America won’t make Lenin’s big mistake

When Clinton falls, Obama, the mainstream media and both political parties should fall with them (and Goldman Sachs, the military industrial complex, the federal courts, Google, Facebook, and Amazon too while were at it). Watergate was just a paranoid, powerful man with a small circle acting irrationally. This is the real thing: a coup, leaving nothing of our democracy intact. The fourth amendment, the fifth amendment: the NSA and CIA trashed those. The war powers provisions. Emoluments. Free speech. Standing army. Fair trial. There is almost none of the basic principles of 1776 left.

Lenin should have set up a two party state and let them pretend to compete. Then he’d still be standing.

In order to facilitate the oral presentation on this material, published sources are referred to by date, headline and name. All references to ID numbers refer to Wikileaks, the Podesta leak, unless otherwise indicated (DNC, diplomatic cables, etc.).

Uranium One: the Clintons took bribes from the Russians to undermine US security and Obama let it happen

The Hill, article headline “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” from October 17, 2017, says that “the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”

Despite evidence that the Russians were engaged in bribery, the Obama administration, in 2010, approved a deal that let a Russian company control 20% of American uranium mining.

Back on April 23, 2015, the New York Times published “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”

On October 19, 2017 the Hill published, “Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision.” In this article we read that in addition to the more than 29 million dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton got $500,000 right into his pocket from Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank, for his 90-minute June 29, 2010, speech, one of the largest one-day fees Bill Clinton ever earned.

Conclusion to Uranium One gate:

Clearly, the Russians saw these payments to the Clintons as a campaign of bribery and influence peddling. They paid the Clintons and got what they wanted. The FBI heard the Russians say, “Bribe them.” Bill Clinton got $500,000 directly in his pocket a few months later. It can’t be clearer.

Pissgate: Fusion GPS was paid by Democrats and Clinton Campaign to give them known fake piss dossier.

  1. Hire agents. In the New York Times on October 24, 2017 in a story called “Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump Dossier” we read that, “The letter that was filed in court said that Fusion GPS began working for the law firm, Perkins Coie, in April 2016. Written by the firm’s managing partner Matthew J. Gehringer, the letter said that Fusion GPS had already been conducting the research ‘for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest.’”
  2. Give info the FBI. McCain got the infamous piss dossier from Kramer and immediately pushed it to Comey. Shortly after the presidential election, Senator John McCain, who had been informed about the alleged links between Kremlin and Trump, met with former British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood. Wood confirmed the existence of the dossier and vouched for Steele’s “professionalism and integrity”.] McCain obtained the dossier from David J. Kramer and took it directly to FBI director James Comey on December 9, 2016.
  3. Let the foreign agent in the country. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian agent, was in the US due to special action by the Obama administration The New York Post, on July 13, 2017, published “Russian lawyer was let into US without a visa by Obama administration.” In that article we read, “The Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton was let into the country by the Justice Department under the Obama administration without a visa. Natalia Veselnitskaya entered the US in late 2015 under “extraordinary circumstances,” The Hill reported. The news site said she was granted a “special immigration parole” by the feds to help defend a client under criminal investigation.
  4. Invite Trump to meet with foreign agent as pretext to wiretap Trump. FISA authorized a wiretap on Trump based on the meeting with a foreign agent (Veselnitskaya) when the agent was paid to go to the meeting by the Democrats: it was set up Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Don Trump Jr and Manafort a month after being illegally let into the states by Obama admin. FISA was reinstated and extended to Trump Tower after they meet. This is the “wiretap.”
  5. More evidence linking agent meeting with Fusion. Moreover, the meeting in Trump Tower between Veselnitskaya and Trump Jr. was arranged by Rob Goldstone, is associated with Fusion GPS — the firm behind the largely-debunked salacious 35 page ‘pissgate’ dossier designed to take down Donald Trump, yet which failed miserably after being largely debunked. The source is Zero Hedge July 12, 2017 article, “Was Trump Jr Meeting Deep-State Setup For FISA Wiretaps?”

Conclusion to Pissgate

Officials in the Democratic party and others in the Democratic and Republican parties conspired with foreign agents, including agents of the Russian government, to influence a US election by disseminating false information about Trump, by illegally tapping Trump’s phone.

Too much concenration of wealth… inherited wealth.

That’s all for new stories. Here are a few older ones for context:

Obama was an agent of CitiBank and never was working for the people of the United States, but rather his paymaster

10/2008 Michael Froman’s team at Citigroup vetted Obama’s cabinet; 2009–2011 Obama approves 470 billion in TARP funding for Citibank; 2017 Obama makes 60 million in one year from Wall Street speeches and book contracts for books he isn’t writing. Obvious conspiracy in plain sight.

