New E-mails From Clinton’s Personal Server Show Foundation Staffers Involved in State Department Business

untitled (268)

The following is a recap of startling new e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server which shows exactly what sort of conniving bi…well, you know…that Clinton was during the Obama Administration and would have been if allowed to be our 45th President.

Usually, I would have shortened such a lengthy article, but there is just too much information contained within it that I thought you should see.

FoxNews.com reports that

A newly unearthed batch of heavily redacted, classified emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal email server revealed that the former secretary of state discussed establishing a “private, 100% off-the-record” back channel to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that one of her top aides warned her that she was in “danger” of being “savaged by Jewish organizations, in the Jewish press and among the phalanx of neoconservative media” as a result of political machinations by “Bibi and the Jewish leadership.”

The 756-page group of new documents, revealed Thursday as part of a transparency lawsuit by Judicial Watch, seemingly contradicted Clinton’s insistence under oath in 2015 that she had turned over all of her sensitive work-related emails to the State Department, and included a slew of classified communications on everything from foreign policy to State Department personnel matters.

The files came from a trove of 72,000 documents the FBI recovered and turned over to the State Department in 2017.

The documents, representing a small proportion of the tens of thousands of emails still unaccounted for from Clinton’s server, also underscored the apparently significant political threat that the Obama administration felt it faced at the hands of Israel.

Additionally, according to the email dump, Clinton chatted with former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair about foreign policy before she was sworn in, aided the application of at least one State Department applicant who was connected to her daughter, Chelsea, and apparently met with Putin-aligned Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili before he became prime minister on a staunchly pro-Russian platform — and with reported help from a Russian interference operation. Ivanishvili pointedly did not criticize Putin during his campaign, despite Putin’s invasion of Georgia years earlier — and in 2012, Ivanishvili made headlines for refusing to meet with Clinton unless it was a one-on-one sitdown.

Clinton’s discussions with Blair included a classified 2011 conversation on foreign policy, and another classified, redacted 2011 conversation concerning a “speech.” Clinton also apparently discussed job-related topics with Blair on January 16, 2009 — while George W. Bush was still president but after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had approved her for the job. In one email thread with the subject line “Re: Gaza,” dated January 16, 2009, Blair said he wanted to have a matter “resolved before Tuesday,” apparently referring to Obama’s inauguration.

Clinton replied: “Tony – We are finally moving and I am looking forward to talking w you as soon as I’m confirmed, tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest. Your emails are very helpful so pls continue to use this address,” hr15@att.blackberry.net.”

Blair responded: “It would be great if we could talk before any announcements are made.”

Democrats have long criticized former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for speaking with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump had been inaugurated, saying the contacts may have violated an obscure 1799 law called the Logan Act, which ostensibly bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers on behalf of the U.S. without authorization. The provision has never been invoked in a prosecution, and historians have suggested the law made more sense in an era without the instant communications technology that would enable a foreign power to recognize whether U.S. representatives are formally affiliated with the U.S. government.

Meanwhile, according to the documents, Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane sent Clinton a heavily redacted, classified email concerning Israel and Syria policy, seemingly in 2009 — on a topic so urgent that Keane noted he had tried to call Clinton personally before sending it.

Separately, two email chains showed the apparently close coordination between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, which has long been accused by Republicans of operating essentially as a corrupt “pay-to-play” operation that effectively sold access to the Obama administration. Donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted after Clinton’s 2016 election loss.

In one email thread, top Clinton aides at the State Department, including Huma Abedin, coordinated a trip to Haiti with Clinton Foundation officials, including Clinton Foundation Director of Advance John Zimmerebner. Bill and Hillary Clinton were headed to Haiti to promote the Caracol Industrial Park, a $300M project funded by U.S. taxpayers through USAID that was heavily promoted to investors by the Clinton Foundation. Slate later called the park a “disappointment by any measure,” noting it had no discernible positive impact on Haiti’s economy and created tens of thousands fewer jobs than anticipated.

And, Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal sent Clinton a now-heavily redacted proposal from a former CIA officer concerning improvised-explosive devices, which Blumenthal called a “terrific project.” Blumenthal told Clinton the CIA officer had been “unable to break through the bureaucracy with” the proposal.

In closed-door testimony last year, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok acknowledged that the Justice Department “negotiated” an agreement with Clinton’s legal team that ensured the FBI did not have access to emails on her private servers relating to the Clinton Foundation, even as they probed her handling of classified information.

In a particularly striking January 2009 email uncovered by Judicial Watch, Blumenthal, citing sources, told Clinton that “Jewish institutional leaders” were working to derail President Obama’s appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Citing the same sources, Blumenthal warned Clinton that “every one of your conversations and communications with Bibi Netanyahu flows directly and instantly back to top Jewish leadership … You should, of course, assume that nothing involving him is private.”

Blumenthal, attaching a memo titled “Good Cop, Bad Cop,” said Mitchell was “politically vulnerable” because he was of “Arab descent,” and was facing attacks “carefully scripted” by top Jewish leaders. Blumenthal advised Clinton and Obama to bring aboard a “bad cop” who was a “political appointee, Jewish, considered a true friend of Israel” to help resist the attacks.

Blumenthal invoked former Secretary of State James Baker, saying he was “savaged by Jewish organizations, in the Jewish press and among the phalanx of neoconservative media” for taking a tough stance on Israel that “stunned the Israelis.”

“You are always in danger of being maneuvered into Baker’s position,” Blumenthal wrote to Clinton. “Mitchell is even more immediately in danger.”

Blumenthal added: “Bibi and the Jewish leadership should be expected to use political means, including outsourcing personal attacks, to counter moves the administration seeks in any peace process or initiating any negotiations. As you know, Bibi is deeply connected to political networks in the US-media, Jewish groups, Republican leaders, and right-wing Christian right organizations.”

In a classified September 2010 email exchange, Clinton adviser Lanny Davis seemingly hit on the same notes of concern as Blumenthal and offered to provide Clinton a “private and highly trusted communication line, unofficial and personal, to PM N[etanyahu]. … [N]o one on the planet (other than your wonderful husband) can get this done as well as you…”

In response, Clinton wrote, “I will reach out to you directly and hope you will continue to do the same w me. The most important issue now is [Redacted].”

But, a week later, Davis seemingly changed his mind, telling Clinton: “As soon as I wrote last email, I reverted to my old role as your crisis manager and worrier about you, read the word ‘optics’ I suddenly felt – oops. I am registered under FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] for one or more foreign governments or businesses. I don’t think it would look right. I want to avoid any even slight chance of misperception.”

That prompted Clinton to respond, “Thx for looking out for me, my friend. I’ll tell [Chief of Staff] Cheryl [Mills] to stand down.”

So, what has this latest batch of e-mails actually revealed about the Former Secretary of State?

  1. Clinton was handling matters of Foreign Policy before she was sworn in as Obama’s Secretary of State.
  2. Like the rest of Obama’s Administration, she viewed Israel as a country not to be trusted, instead of a long-time ally of the United States.
  3. She used Government Resources in conjunction with projects sponsored by the Clinton Foundation, in order to woo investors.
  4. Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal, WHO WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN BOTH THE FISA DOSSIERS, essentially was working on projects for the State Department, including some project involving IEDs and matters having to do with the Obama Administration’s attempts to broker a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
  5. Former Trump Attorney Michael Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, a Clinton Adviser also was involved in the attempts to broker a deal between the Israelis and Palestine.

Just how corrupt was the pipeline between the Clinton Foundation and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Per discoverthenetworks.org,

By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley…CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland’s Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.” [Reuters, 3/19/15]

Whether it was the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians or the formation of an Iranian Connection, as a result of money given to the Clinton Foundation, as was previously reported in 2015, or the later revelation involving “dual-staffer” Cheryl Mills, “FoundationGate” caught the attention of the American Public as a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors” showcasing the fact that the actions of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of a Conflict of Interest, filling the coffers of her Family’s “Foundation” while supposedly serving our Sovereign Nation.

