple to pay $135,000 in damages to the same-sex couple. The Kleins paidthe amount in-full, plus interest, in December 2015, and at the time, the Kleins' lawyer Tyler Smith explained the reasoning behind the payment, saying The Kleins paid because they were being charged nine-percent interest on the court-ordered amount, which equated to around $35 a day. Since their appeal wouldn’t be heard until 2016, Smith said it made sense to pay the amount immediately. read on
20-YR OLD OBAMA VIDEO UNCOVERED: “I am saddened whites are still superior” By 100% FED Up -
A twenty-year old video has been uncovered of Obama on a trip to Kenya full video below.
Obama complaining about “White Privilege”:
“I am saddened whites are still superior …things could explode at any point.”
FULL VIDEO: Go to 14:40 for comments on race:
Published on Oct 4, 2016
Never before seen video provided exclusively to Infowars shows President Barack Obama complaining about white privilege during a 1990 trip to Kenya. (go to 14:40 for comments on race).
The footage, filmed and narrated by Obama’s sister Auma, shows the president on his first trip to Kenya as a young man in his 20s. Michelle Obama also accompanied her husband on the trip.
Crowdfunding platform WeSearchr (https://www.wesearchr.com/) provided the video exclusively to Infowars.
Obama says in the film: "I’m deeply saddened by a sense that whites are still superior in this country, in some sense, that if you sit at a restaurant, they’re served before a Kenyan is served. If you go through customs, a white person is going to have an easier time going through customs."
Obama also warns that “things could explode at any point” as a result of the resentment black Kenyans have towards white people.
At one point in the movie Obama says he has "a lot at stake" in building "a strong black country in Kenya."
Elsewhere, the footage shows white and Asian tourists visiting poor Kenyan villagers, a sight that offends Obama, who refused to join them on the tour according to his sister.
"These strangers move about our country as a matter of course, with disturbing confidence," she states in the video, complaining that her people "are being exhibited" for the entertainment of the tourists.
Obama's 1990 comments are fascinating given the fact that his presidency has been tainted by some of the worst race relations in America for decades, fueled by police shootings and riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte.
"The film is full of insights into Barack Obama’s psychology and worldview, especially with regards to the way he sees his family in Kenya and black-white race relations," said WeSearchr's Chuck Johnson, adding, "How much of a black nationalist do you think Obama is? What do you think he thinks of white people?"
Obama's remarks in the video will provide further ammunition for his critics, who claim that the president has used the office to stoke racial division, especially given his sympathies towards ‘Black Lives Matter’, a group whose ideological inspiration is a convicted cop killer on the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted Terrorists’ list.
Let me begin with saying that I understand why many American conservatives don’t like Julian Assange. Assange is a political liberal with an obvious lack of respect for authority, and he doesn’t have the most likeable personality either. The work he does also grates against the natural bent of most conservatives, which is to honor country and to support our nation. However, even though all of this might be true… it doesn’t mean that Assange is our (the American people’s) enemy. Since Assange founded Wikileaks, with its stated mission of exposing government secrecy, lies, and misbehavior, he has successfully angered some of the world’s most powerful people. He’s exposed the Russian connection to the assassination of a Ukrainian politician, he’s proved that our government was breaking our laws and spying on innocent Americans, and he’s exposed the corruption, criminality, and malfeasance of hundreds of governments and world leaders. No matter what you think of Assange and Wikileaks, the truth is that they have done more than most law enforcement agencies to expose criminal behavior of the world’s most powerful over the last decade or so. For this, Assange has made himself many enemies, including the Democrat candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. While it’s not surprising that an establishment crony like Clinton would be anti-Assange, it is a bit surprising to learn of the lengths that she would have gone to in an effort to silence him. In a story at True Pundit over the weekend, the world learned that Hillary Clinton once tried to “nominate” Assange for assassination!
I have been asked "the question" so many times regarding Trump or Hillary. By way of background, I have followed every national convention—Republican and Democrat—from the time I was age 9, and have attended most of the GOP Conventions from 1984 to the present. I have watched the news virtually every day from the age of 8. I have never seen anything like what we are observing. In spite of the unprecedented nature of this election cycle, I will attempt to respond to "the question." I am not demanding that anyone else share my view. But I was asked. Here is my best attempt to answer as I am able to see things at this time: 1. The Democratic and Republican party platforms are as different as night and day, in my opinion, as far apart as evil vs. good. The 51-page Democratic platform is the most leftist ever. (I don't care for the "right vs. left" nomenclature. I am far more concerned with "right vs. wrong.") The Democratic platform contains many points which are anti-biblical. (Time does not permit me here to identify what is meant by "anti-biblical," which is covered in my new book Well Versed: Biblical Answers to Today's Tough Issues.) It is thoroughly socialistic (a socialist is a communist without a gun). The 54-page GOP platform is one of the strongest GOP platforms ever. A biblically alert person could be comfortable with almost all of it. Party platforms are a big issue to me. Although some "blow off" party platforms, I do not. Nor do many people up and down the ballot who are running for office. This is a serious and very important item. I have a hard copy of both platforms in front of me now. Most people have never checked out what the party platforms say. They should. If a person is not drawn to the "top-of-the-ballot" candidate, they ought to at least consider voting for the candidate attached to the best party platform.