Untold millions in direct bribes to the Clintons: Taking bribes was standard procedure for the Clintons

In ID 17343#efmARzATdAeFAfj her own campaign chair said that strengthening bribery laws is ‘really dicey territory’ for her. Why do they think bribery might be dicey if there is no “evidence of a quid pro quo” as the New York Times puts it?

Bill Clinton took one million dollars from Qatar for his birthday (ID 8396#efmAEOAGW). Morocco paid 12 million to meet with Hillary (ID 22030#efmABAADKADLADiAEeAExAFbAH_AJwAKXAOWAO2). Bill will only talk to the King of Saudi Arabia for six million dollars (ID 6775#efmACoADwAIqAJzAOXASM).

John Podesta owns $75,000 in shares in a Russian oil company (ID 4635#efmAFyAGUAWLAYP).

Clinton Foundation Executive, Doug Band says the Clintons have over ‘500 Different’ conflicts of interests (ID 21978#efmAALABKAD5AGdAGfAHV). No one is closer to Bill Clinton than Doug Band. He says they have hundreds of conflicts of interest. Is that not evidence of conflicts of interest? Is not the whole Band TENEO operation a quid pro quo?

Before Hillary became secretary of state, Bill averaged $150,000 per speech. After she took office, he made $500,000 per speech, as reported by Jim Young of Reuters with David A. Graham, published in the Atlantic on April 23, 2015. Bill was just as much a compelling speaker and just as famous before his wife became secretary of state. Is not the increase in fees evidence that those paying the fees were expecting something other than a speech?

Abu Dhabi government paid Bill Clinton directly, personally (also Clinton Foundation tens of millions in donations) two million dollars and Hillary Clinton arranged for the Abu Dhabi airport to have unprecedented pre-clearance of customs for flights to the US. See Politifact article “Fact-checking ‘Clinton Cash’ author on claim about Bill Clinton’s speaking fees” rated “true,” and the Wall Street Journal, “Speaking Fees Meet Politics for Clinton’s” December 30, 2015 and the Daily Mail on December 31, 2015, “Bill Clinton’s speaking fees draw new attention as they line up with actions his wife’s State Department took between 2009 and 2013.” These articles correlate fees paid to favors received, such as customs clearance in the Abu Dhabi airport. Other than the bribes paid to the Clintons, why did Abu Dhabi get customs clearance on the departing end when no other airport has this service?

UBS Scandal: Bill Clinton received 1.5 million from Swiss bank UBS and Hillary arranged for the bank to only release only a small fraction of the original list of tens of thousands of multimillionaires with Swiss bank accounts in exchange for Switzerland accepting a couple Weger prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, see the Atlantic “Hillary Helps a Bank — and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons” from July 31, 2015.

On January 4, 2012, Band wrote in an email that Chelsea used Foundation resources ‘for her wedding and life for a decade.’

Here’s the deal: Bezos buys the Washington Post with the CIA’s money and runs propaganda for the deep state. The New York Times (AKA Carlos Slim) was wrong on the Iraq War, wrong on Russiagate, and wrong on everything that matters, and not by accident.

Clinton’s enterprises collapsed after she lost the election because all of these entities were slush funds: Eaglevale, Joule Unlimited, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation, and speaking fees for the Clintons are evaporated immediately after Clinton lost

After Hillary lost the election, John Podesta’s green energy company Joule Unlimited closed down. “Chelsea Clinton’s Husband Closes His Hedge Fund” Bloomberg reported on February 8, 2017. Hillary loses and three months later, millions in “investments” get yanked from Mezvinsky. So, therefore, the investors in his hedge fund, Eaglevale, were not actually investing so much as buying influence with the next president.

On January 17, the Inquisitr wrote that “The Clinton Foundation has shut down the Clinton Global Initiative in a move that political opponents have taken as confirmation that the organization is a slush fund.” No one has come forward to explain why donations dried up immediately after Clinton lost if the fund was really a charity.

Email ID 46848 includes an attachment, an audit of the Clinton Foundation. The audit shows that almost none of the money raised, far less than the 7% reported, went to programs around the world. This audit and the fact that the Clinton Global Initiative had to shut its doors and close up immediately after Hillary lost prove that Hillary rose to dominate the Democratic party and establishment politics in general by throwing money around.

The Clintons exploited the poorest, most vulnerable

To make the big drug companies happy, the Clinton Foundation, after refusing to donate anything to help famine victims in Africa, then worked to keep the price of AIDS drugs high in Africa (ID 36248).

The government of the poorest country in the world paid Bill Clinton $650,000 to speak, for sure, and the mining company The Lundin Group probably donated to the Clinton Foundation while removing whole villages in the Congo to mine. See Forbes April 17, 2016 ”Why Did Congo Offer Clinton $650,000 For Two Pics And A Speech?” and similar articles.