Time and time again, from Watergate to Travelgate to Benghazigate, and most recently with E-mailgate, the Clinton Foundation and her role in the FISA Dossier, Hillary Clinton proved to be a ruthless, untrustworthy, Machiavellian professional politician, who only cared about herself and her planned ascension to the Presidency of the United States of America.

Clinton’s trail of corruption leads all the way back to when she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for dishonesty.

However, to use public servers to transmit Top Secret Information which endangered American Operatives and to have the hutzpah to practice “Pay-For-Play” on a Global Scale, while holding the Office of Secretary of State of the United States of America, Clinton has showed herself to be downright treasonous.

It is way past time for a THOROUGH investigation of the nefarious actions of Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

What’s “good” for the winner of the 2016 Presidential Election…is much better for the loser.

“What difference at this point does it make?”

Well…perhaps it would make all of the Far Left Liberals of the Democratic Party, including their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, who have been throwing a National Temper Tantrum hollering “Russia, Russia, Russia” for over 2 years with no proof whatsoever to back them up to all hold their breath until they turn blue…and pass out.

Ahhh…blessed silence.

Like when a baby cries themselves to sleep.

Until He Comes,

KJ

CNN Airs Cohen/Trump Audio Tape About McDougal

Lanny-Davis-Michael-Cohen-FlickrGetty-Images

“There’s no way the president’s going to be talking about setting up a corporation, and then using cash, unless you’re a complete idiot. And the president’s not an idiot.”

…“The point is the president wanted the transaction to be memorialized.” – Trump Attorney Rudy Giuliani

CNN.com reports that

Presidential candidate Donald Trump is heard on tape discussing with his attorney Michael Cohen how they would buy the rights to a Playboy model’s story about an alleged affair Trump had with her years earlier, according to the audio recording of the conversation aired exclusively on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time.”

The recording offers the public a glimpse at the confidential discussions between Trump and Cohen, and it confirms the man who now occupies the Oval Office had contemporaneous knowledge of a proposal to buy the rights to the story of Karen McDougal, a woman who has alleged she had an extramarital affair with Trump about a decade ago.

Cohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer.

“I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David,” Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

Trump interrupts Cohen asking, “What financing?” according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, “We’ll have to pay.” Trump is heard saying “pay with cash” but the audio is muddled and it’s unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, “no, no” but it is not clear what is said next.

No payment was ever made from Trump, Rudy Giuliani, the President’s attorney, has said. Giuliani has previously acknowledged that the recorded discussion related to the buying the story rights.

The recording, which was provided to CNN by Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis, was made in September 2016.

“What is this about? This is about honesty versus false disparagement of Michael Cohen.

Why is Giuliani out falsely disparaging Michael Cohen — because they fear him,” Davis said on “Cuomo Prime Time.”

“What do they fear, Chris? Why am I representing him? They fear that he has the truth about Donald Trump. He will someday speak the truth about Donald Trump. The truth is that when Donald Trump said ‘cash,’ which Rudy Giuliani knows that only drug dealers and mobsters talk about cash, it was, you heard Michael Cohen … say what? ‘No, no, no, no.'”

Davis later added: “Ladies and gentlemen, if you voted for Donald Trump, listen to the tape and ask yourself: Is Donald Trump lying when he said he didn’t use the word ‘cash’ and accuses Michael Cohen of using the word ‘cash’? Cohen has been disparaged. Cohen has been insulted and called all sorts of things by people around Donald Trump.”

Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, refuted that the tape shows Trump was offering a cash payment.

“Whoever is telling Davis that cash in that conversation refers to green currency is lying to him,” Futerfas told CNN. “There’s no transaction done in green currency. It doesn’t happen. The whole deal never happened. If it was going to happen, it would be a payment to a large company that would obviously be accompanied by an agreement of sale. Those documents would be prepared by lawyers on both sides.”