2. Analogy #1: Both candidates are flawed. We all know that. But permit me an analogy: As a pastor, I would rather deal with a church attendee who is blatant and brash in his sinning than one who is devious, lying, cunning and deceptive. Both are problematic, but one is easier to deal with than the other. If I were a pastor bringing correction to a parishioner, I would prefer dealing with a "Trump-type" any day over a "Hillary-type." The chances of making progress with the "Trump-type" are many times greater than the "Hillary-type."
3. Analogy #2: When my (late) wife's remarkable and much loved oncologist said, "Don't take Carol to that alternative (non FDA approved) treatment." I asked, "Why not?" He said, "The unknown." I said, "Doctor, your 'known' is much worse than the alternative treatment's 'unknown.'" I took her to that alternative treatment. One year later that same oncologist went to the alternative treatment doctor to see how it was that Carol had improved so much. While this alternative treatment did not ultimately save her life, it likely stretched two to three years of life to six years of life—by the admission of another one of her brilliant young oncologists who later said, "Without any medical training or scientific fact, you have put together a protocol of treatment that has moved her into the top fraction of 1 percent of survival rates of all patients with Carol's particular cancer. Application of the analogy: Hillary's "known" is considerably worse—many times over—than Trump's "unknown."
4. Trump has lots of sins in his past (actually, we all do), and—in the present—says things he should not say. I make no attempt to defend any of the things he has said. There is no need to rehearse the wrong things he has said. We know what they are. He should not have thought or said them. But there is no need to rehash them here. So we won't. But let's turn to the other candidate. Although America has had some scandal-ridden candidates in its history, we have never seen any one major party candidate more constantly scandalous as Hillary (along with her husband). She seems to exceed all previous boundaries for wrongdoing. The scandals just don't stop. In the same way we did not take time to list all of Trump's misstatements, neither will we here rehash the seemingly continuous string of horrific scandals of the Clintons.
5. Trump is slowly being surrounded by increasingly good people. From time to time, I receive encouraging calls regarding this. Can these good people impact Trump? We will see. In contrast, I see no reason for any encouragement regarding the people who surround Hillary.
6. Trump is right on approximately 75 percent of the issues. I wish it was 100 percent. It is not. I am in hopes that those beginning to surround him can help him connect the dots on more issues. Hillary is wrong on 100 percent of the issues.
7. This next issue might be one of the most important, but I suspect few will understand its significance. Trump opposes globalism. Hillary thrives on it. Globalism is far more than "geographical" or "eliminating national borders and boundaries." It is spiritual and demonic at its core. Few—very few—understand this. This is quite likely one of the main reasons why Trump is hated. Do your homework on this one. Think "principalities and powers." Serious. Extremely serious.
8. Not voting is not a viable option, contrary to what the "purists" claim. It is not my intention to begin a war of the issue. I know that some radically disagree with this. My view? They have the right to be wrong.
9. Voting for a third party candidate is—regardless of what is said—a complete "throw-away." No third party candidate will be elected, or even come remotely close to being elected. And yes, that matters to me. And for the record, the Libertarian ticket—Johnson and Weld—is nearly as bad on many issues as Hillary. When I listen to them, I am stunned people of their ability have ever made it to elective office.
10. Trump has moved pro-life. Hillary is pro-baby killing, and prides herself on that, and honors the organization—Planned Parenthood—that actually traffics human parts from dead babies whom they have killed. This is below anything we have seen since Nazi Germany. The gall of Hillary! The Clintons have evaded justice for decades and likely will continue to. But they will someday stand before the Great White Throne. They will have to give account of their support of the ripping babies to shreds in the womb. For the record, those who vote for those who support the genocide of pre-borns will also have to give an account.
11. Trump wants to defend the nation (which is the purpose of government). Hillary has a horrific track record as Secretary of State, and due to hundreds of millions of dollars given to her and her husband's foundation, she is beholden to those who want us dead.