A gold mining concession in Haiti went to a company where Hillary Clinton’s brother sat on the board of directors. Donor money disappeared from the Haitian rebuilding project. Promised elections were cancelled in Haiti, along with massive interference in the 2011 election that did occur. See the Daily Mail, March 16, 2015, “Hillary Clinton’s brother landed lucrative gold-mining permit in Haiti after Bill Clinton helped country recover from earthquake devastation” and the New York Times “High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti” on March 14, 2016, and “Red Cross Built Exactly 6 Homes For Haiti With Nearly Half A Billion Dollars In Donations” in Huffington Post, June 30, 2016.

The Clinton Foundation has been a flop on the ground, helping almost no one. Please see Politico’s “There’s no country that more clearly illustrates the confusing nexus of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Bill Clinton’s foundation than Haiti — America’s poorest neighbor” from May 4, 2015 for example.

Hillary participated in multiple imperialistic wars, assassinations and coups

Hillary Clinton supported a coup that ousted a democratically elected government and led to chaos, as per Truthout “Here’s Why Activists Don’t Buy Hillary Clinton’s Justification for the Honduras Coup” July 17, 2016. Also, the cables leaked by Chelsea Manning reveal that the State Department knew the coup was “illegal and unconstitutional.”

Berta Caceres, activist, subsequently murdered, said, “We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it. It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, Hard Choices, practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country. The return of the president, Mel Zelaya, became a secondary issue. There were going to be elections in Honduras. And here she [Clinton] recognized that they didn’t permit Mel Zelaya’s return to the presidency.”

Hillary says that her no fly zone proposition would “kill a whole lot of Syrians” (ID 927#attachments). As noted below, her rush to war in Libya was shocking to many in her own administration. The results of that disaster compare with the fiasco in Iraq in 2003.

A quote from a paid speech For Deutsche Bank, April 24, 2013:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Secretary Clinton — Madam Secretary, if there was indisputable evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its people, would you be in favor of armed American intervention in the form of air strikes or boots on the ground?

SECRETARY CLINTON: …That requires not just boots on the ground, it requires, you know, being able to, in effect, liberate such a depot or such a convoy from those who are currently in charge of it. And then it requires managing the material so it doesn’t have disastrous consequences. And then it requires bringing in and protecting the experts long enough that they can take hold of and, in effect, disarm the weaponry… So yes.

While she favored boots on the ground in Syria, she only wanted to bomb Iran from the air. She told Goldman Sachs at the 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, June 4, 2013, “Well, you up the pain on Iran that they have to endure by not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities. I mean, that is the option. It is not as, we like to say these days, boots on the ground.”

Boots on the ground in Syria and bombs from the air in Iran? What she promised for the future was more of what she did as secretary of state. The story of her warmongering was a story even in the mainstream media in the New York Times Magazine piece, April 21, 2016, “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk: Throughout her career she has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats.”

Clinton met with staff on Tuesday November 23, 2010 shortly after 8 AM on Mahogany Row at the State Department to attempt to formulate a strategy to avert Assange’s plans to release an enormous batch of 250,000 secret cables, dating from 1966 to 2010.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.

Speaking to CBS News, Hillary says, referring to the recently murdered head of state of Libya, “We came. We saw. He died.” She then laughs.

Hillary Clinton foreign policy advisors, as reported in the Intercept on September 8, 2016, and likely leaders of her administration had she won, in an article “Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers Are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State,” include: David Petraeus, Iraq war architect. Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security under Bush, then went on to make big money as a consultant on security in the “private sector.” Mike Morell, former head of the CIA, says the US should kill Iranians and Russians in Syria. Jim Stavridis, favors US ground war in Syria. They all have cash ties to defense contractors (military-industrial complex) and many participated in the series of terrible decisions around Iraq.

Hillary Clinton voted to invade Iraq, aggressive war, a violation of international law. Libya is a whole separate tragedy.

Team Hillary freely admit that they are operators in an oligarchic system of fake democracy when they speak among themselves and their donors in private

The transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs was a major issue in the Democratic primary. We finally got the transcripts in October 2016 from Wikileaks.

In the speeches we hear Hillary Clinton speaking in private to rich bankers. It’s quite important to pay attention to the releases from Wikileaks in 2016 because we may never have a better look behind the scenes of how corruption works.

The comment about her “public and private positions” got the most attention, and well it should. In fact, “we have a public and a private position” could well be the motto of both the Democratic and Republican parties. This is another key passage, from the Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, October 29, 2013:

HILLARY: I want to get back to having a two-party system that can have an adult conversation and a real debate about the future.

MR. BLANKFEIN (CEO of Goldman Sachs): Yeah, and one thing, I’m glad — I’m proud that the financial services industry has been the one unifying theme that binds everybody together in common. (Laughter.)”

This exchange is similar to an exchange at Xerox, March 18, 2014:

URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.