Cash, in the conversation, was in reference to how a deal would be financed, Futerfas added.

“The word cash came up in the context of the distinction between financing, which is referenced, and no financing, which means a full payment, a total one-time payment.

That’s the context in which the word cash is used,” he said. “Anyone who knows anything about the company or how the President does business knows there is no green cash. Everything is documented. Every penny is documented.”

Court filings said federal prosecutors have obtained 12 audio recordings from the FBI raids on Cohen earlier this year. CNN previously reported that Trump’s lawyers waived attorney-client privilege on the President’s behalf regarding the recording involving him personally.

The discussion relates to whether Trump should buy the rights of the story from American Media, which paid McDougal $150,000 in August 2016 for her story about an alleged 10 month affair with Trump. The story was never published by AMI.

In addition to discussing the McDougal payment, Trump and Cohen are overheard running through a list of potential legal issues, including contesting a New York Times request to unseal divorce records from Trump’s first wife Ivana as well as more mundane matters such as polling numbers and Trump surrogate Pastor Mark Burns.

What in the name of Donna Shalala does this have to do with the original accusation against the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, which Special Counsel Robert Mueller is supposed to be investigating?

The answer is nothing at all.

The reason being that THERE IS NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION. Never was and never will be.

However, gentle readers, what we do have is a lawyer about to be disbarred for breaking Attorney-Client Privilege.

Per legaldictionary.com,

In the law of evidence, a client’s privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney and client that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal advice or assistance. That privilege that permits an attorney to refuse to testify as to communications from the client. It belongs to the client, not the attorney, and hence only the client may waive it. In federal courts, state law is applied with respect to such privilege.

This is a bond that attorneys are not allowed to break, even to save their own sorry as…err…self.

There is no doubt in my mind that Attorney Lanny Davis is advising his client, Michael Cohen, to break this sacred bond.

You may have seen Lanny Davis on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or any other new channel he could get his mug on.

Just who is he?

Per heavy.com,

Lanny Davis, who worked as White House Special Counsel under Bill Clinton, is a staunch supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. He attended Yale Law School with Hillary and says that he has been friendly with her and with Bill ever since.

Davis repeatedly defended Hillary Clinton when she came under attack for her email and server use during the 2016 presidential campaign.

And he went so far as to say that Clinton would have won the 2016 election — if it hadn’t been for James Comey and the timing of his investigation. Davis said that Comey’s letter to Congress, announcing that he was investigating Clinton’s emails, swung the election decisively in Trump’s favor.

Davis made the case in a book, “The Unmasking of the Presidency.” He argued that Comey’s letter came at the worst possible time for Hillary: just a few weeks before the election itself, so that she had no time to address the issues before Americans went to the polls

The plot sickens.

When the original raid on Trump Attorney Michael Cohen’s office in New York happened last August, Fox News reported that

…Cohen’s attorney, Stephen Ryan, said Monday’s raid was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan and was based at least partly on a referral from Mueller.

“The decision by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York to conduct their investigation using search warrants is completely inappropriate and unnecessary,” Ryan said in a statement. “It resulted in the unnecessary seizure of protected attorney client communications between a lawyer and his clients.”

A source close to the White House also agreed with Trump’s take on the alleged bias of Mueller investigators, saying that “the hiring of all those Clinton people for Mueller’s team was not an accident. It was done to bring down the president.”

And now, a long-time friend and attorney of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s is representing President Trump’s Former Attorney and releasing audio tapes

Do you see a pattern here, gentle readers?

You have Washington Insiders, Deep State Operatives if you will, working to overturn the will of the American People, as expressed in the Presidential Election held on November 8, 2016.

You have a Special Counsel who served as a mule for Hillary Clinton during the scandal known as Uranium One, in which she, as Secretary of State, sold 20% of our uranium supply to the Russians.