12. Hillary claims "everything is fine" in America. This defies every single fact, but facts have never been an interest of Hillary's. Trump understands that it is 11:59 p.m. on the "cultural clock." America is near the end—morally, economically, militarily and, sadly, spiritually. There are very clear identifiable indicators—measurable ones—that America is no longer the world's leading power. That day is over. Hillary will hasten the final destruction. Trump could either slow that down—or possibly, with God's help—reverse it. Maybe.
13. Trump will address the massive government spending. Hillary will expand it above the existing unsustainable debt the U.S. currently is carrying (almost $20 trillion plus unfunded liabilities to Social Security, etc).
14. Trump will expose—and I pray, bring down—"the systemic evil" (crony, deceitful, misuse of capitalism) that reigns among many high-dollar lobbyists. Hillary thrives because of them.
15. Trump will stop the massive overreach of government. Hillary will extend it.
16. Freedoms come in "threes." Political freedom, economic freedom and religious liberty coexist together. Take one away and the other two will eventually disappear. One cannot exist without the other two. The genius of America is that it had all three, until recently. Trump fully grasps the loss of religious liberty. I have heard him speak on it in person on several occasions. He knows that economic and political freedoms are evaporating. He will reverse that. Hillary will decimate all three.
17. Every rational person knows the Supreme Court appointments are paramount. Trump has listed 11 superb potential nominees. Hillary's appointments would snuff out the tiny vestige of the three freedoms that are left (mentioned in the statement above).
18. I make no excuse for wrongdoing or wrongful, hurtful words from either candidate. Candidly, I want King Jesus. He rules in my heart. And yours too, I suspect. And I want Him to rule here—now. But that day is not fully manifested—yet. In the meantime, we prayerfully, carefully navigate this challenging election season, with great concern that above all, we honor our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every arena of our lives, including the voting booth. That is my hope. I believe it is yours as well. Dr. Jim Garlow is pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego, CA area.
(Interesting about the 1st listed web site below..............)
Oh, By The Way .......................
Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during the Presidential campaign, one of the candidates asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington, DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?
I did not know of this Act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.
Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.
After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims).
The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.
As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, Surprise, Surprise!" It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.
Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."
And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was president Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.
But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.
So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?
Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."
Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should be refused immigration to OUR country.
Authenticated at: http://library.uwb.edu/static/ USimmigration/1952_immigration _and_nationality_act.html Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 library.uwb.edu US immigration legislation online : 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act (An act to revise the laws relating to immigration)
No Tim Kaine, Americans Absolutely Have a Right to Block Islamic Immigration Justin Holcomb Posted: Oct 05, 2016
During Tuesday night's vice presidential debate, Democratic running mate Tim Kaine reenforced Hillary Clinton's argument that it is against Jeffersonian and American values to reject Islamic immigrants and that they also have an inherent right to become Americans. Wrong. No where in the constitution does it say that people who are not Americans have a right to become Americans, or have a right to even enter the borders of United States. Congress has the ultimate authority to set laws on immigration. Just how Congress can enact Obamacare, welfare, gun bans, and social security, Congress has full discretion over immigration. During the debate, Kaine said “Discriminating” against Islamic believer “is completely antithetical to the Jeffersonian values."
Chelsea Clinton’s Declaration Will Surely Infuriate You
Following the first presidential debate at Hofstra University, Donald Trump told reporters he was proud that he didn’t mention Bill Clinton’s rampant and almost incredulous infidelities. Bill Clinton has apparently bragged about having sex with over 2000 women while married to his wife, but hey, Hillary seems to be okay with it. You might wonder why Trump decided to take the high road while Hillary Clinton jabbed him several times. Trump’s reasoning for holding back is because Chelsea Clinton was sitting in the front row. And he’s known Chelsea since she was a child. Trump told CNN following the debate:
“Everything I wanted to say I got out except for the transgressions of Bill.
The “end game” for people like Obama is a one world government.
On Tuesday, the president met with world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly, where he proposed giving up some of our national sovereignty. “And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding — to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations like my own accept constraints,” said Obama. “Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions.” “But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security. And I think that’s not just true for us.”
Comey Tries To Stall The Investigation Until AFTER The Election, Trey Gowdy Destroys Him ByA. T.
FBI Director James Comey states that the people of America are probably angry at him and Hillary Clinton just because there is politics involved in the case.
Also, he says that her case needs to be seen with a new set of eyes and after the elections pass. The, apparently America will realize that this is not as bad. However, Trey Gowdy had the perfect answer for that claim. VIA Conservative 101
“He’s not the only one who cares about the reputation of the FBI. The FBI belongs to all of us. We have to have confidence in the bureau the morning after the election, the morning after the inauguration. So this isn’t about politics,” started Gowdy.