For Clinton, and her donors, we should have two basically similar parties and a fake debate limited to a narrow range of topics, as we have had in the past.

Or consider Wikileak ID 23756, on the 2014 Princeton Study “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” The Podesta team says, “I guess it takes a study to point out the obvious.”

And, my friends, there you have it. Right from the horse’s mouth. If there were any doubt about the conclusion of the 2014 Princeton Study, those doubts have been obliterated by John Podesta. If his team says it’s obvious that the US is not a democracy, and they should know, then it’s true.

Don’t believe politicians when they spin. Don’t believe the MSM. Believe what they say behind closed doors to bankers and among themselves in their private emails. What they say is that the bankers run the government, that we do not live in a democracy, and that every word they say to us in speeches is a lie. Believe them. They just told you the truth (in private).

I could cite more examples of this kind of admission when they thought no one was listening but these few examples should suffice. The cat is out of the bag. No more discussion needed. America is not a democracy or a truly representative republic: the people who keep it that way know it and know why it is undemocratic and freely acknowledge the fact in private.

We all should simply stop referring to America as a democracy or representative republic, as we have definitive proof that the system does not work for the working people but does work well for a small group of connected oligarchs. Just wipe the phrase “American democracy” from your vocabulary the way we stopped saying “police man” and now say “police officer” or stop referring to African Americans as did Martin Luther King, “negro,” and use the terms “Black” or “African American.” Fix the language to reflect reality. Never say we live in a democracy as a short hand. We don’t.

Negative comments about the Clintons from insiders and friends

There are many books that contribute hundreds of quotes from people who know the Clinton’s well and hate them, including Clinton Inc.

The Telegraph published a prophetic article back in November 22, 2008: “Barack Obama’s aides believe he has made a mistake in hiring Hillary Clinton.” The article says:

“They can’t help themselves,” the Obama aide told his friend, a fellow Democrat strategist. “Every event is a potential ladder up or a bullet to be dodged. They’re positioning and spinning all the time. They lost. Now we seem to be handing them the farm.”

Most shocking to Mr Obama’s team is the loss of discipline and control that they have experienced since coming to Washington.

In ID 35921, consummate Hillary insider Neera Tanden, who has known Hillary well for years, said “sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement.” She also said, “Brock/Bonner Are a nightmare: Really, Suzie Buell isn’t giving to the super pac? I wonder how that got in this story.” Tanden expresses concern that the Correct The Record superpac is pushing its legal boundaries and may be colluding directly with the campaign (ID 10068#efmAAGAA4AEFAFn): “this does seem shady.” Tanden further notes, “She may be so tainted she’s really vulnerable” (ID 17343#efmAFHAHJARzATdAeFAfj).

Clinton campaign scrambled to escape “calls for transparency” on Hillary’s health and taxes. Campaign manager Robby Mook said to chairman John Podesta, Hillary’s health and taxes are “hyper sensitive topics” (ID 11563#efmAAqAEB). Clinton campaign insiders feared Bill’s sex life could sink Hillary. Podesta says they should “shut the hell up about this” (ID 2301#efmAPjARK).

Top Clinton aide Doug Band details how Clinton Foundation Chief Laura Graham nearly committed suicide by plunging her car into ocean depths because of treatment from Bill & Chelsea Clinton. Staffers write each other about how Chelsea wouldn’t care if she died (ID 3332#efmAdAAmB).

DNC ID 23855 is a compendium of quotes from newspapers that endorsed Hillary in 2016 sent by DNC staffer L. Hendricks.

One year after announcing, her endorsers have called her “polarizing,” “fiercely disliked,” “extreme flip-flopping,” “a taste for expediency,” “has a trust deficit,” “way too secretive,” “almost paranoid,” “a tone-deaf approach,” “hardly lovable and certainly flawed,” “plays fast and loose with the truth,” and “a politician with so much baggage that even Southwest Airlines would start charging fees,” are just some of the attributes highlighted by Clinton’s “endorsers.”

The most persistent problem identified was Clinton’s use of a secret server that has sparked an FBI investigation, with The Free Lance-Star editorial board declaring that “it’s anyone’s guess when the probe will end and whether there will be an indictment.” The Detroit News led the charge in questioning Clinton’s trustworthiness saying that “even a disingenuous capitalist is preferable to a genuine socialist,” as the Minneapolis Star Tribune cited a “disturbingly high level of mistrust” of Clinton. The Des Moines Register highlighted her shifting positions noting that “her changing stance on gay marriage, immigration and other issues has invited accusations that she is guided less by personal conviction than by political calculations.” These half-hearted “endorsements” typify Clinton’s problems with trust, ethics and character that have dogged her throughout this campaign, and led to legions’ of Democrats grudging, unenthusiastic support.

These are her friends.