And a Washington Insider, seated as the Attorney General of the United States of America, recusing himself from the whole thing.

Mr. President, if you and the First Lady are invited to go to the Ford Theatre before this whole plot plays out, please politely refuse.

I’m just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the Manafort Indictment, When Do the Tony Podesta, Lanny Davis, and Rep. John Conyers Get Indicted, Too? – A KJ Investigative Report

Chasing-Story-600-LI

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his Investigative Staff, made up of Democratic Donors, handed down their first indictment yesterday. The target was Paul Manafort, Former Presidential Campaign Manager for the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump.

As you can imagine, it was the focus of much Media and Political scrutiny, featuring, dissection, castigation, and insinuation.

FoxNews.com reports that

President Trump fired back on Monday in an attempt to distance his White House from the grand jury indictments of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an aide, noting their crimes were committed “years” before they worked on the campaign.

The president led a chorus of critics of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, noting that the crimes for which Manafort and his aide, Rick Gates, are charged appear to predate the presidential campaign by years.

“Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????” Trump tweeted Monday. “….Also, there is NO COLLUSION!”

Manafort and Gates were indicted by a federal grand jury Friday on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading Foreign Agent Registration (FARA) statements, false statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign banks and financial accounts. The indictments were announced Monday.

Mueller’s team also unsealed a guilty plea by former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who admitted to making false statements to FBI agents as part of the investigation. According to court documents, Papadopoulos’ false statements were in regards to his relationship with a Russian ‘professor,’ who had ties to Russian government officials.

The special counsel probe and Russia “hoax,” as the president has described it, has cast a cloud over the Trump administration. But last week, the White House enjoyed a shift in focus, amid new revelations in the controversial Obama-era Uranium One deal and the payments behind the salacious anti-Trump dossier.

Reports last week revealed that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid more than $9 million to law firm Perkins Coie, which commissioned Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research that ultimately led to the now-infamous dossier.

Over the weekend, it was revealed that the conservative Washington Free Beacon website initially funded the opposition research into then-candidate Donald Trump and other GOP contenders for the White House. Lawyers for the Free Beacon told the House Intelligence Committee that the website funded the research between fall 2015 and spring 2016.

But some Republicans say that the Manafort-Gates indictments provide “no evidence” in the Russian collusion narrative.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who has repeatedly called for Mueller’s resignation, over the special counsel’s relationship with former FBI Director James Comey, said the indictment “doesn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump.”

“I believe that Mr. Mueller’s conflict of interest is absolutely incontrovertible, and I think this is further indication he’s headed in this direction no matter what,” Franks said on his local radio station, KTAR-FM Morning News, Monday. “It’s ironic because ostensibly his investigation is supposed to be into Donald Trump’s potential involvement with Russia, yet this doesn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump.”

Franks added: “They may try to parlay it into something to hook President Trump in, but right now, this is par for the course. I should suggest this was kind of predictable.”

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is leading its own Russia probe, echoed a similar sentiment.

“This pre-dates the campaign entirely, and could pre-date Paul Manafort even meeting Donald Trump. This has nothing to do with the campaign,” King told Fox News on “America’s Newsroom” Monday. “The investigation still has to go forward but what I’ve seen so far, is there is no evidence at all linking the Trump campaign to Russian influence or collusion.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee is also leading a bipartisan Russia probe, and said that the indictment “doesn’t change” their investigation.

“The special counsel has found a reason on criminal violations to indict two individuals and I will leave that up to the special counsel to make that determination. It doesn’t change anything with our investigation,” Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C. said in a statement to Fox News. “We received documents from and had interest in two of the individuals named, but clearly the criminal charges put them in the Special Counsel’s purview.”

But Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that the indictments are “significant” and a “sobering step” in the special counsel’s investigation.

“That’s why it is imperative that Congress take action now to protect the independence of the Special Counsel, wherever, or however high his investigation may lead,” Warner said in a statement Monday. “Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, must also make clear to the President that issuing pardons to any of his associates or to himself would be unacceptable and result in immediate, bipartisan action by Congress.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also said that the president “must not, under any circumstances, interfere” with Mueller’s work.