“He said after the politics is over you can take a fresh look at it. I want to take a fresh look at it NOW,” says Gowdy. He went on to talk about how this is about what she did, not what her politics are. It’s about stopping someone who would have been thrown in prison in any other circumstances.
"I believe they [the North Koreans] have the capability to have miniaturized the [nuclear] device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially, actually deliver what they say they have."
(General Curtis Scaparrotti, U.S. Military Commander, S. Korea, 10/24/2014) You have to read this.
“Several times almost every day, many times every week, North Korean satellite KMS 3-2 passes over North America and the US. Capable of carrying a hydrogen bomb as detailed in the video below, we can see this satellite’s continuous passes over America in the screenshots seen in this story. Called by one expert ‘the problem from hell‘,
Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.
Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.
Was It Legal For The NYT To Release Trump’s 1995 Tax Return? Matt Vespa Posted: Oct 03, 2016
The media and the Democrats are going nuts over Trump’s 1995 tax return. It shows that the Republican nominee could’ve avoided paying the IRS for almost 20 years due to a staggering $916 million in losses. The New York Times reported on this finding over the weekend. They obtained the three-page return indicating that Trump utilized the net operating loss provision, which “allows a dizzying array of deductions, business expenses, real estate depreciation, losses from the sale of business assets and even operating losses to flow from the balance sheets of those partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations onto the personal tax returns of men like Mr. Trump.” The fact of the matter is what Trump did was legal. There’s no real story here. Moreover, it offers an incomplete financial profile of Trump. Yet, there’s another level to this story. Was this even legal for The Times to release publicly? Tax returns are a highly sensitive matter that requires approval prior to disclosure. Obviously, The Times did not get that sign off from Donald Trump. The law is very clear here, and The Hill’s Joe Concha took the publication to task for sacrificing their ethics to publish this story. He also took the newspaper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, for failing in the integrity department regarding this position in media:
Federal law clearly states it is illegal to publish someone's tax returns without authorization: It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
The Horsewhipping of Donald Trump Bill MurchisonPosted: Oct 04, 2016
To call the massive media obsessed -- eyes roaming crazily in all directions, mouths afoam with horror -- would be an understatement. They fear that the sovereign voters, in their obvious dimwittedness, could put Donald Trump in the White House.
And so the words of abuse tumble forth. The New York Times is unable to take its corporate finger off the fire-alarm button. On Sunday, my favorite left-wing newspaper of record -- to which I have, unaccountably perhaps, subscribed for three decades -- cried aloud that Trump "could have" (legally, yes, but never mind that) avoided paying income tax for 18 years. Not that he "did," just that he "could have," in light of losses from what the Times helpfully characterized as "the financial wreckage he left behind in the 1990s through mismanagement" of various enterprises. Ah, the objectivity, the impartiality, the civic spirit of our journalistic eyes and ears --the media! READ MORE
Donald Trump Just Turned The Tables On The Media
“Fact Checkers” are all the rage this election cycle. Liberals have made a cottage industry out of supposedly neutral “fact checkers” who virtually always come down against Republicans. And nowhere is that more clear than the media’s false assertions that Donald Trump opposed the war in Iraq. The media picked up this case during the GOP primaries when Trump made his opposition to the war a key selling point of his foreign policy judgment. Partisan bloggers at liberal media outfits began to worry that in a general election, Trump would have a key advantage over Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war in Iraq in 2002 and defended her vote up until it became apparent she was running for president in 2016. The thin reed of the media’s case that Trump was lying hinges on a single September, 2002 interview Trump had with radio host Howard Stern. When asked whether the United States should go to war in Iraq, Trump gave an ambivalent answer of “yeah, I guess so.” However, months later in January 2003, Trump gave an interview with Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto where he expressed hesitation about the war. Fox News reports:
“Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20 (sic), in the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. on Iraq. “Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy,” Trump said. “They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it.” Trump continued: “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
By the fall of 2003, Trump was calling the war a mistake and questioning why it was done. The Washington Post reports: Sept. 11, 2003: Trump on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country:”
“It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism, but not necessarily Iraq.”