In ID 9637 a lawyer tells John Podesta, “The one thing I heard in her super Tuesday speech that I thought that I would avoid is that she said: “whether we like it or not, we are in this all together…” I would advise eliminating the “like it or not” part and just say that “in order to make America whole we must be in this altogether.”

That’s funny. Hillary clearly wishes she could be president without having to pretend like she wants to be together with us regular folk. Her staff has to stop her from saying, you know, that we’re deporables or basement-dwellers… oh wait, she did call us that.

Can anyone who has read the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs doubt that Hillary hates working people and loves rich bankers?

Obama/Clinton destabilized one third of Africa

When Obama won in 2008, a cheer went up across Africa that we could hear all the way over to America. But, unfortunately, Obama didn’t care much for Africans. Ross Kemp in the Guardian on February 20, 2017 compared the horror of the migrant slave trade in Libya today to middle passage of slaves in the 18th century. Contributing to a horror of that magnitude is not a feather in your cap.

The Atlantic published, “The Legacy of Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’” on April 15, 2016. The Obama administration overthrew the Gaddafi government, leaving Libya a failed state. Terrorists set up shop in Libya and weapons from the Gaddafi regime ended up in the hands of radicals. Based in Libya, the terrorists conducted raids in neighboring countries.

In April 2015, 21 Coptic Christians from Ethiopia were murdered by an Isis unit from Libya operating inside of Egypt. In November 2015, terrorists armed and trained in Libya attacked the Radisson hotel in the capital of Mali, killing 20 and upending the local economy. In June 2016, terrorists from Libya killed 38 foreigners in Tunisia, causing a collapse in the Tunisian tourist industry, to say nothing of the horrific loss of life. From his last day in office, January 19, 2017, in the Telegraph, “Barack Obama orders raid to kill 80 Islamic State terrorists in Libya who were ‘plotting attacks in Europe.’”

There was no reason to overthrow Gaddafi. He was willing to negotiate with the Obama administration. On January 28, 2015, the Washington Times reported that “Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli. The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.”

Former Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich also attempted to negotiate with Gaddafi. He subsequently wrote an op-ed piece in the Guardian as the NATO war against Libya was still in progress. He said:

…the war against Libya has seen countless violations of United Nations security council resolutions (UNSCRs) by Nato and UN member states. The funnelling of weapons (now being air-dropped) to Libyan rebels was, from the beginning of the conflict, in clear violation of UNSCR 1970. The use of military force on behalf of the rebels, in an attempt to impose regime change, has undermined international law and damaged the credibility of the United Nations. Countless innocent civilians have been killed, and Nato airstrikes continue to place many at great risk. So much for the humanitarian-inspired UNSCR 1973 as a means to protect civilians. The people of Libya cannot take another month of such humanitarian intervention. The leading donor nations of Nato — the US, France and Great Britain — have been free to prosecute war under the cloak of this faceless, bureaucratic, alphabet security agency, now multinational war machine, which can violate UN resolutions and kill innocent civilians with impunity. War crimes trials are only for losers. The prospective conquerors, the western powers and their rebel proxies, will then expect to be able to assert control over Libya’s vast oil and natural gas reserves. The US share of the war against Libya has probably exceeded the $1bn mark. This extraordinary amount of money for an intervention that Americans were told would last “days not weeks” could only be explained by looking at the war as an investment, and at control over Libya’s wealth as an opportunity to make a return on that investment. Cynical? Then tell me why else we are at war in Libya. Viable peace proposals, such as the one put forward by the African Union (AU), have been quickly and summarily rejected. If there is going to be a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the US must work with and empower the AU to ensure regional security. The AU has proposed a peace plan that would facilitate an immediate ceasefire, the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, a dialogue between the Transitional National Council and the Gaddafi government, and the suspension of Nato strikes. … Continued military action promotes a cycle of violence that will persist whether Colonel Gaddafi is ousted or not. On 19 March 2003, the United States pursued regime change in Iraq. Eight years later, we’re still wondering why the people of Iraq are not sufficiently grateful for our intervention, which has resulted in the death of over 1 million of their fellow countrymen and women. How can we expect this grim manifesto of interventionism to ever result in anything but tragedy? It’s time to end the war against Libya.

Sadly for the people of Libya and the rest of north and west Africa, the American establishment treat people like Dennis Kucinich as wild-eyed lefties, not to be taken seriously, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as sober, realistic, professionals.

But if Kucinich had been in charge, Africa would be a safer, more prosperous place. Refugees would not now be using Libya as the principle launching pad into Europe.

Obama/Clinton are guilty of international and domestic war crimes

First, let’s check the US Constitution: War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

If the president is allowed to conduct an act of war without congressional approval, say, by killing a foreign head of state or bombing indiscriminately, then in fact, the President has the right to declare war. Any act of war is a potential war.