“If he does so, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues,” Schumer said in a statement Monday.

While Trump has not suggested any plans to interfere with the special counsel investigation, there are currently two pieces of legislation in the Senate, with bipartisan sponsorship, that would ensure a judicial check on the executive branch’s ability to remove a special counsel. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., are behind the bills, along with Democratic senators.

“The president is not firing the special counsel,” Trump’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, said on CNN Monday. 

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also said Monday the president has “no intention or plan to make any changes in regard to Special Counsel.”

Though some argue the indictments are irrelevant to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, former top-ranking Justice Department official under both Bush and Obama administrations, James Trusty, told Fox News that this is what happens during a broad investigation.

Last week, Mueller expanded his probe to investigate Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta’s dealings with Manafort and a Ukrainian nonprofit. The Podesta Group told Fox News last week they were “cooperating” with the special counsel’s office.

Trusty said last week that Mueller has “a lot of room to legitimately poke around and find information on one party or another.”

“It’s a cliché, but a good cliché –prosecutors go where the evidence leads them,” Trusty told Fox News last week. “When you define the mission broadly, there is a lot of room for [an independent prosecutor’s] exploration.”

Trusty said that if a special counsel’s mission is defined broadly, “it is all fair game if the independent prosecutor is doing his job the right way.”

Okay. So, Mueller has the power to investigation anything he wants to.

That’s fine.

Because, as the Maha Rushie, himself, Rush Limbaugh, explained on his radio program yesterday, there is no “there” there.

No crime here. No crime has been specified. You could look at the document that charters the Mueller special counsel investigation team. You won’t find a crime. There are no limits on the number of people they can hire. There’s no limit on the amount of money he can spend. And there’s no limit on the amount of time. Ao he can do and go wherever he wants. And for Manafort, he went back from 2006 to 2015. And that’s what he’s gonna do with Trump because there isn’t any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. There just isn’t anything. The only thing there is is the Trump dossier, and that’s fake and made up. I don’t care what you hear, none of it’s been corroborated. A lot of it has been officially blown to smithereens as not credible, and not just the golden showers aspect of it. So to the extent that that dossier has been used to form an official investigation, if that dossier is ever the reason for any indictments, then I can see — well, I don’t know. Depends on the judge. Depends on the court.

Everything’s been so corrupted because it’s been so politicized. I’ll just tell you this. In a just world — and I’m not trying to make a pun here. In a world where the justice system reigns supreme, any indictment resulting from whatever’s in the Trump dossier would have to be thrown out. It’s not real. It’s a political document. It was bought and paid for by a political campaign to do damage against the political presidential opponent! It’s not an intelligence document. It’s bought and paid for. So anything in it that leads to an indictment, to me, would be extremely risky.

So, I will have to defer to actual legal experts on that last claim, but it just seems common sense to me that if indictments occur because of things that are not true in that dossier are used as evidence, then what good is it? It’s gotta be thrown out. So here’s the next question I got. “Rush, I’m thinking that there’s a possibility that Manafort is not actually aiming at Trump here.” Meaning with the indictment of Manafort. That Mueller is not actually aiming at Trump but may in fact be trying to get Podesta. What Mueller and his investigators are looking into is Russian influence in general, not from the Trump campaign, but from Manafort for years before and the Podesta — Now, Manafort’s political entanglements involve him with the government of Ukraine, which is not Russia! And the things that Manafort’s firm, things they were engaged in, the Podesta firm was engaged in very similar behavior.

Now, I just need to do a little test here. How many of you actually would accept the premise that Mueller is using the Manafort indictment to tighten the screws on Podesta? Anybody think that’s got any, any shred of possibility? Because everybody assumes Mueller, Mister Big, Washington establishment, unassailable reputation, not covered, not tainted by the corruption of politics, strictly — same things that we’ve heard about Comey which now we have reason to question.