November 4, 2003: Trump on “Hardball with Chris Matthews:”
Matthews: “What is the economic impact? Is it the cost factor of about $100 billion a year for the military and the rebuilding, is that the cost, or is it psychological?” Trump: “Well, I think it’s psychological. It is also tremendous amounts of money being pumped into Iraq. I mean, you look at states like New York and California, where they can’t afford school systems, and we are giving $87 billion to Iraq and that is just the beginning. So, you know, it is a tremendous cost to this country, what’s gone on there, and again, we are getting some very, very unpleasant surprises in Iraq, and hopefully something is going to be done about it quickly.” The record clearly shows that the first time Trump was asked about the war he gave a very half-hearted statement of support. The interview with Howard Stern being conducted on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks may have played into his ambivalent statement of “yeah, I guess so.” But by January of 2003, Trump was saying the economy was of greater concern than Iraq and maybe President Bush should not be going in. By the fall of 2003, it was clear he was a critic of the war. As much as the Clinton fans in the “fact checking” industry want to spin this story to make it about Trump supposedly supporting the war, the evidence does not back that up.
Hillary's childhood home. You know she says her poor Dad cleaned draperies for living. No, her Dad owned a drapery business and paid cash for this house in 1950.
Attorney-General orders Trump Foundation to cease raising money in New York PHOTO: REUTERSNEW YORK (NYTIMES) - The office of New York Attorney-General Eric T Schneiderman has issued a "notice of violation" to Mr Donald Trump's foundation, ordering it to immediately stop soliciting donations in New York
The letter, which was sent on Friday and released on Monday morning by Mr Schneiderman's office, said that its charities bureau had determined that the Donald J Trump Foundation had been fundraising in New York this year when it was not registered to do so under state law.
"The Trump Foundation must immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fundraising activities in New York," wrote Mr James Sheehan, the chief of the charities bureau.
Mr Trump's foundation has come under increasing scrutiny amid questions about his fulfillment of large charitable pledges and his lack of financial support in recent years.
The foundation's compliance with the rules that govern non-profit groups has also been a concern. The New York Times reported last month that Mr Trump's foundation does not show up on the charity registers in many states and The Washington Post subsequently reported that the foundation did not have the certification necessary to solicit money in New York.
"While we remain very concerned about the political motives behind AG Schneiderman's investigation, the Trump Foundation nevertheless intends to cooperate fully with the investigation," said Trump spokesman Hope Hicks. "Because this is an ongoing legal matter, the Trump Foundation will not comment further at this time."
Mr Trump previously has deflected criticism about his charitable giving, saying he makes contributions personally and that he has been supportive of his foundation.
Mr Schneiderman's office is investigating Mr Trump's foundation to determine if it is in compliance with state laws, including how it spends its money.
In the letter, his office provided notice to Mr Trump's foundation that within 15 days it must provide certain documents required to be filed by organisations that solicit contributions, including audited financial statements and annual financial reports. It also must file any "delinquent reports" for past years within that time frame.
"The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports" with the charities bureau, Mr Sheehan said, "shall be deemed a fraud upon the people of the state of New York."
Mr Schneiderman, aDemocratand a supporter of MrTrump's opponent,MrsHillary Clinton, has also asserted in a separate pending case that Mr Trump defrauded students who participated in Trump University, his for-profit educational programme.
Newly Exposed Side Agreement Between FBI And Hillary Aides Just Lit The Email Scandal On FireAlex
While we parse the letter to understand what basis for action the FBI may have had when pursuing such a course of action, we can’t help but note that the FBI appears to have acted as a co-conspirator in what appears to be an unprecedented case of destruction of key evidence.
Below are some of the key excerpts from the letter (full document attached at the end of this post):
As part of the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Justice Department (DOJ) provided in camera review’ of certain immunity agreements. After a specific request from the Committee, based on references made in the immunity agreements to certain “side agreements,” DOJ subsequently provided in camera review of those “side agreements” between DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Beth Wilkinson, the lawyer representing both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers. Please provide a written response to the below questions and make DOJ staff available for a briefing on this matter no later than October 10, 2016.
1. Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’ and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search?
2. Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?
7. Please explain why DOJ agreed to limit their search of the Mills and Samuelson laptops to a date no later than January 31, 2015 and therefore give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
8. Why was this time limit necessary when Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?
9. Please confirm whether a grand jury was convened to investigate Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server. Disclosure is authorized under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(A)(i) and (e)(3)(D).
Of course, since this will be promptly spun as just more “plumes of smoke” we hope people will stop trying to “criminalize behavior that is normal.”
![Sweet Cakes by Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"73","h":"41","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBx9eSP.img?h=574&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=580&y=227"},"dpi":1.4,"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBx9eSP.img?h=493&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=580&y=227"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBx9eSP.img?h=493&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=580&y=227"}})
© Facebook/Sweet Cakes by Melissa Sweet Cakes by Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein 
© Facebook/Sweet Cakes by Melissa Sweet Cakes by Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein
![Still from video obtained by Washington Post.]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"27","h":"18","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBx9hR9.img?h=248&w=378&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=106&y=121"},"dpi":1.4})