When did congress authorize the drone program in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan? The Guardian reported on January 8, 2017 that “In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries — a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration… President Obama has claimed that his overseas military adventures are legal under the 2001 and 2003 authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress to go after al-Qaida.”

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported on July 1, 2016, “The US government today claimed it has killed between 64 and 116 “non-combatants” in 473 counter-terrorism strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya between January 2009 and the end of 2015. This is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian casualty range recorded by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism from reports by local and international journalists, NGO investigators, leaked government documents, court papers and the result of field investigations. While the number of civilian casualties recorded by the Bureau is six times higher than the US Government’s figure, the assessments of the minimum total number of people killed were strikingly similar. The White House put this figure at 2,436, whilst the Bureau has recorded 2,753.”

Each individual action, each expansion of forces to a new country, is an individual act of war; therefore, congress needs to have an individual and discrete oversight of each action. The strange and horrible thing is that Obama certainly could have gotten congressional approval for these actions. A system of committees to review evidence before a strike and the ability to discontinue the program would not have been hard to establish.

“That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is … near certainty of no civilian casualties,” he told an audience at West Point in 2014.

In an armed conflict, under international law, the use of force must be limited to military targets, but these targets need not present an imminent threat to life at the time of the strike. But none of the U.S. drone strikes are part of an armed conflict, as there is no declaration of war. Obama understands these strikes as part of a non-international armed conflict against al-Qaeda and its affiliates (“non-international” meaning against non-state actors rather than another state). But Isis didn’t exist at the time of the declaration of war in 2002 and some of the strikes clearly targeted Isis.

Obama wrongly applies the law of armed conflict to areas characterized by relative peace — where the rules of law enforcement should govern the use of force. An armed conflict against terrorist groups throughout the world with no clear geographic limits to the conflict, means the conditions of war can follow terrorists as they move, even into areas without active hostilities. Anywhere. Anytime. It’s a “war” with no limit in time or space. No review domestically or internationally.

International oversight would also have been a good idea, if only after each action, in order to establish an international order for areas in failed states. If there are places outside of state control, if non-state actors do in fact pose a significant threat to a given country, some way to engage in warfare against these non-state actors may be necessary and some of the drone program may have been effective. But as it stands, the entire campaign is illegal, even the parts of the campaign that may have been justified under international and domestic law.

We don’t know why Obama killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American citizen killed in Yemen, or any of the other 2,753 people (not including Libya). Maybe the king of Saudi Arabia asked Obama to kill a personal enemy in Yemen because he made a pass at his granddaughter. Maybe someone Obama met when he was backpacking in Pakistan in the 1980s insulted him and owed him money and Obama decided to pay him back and blew his house up.

The mainstream media is propaganda

This statement is obviously true but, in case any Blue Dogs are capable of dealing with a coherent, evidence-based argument, here is one. In 2015, I thought there was bias in the media. I suspected that some elite journalists hung around with politicians, favoring some, sharing an insulated world view, but that there was no “mainstream media” as right wingers used the term.

ID 59125, from 2007 to Sara Ehrman, includes a memo written to “Memo To:​ George and Jonathan Soros, Peter and Jonathan Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, Steve Bing, John Sperling, Michael Vachon” from John Podesta called “COMBINED FUNDRAISING, MESSAGING AND MOBILIZATION PLAN.” This memo outlines plans to turn the already power deferential corporate media into a liberal echo chamber, as the right has on Fox and talk radio.

Tin foils hats, wild conspiracies, George Soros, yeah, shadow government… all nuts… but wait! It’s all true! Go read the memo! It’s been online since October 2016 and have you heard about it in the MSM? Why not? BECAUSE IT’S ALL TRUE. The media is lying to you every day, all day, and doing nothing else. If that were not the case, they would have reported on this memo and reformed their ways. Instead, they don’t want you to know the memo exists and continue to soak up their propaganda. Wake up! I just gave you the ID number.

I used to laugh when Jon Stewart poked his finger in Fox News’ eye. Then I thought there was a substantial difference between the propaganda of Fox and the real, if biased, news of the other traditional outlets, like the New York Times, CBS, NBC, and CNN.

We worked for Bernie and saw the amazing energy. For once, what talking heads said should happen was happening: people were being moved by the issues (break up the banks, minimum wage, no TPP, etc.) and getting active. Then came 2016. The releases on Wikileaks showed direct coordination, not just a confluence of interests.

Blackout. No news about people coming together to stand up to the oligarchy. That was no coincidence, not driven by ratings. The corporate interests behind big media do not want an awake citizenry. So, they lied, distorted, omitted: every outlet who coordinated with Podesta should be considered fake news. You don’t give a political operative control over your story and call yourself a journalist. What the New York Times and their ilk is doing is pure propaganda. Now, let’s prove that proposition.