But there’s nothing here with Trump and collusion with Russia. There simply isn’t anything there. Now, Manafort did do some stuff. Maybe money laundering, maybe colluding or something with Ukraine, but so did Podesta. Is it feasible that this guy with 16 Obama and Hillary lawyers on his team would be going after a Democrat? Remember, Mueller is, supposedly, a Republican, former FBI director. Remember, untainted, one of the maybe two people in town untainted reputationally by the swamp.

According to the Podesta Group’s website profile page, they are

Always original, never ordinary, we imagine and execute inventive, integrated, data-based campaigns that don’t just ignite conversations, but inspire action and change outcomes.

Whether across the country, or around the globe, at the Podesta Group, the one thing clients can rely on is results. From advising on parliamentary elections overseas to orchestrating large, issue-focused national advocacy campaigns back home, we know how to chart a winning course. With the rolled-sleeves values and senior-level attention of a boutique shop and the 535-member reach and wide-ranging issue fluency of a powerhouse firm, our bench of strategists brings decades of experience to bear. That’s why Bloomberg Businessweek calls us a “Beltway blackbelt” and why organizations large and small, from Fortune 500s and national foundations to local nonprofits, startups and foreign corporations have entrusted us with their public affairs agendas since 1987.

Back of February 18th of this year, Forbes.com posted an article titled “No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists” by Paul Roderick Gregory, which makes the keen observation that

Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying. 

That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Giustra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”  Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

Let’s not leave out fugitive Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Fortrash. He is represented by Democratic heavyweight lawyer, Lanny Davis, who accused Trump of “inviting Putin to commit espionage”

That’s still not all: Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) read Kremlin propaganda into the Congressional Record, referring to Ukrainian militia as “repulsive Neo Nazis” in denying Ukrainian forces ManPad weapons. Conyers floor speech was surely a notable success of some Kremlin lobbyist.

Lobbying for Russia is a bi-partisan activity. Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia’s third largest bank, Gazprombank, is represented by former Sen. John Breaux, (D., La.), and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R., Miss.), as main lobbyists on “banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions.” The Breaux-Lott client is currently in the Treasury Department list of Russian firms prohibited from debt financing with U.S. banks.

In his February 16 press conference, President Trump declared in response to the intensifying media drumbeat on his Russian connections: “I haven’t done anything for Russia.” K-Street lobbyists, on the other hand, have done a lot to help Russia. They greased the skids for a strategic deal (that required the Secretary of State’s approval) that multiplied the Kremlin’s command of world uranium supplies. They likely prevented the shipment of strategic weapons needed by Ukraine to repulse well-armed pro-Russian forces. A fugitive billionaire who robbed the Ukrainian people of billions is represented by one of the establishment’s most connected lawyers.

Gazprombank GPB hired Breux and Lott to gain repeal of sanctions. That’s perfectly fine in Washington; they are playing according established “swamp rules” in their tailored suits and fine D.C. restaurants. General Flynn lost his job when the subject of sanctions was mentioned by the Russian ambassador in their telephone conversation, but that’s the way the media and Washington play.

 As I always say,

The problem with pointing a finger at somebody is that you have three fingers pointing back at you.

All of the Liberal Political Pundits who were all over Cable and Broadcast News and all of the self-proclaimed trollish little Liberal know-it-alls who were all over Social Media Yesterday, crowing about Manafort’s Indictment, are soon going to have a rude awakening.

Democrat Politicians and their operatives have been wheeling and dealing with Putin and his henchmen for years. And, once the hearings concerning Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama’s Uranium One Scandal get started, even their seemingly well-planned distraction, known as the Trump-Russian Collusion Fairy Tale, won’t be about to stop the Sword of Damocles from ripping their political and professional futures to shreds.

The Dems are about to figure out that the old adage is true,

If you lay down with dogs, (even Siberian Huskies”) you get up with fleas.

Until He Comes,

KJ