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.”
After Bashing Him For Months, Trump Pulled Out This Paper & RUINED The New York Times!
People that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stonesThe New York Times recently illegally leaked Donald Trump’s tax return from 1995 on Sunday. They are busy running it through the media. If the tax returns that the NYT talked about were the real deal, it would be Illegal for someone other than Trump to provide those tax returns.
THE NYT HAS COMMITTED A CRIME.
Unless Trump provided the documents to the NYT, they may have committed a crime. Here is what Guiliani had to stay about Trump not paying taxes.
The New York Times just ran an op-ed this week to attack Donald Trump on his taxes. They are trying to spin it that taking advantage of the tax code is unpatriotic. The New York Times has excited the Clinton campaign and all of her zombie followers with a new story on the fact that Trump took a $916 million loss in 1995. *** You saw it above! Yout saw CNN’s Jake Tapper on the State of the Union implicating that it was a negative that Trump “avoided” paying taxes. Now, watch the worst news ever come out about the terrible New York Times that will make Trump cheer.
Here is an excerpt from the Forbes today: “… for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.” Don’t let the mainstream media fool people.
The New York Times doesn’t pay taxes, either.
In the future, your grandkids will see a New York Times paper in a museum and will ask you what it is and you will respond “Who is the New York Times?”
ClintonCampaign Admits HillaryUsed Same Tax Avoidance "Scheme" As Trump
Zero Hedge Well this is a little awkward. With the leaked 1995 Trump tax returns 'scandal' focused on the billionaire's yuuge "net operating loss" and how it might… redflagnews.com
WATCH – Country Singer Ray Stevens Releases THIS New Song to Expose Obama – It’s Going Viral
Ray Stevens may not be a name you recognize, but I can assure you that you have cracked up at one or two of his songs at some point. If you remember his Dr. Demento hits “The Streak” and “Ahab the Arab,” his latest effort“Mr. President! Mr. President!” is going to put more than a smile on your face. Ray brings some very serious issues of this presidency into the limelight as only he can do. He takes a shot at Obama on things such as forecloses, small business taxes, and the debt to the Chinese. Later in the song, he hammers him on issues Trump has been addressing, such as the job market and illegal aliens. Mr. Stevens also points to Obama’s one skill, using the teleprompter, but calls him out on the appearance of his overall work ethic, shedding some light on the parties, vacations, and golf outings Barack H. Obama is infamous for since he has taken office. Through all of it, Ray asks the one question we all want to know, “What are you going to do?”
Yes, the song is funny, but is also sad that everything Ray says in the video is absolutely true. Obama promised change, and I guess he delivered. He changed America from the greatest and most feared country in the world to a total disgrace and a laughingstock. He changed us alright, just not the way we wanted him to.
Simply titled “Trustworthy?,” the latest advertisement against Hillary Clinton has been released by the America Rising PAC. And it’s powerful.
With thought provoking background music, the advertisement chronicles a myriad of Clinton’s contradictory statements and actions throughout the course of her political career. Controversy after controversy is addressed, such as Benghazi, the emails, her handling of Russia, her failed diplomacy, and her lack of transparency.
It gives the chilling vibes of an exciting movie trailer, but this is reality. Many of these events addressed in the video are reminders of how much this woman has gotten away with over the years.