Let’s start with this, an interview from November 29, 2016:

AMY GOODMAN: March 15th, Super Tuesday III, was the night when Rubio gave his speech, and Ted Cruz gave his speech, Clinton gave her speech, and Donald Trump, they waited for half an hour for him to give his speech and showed the open podium, as they often did. They showed more of the open podium waiting for Donald Trump than ever playing your speeches. That’s what — those were all the candidates that night. And they played all their full speeches. They did not play one word of your speech. You were speaking in Phoenix, Arizona, to the largest rally of any of those people that night. They didn’t even speculate where you were.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I wish I could disagree with you. No, no, no, Amy is raising a very — and we go into it in the book. I was stunned. I mean, you know, in the middle of the campaign, you’re not figuring out this stuff or thinking about it. Turns out that from January 1st, 2015, I think, through November 2015, ABC Evening News had us on for 20 seconds.

Parties:

Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race” (ID 5953 see attachment).

John Podesta hosts a dinner with reporters: I’m “Cooking for 30 of your reporter friends” (ID 4543#efmAAGABu. Full list of media guests (ID 12063).

MSNBC’s Meet The Press host and Political Director for NBC News, Chuck Todd, hosted a dinner party in 2015 for Clinton Campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri (ID 13686).

MSNBC/NBC:

Another chain (ID 5508) reveals MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and DNC staff members discussing how to discredit Sanders.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski’s call for Wasserman Schultz to resign. Schultz tells Todd to behave (ID 4025) and he does.

Hillary Clinton reads directly from script during Phone Interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes (ID 4274#efmAEcAWc).

Video at twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648. CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview (ID 7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR).

Wasserman Schultz sent an email to NBC anchor Chuck Todd with the subject line “Chuck, this must stop,” and set up a time for the two to talk about MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski calling on Wasserman Schultz to step down (ID 10945).

Amazon/CIA/The Washington Post:

The Washington Post took money from the CIA. The Nation reported, “[Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon.com and the Washington Post] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.” Also see, “IBM Concedes $600M CIA Cloud Deal To Amazon” on Cruxialcio.com, October 30, 2013.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank asked the DNC to do research for a negative column he wrote about Donald Trump in April 2016. Milbank’s column was titled, “The Ten Plagues of Trump,” and featured a list of “outrageous things” said by Trump. Internal DNC emails suggest Milbank’s asked for — and then leaned heavily on — DNC opposition research on Trump for the article (DNC IDs 5531, 8993).

On December 18, 2015, Amazon sent an email to all US customers, even those who declined to receive advertising and newsletters, with the headline, “Most Read from The Washington Post: DNC: Sanders campaign improperly accessed Clinton voter data… Please enjoy this complimentary daily newsletter from The Washington Post, an award-winning news leader, brought to you by Amazon, working to be Earth’s most customer-centric company.”

Google, Facebook and Amazon used every resource they could to help Hillary cheat.

Facebook:

In ID 15092#efmARfAUUAZpAd9AfGAf6, Podesta is invited to meet Mark Zuckerberg to discuss “political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).” Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, said in ID 19070#efmACIAD6 “I still want HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] to win badly,” she wrote. “I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids.”

The New York Times:

Clinton campaign and the New York Times coordinating attack strategy against Trump (ID 4664). New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gives Hillary veto power over his story (ID 4213#efmDV1DWd).

John Podesta receiving drafts of New York Times articles before they’re published (ID 844). New York Times and AP “helpful” to Clinton campaign, says Podesta (ID 5502).

Clinton staff “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC” (ID 7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4). Coordinating against Trump with the New York Times (ID 4664).

Neera Tanden on the New York Times and Associated Press being helpful to the Clinton Campaign… (ID 5502).

Cheryl Mills on “placing a story” with a “friendly journalist [Maggi Haberman of Politico]”… We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed” (ID 7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4).

Nick Merrill “I’ve spoken to both [New York Times and Wall Street Journal] to steer them towards progressive names,” regarding Hillary Clinton’s approach to economic policy (ID 9007#efmAcTAdS).

In ID 1542, Lynn Rothschild sent a 16 page paper to the New York Times’ Amy Chozik to influence her reporting. Doc leaked to Podesta and crew from “one of our friends.”

In an article called “On WikiLeaks, Journalism, and Privacy: Reporting on the Podesta Archive Is an Easy Call” Glenn Greenwald noted that The New York Times’ David Barstow said he does not care who leaked us Trump’s tax return, or what the motivation was. Yet, CNN’s Chris Cuomo said that it was illegal to read Wikileaks.

Boston Globe: The Boston Globe colludes with Clinton campaign to give Hillary a “big presence” (ID 4180#efmAJhALE). Ad for Hillary Clinton secretly pitched by ‘right-leaning’ Heat Street ‘journalist’ Louise Mensch (ID 5740#efmAMvAUe).

Huffington Post and the Hill: Brent Budowsky (writer for The Hill and Huffington Post) warns John Podesta about possible Hillary attacks and that not talking to the press is killing her support: “I’m not going to raise this publicly, but..” (ID 6453#efmARBAUVAVJAXBAfNAhWAkaAl4).

Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you” (ID 5988#efmADmAE6AF-AG1).

Nevertheless, despite (or because of) the clear bias of the Huffington Post, the DNC granted a debate to the organization of DNC chair January 2017.

Associated Press: Clinton staff “placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper)” (ID 9272#efmBKsBMU). Clinton staff appearing to control the release times of Associated Press articles (ID 8460). The Associated Press openly collaborates to write positive HRC stories and negative Bernie stories. Podesta and other campaign staff discussing options regarding the release of an Associated Press story about the deletion of Clinton server emails, and how to proceed with a statement on publication implying that they have some amount of control over when the story is released.

Politico: Kenneth Vogel of Politico forwards a pending story to DNC for review, as “per agreement”. It is worth pointing out he sent this before his own editors saw it (Wikileak ID 10808).

Glenn Thrush, Politico’s chief political correspondent and senior staff writer for Politico Magazine, sends John Podesta an article for his approval. Writes: “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I fucked up anything” (ID 12681#efmAByAEV).

CNN: Phil Mudd, a former CIA counterterrorism official, appeared on CNN and he claimed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a “pedophile.” CNN later had to retract the statement. Wolf Blitzer plans his Trump interview with Podesta (ID 23554).

Conclusion: The mainstream media (MSM) was down (and still is) with the DNC and HRC. One team: MSM-DNC-HRC.

The Clintons stole money and seem to have hidden assets

Hillary and Bill Clinton made 153 million almost entirely (more than 80%) in speaking fees from sources that also lobbied the US government at the same time yet have only 60 million in net worth (assets) as of 2015. The Clintons do have four mansions: a $5.7 million “embassy estate,”a $1.7 million “country-side cottage,” an $11 million “Hampton’s hideaway,” and a $13 million “beachside bungalow.” They also have other assets… still the Forbes figures suggest the Clintons either spent five million dollars every year or are hiding their money. Sources: Forbes, September 29, 2015 “The mystery of the Clinton’s missing millions” and AP, April 21, 2016, “Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov’t interests” and CNN, February 6, 2016, “$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented.”

Triple Dip: The Clintons got speaking fees, campaign contributions and foundation contributions from the same organizations most of the time, see Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2015, “How the Clintons Get Away With It: The Clintons are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption.” Doug Band explains this to Chelsea Clinton in the famous memo released by Wikileaks. Add in “investments” with Hillary’s son-in-law and you can quadruple dip.

Huma Abedin: Clinton right-hand woman Abedin worked for the Clinton Foundation and an associated consulting firm while at the State Department (New York Times, “Questions on the Dual Role of a Clinton Aide Persist” August. 18, 2013).

Published in the Guardian, “Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax ‘loophole’ address with 285,000 firms, 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington is a nondescript two-story building yet is home to Apple, American Airlines, Walmart and presidential candidates.”

Shell companies may play a role in what happened to the 153 to 160 million they made between 2000 and 2016, since their net worth was only 60 million on their official disclosures for the election of 2016. How is it that they made so much but only so few assets on their financial disclosures? Did they spend the rest, about 5 million a year? Talk about a lavish lifestyle. John and Tony Podesta show up in the Panama papers, as in the Observer April 7, 2016, “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection.” Maybe the shell companies funnelled money to tax havens through lawyers like the firm revealed in the Panama papers.

Pizzagate, Wikileaks and MSM

Should Wikileaks have edited the Podesta leaks? Should the media have reported Wikileaks better in the past? Is the MSM trying to debunk a fake story or cover up a real one? A serious charge, circumstantial evidence, some unverified, but not yet truly debunked. A vaguely sourced rumor not yet truly debunked.

Long before the term “Pizzagate” existed, Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept said that “you would have to be a sociopath” to indiscriminately release information on the internet, as Wikileaks has done in the John Podesta/DNC release of documents. See “Glenn Greenwald weighs in on WikiLeaks data dump on Clinton” October 22, 2016, CBC News. Greenwald expressed concern that innocent people might be hurt if a media outlet throws information out there to let people draw their own conclusions.

Greenwald raises a legitimate point. On the other hand, Wikileaks has opened the door to how politics really works in America as has no other publication in history. We need to know how our government works and maybe we have to grow up a bit on how we, the public, interpret information. Or maybe that’s asking too much. And there will always be cranks…

The Podesta emails on Wikileaks were certainly released fairly indiscriminately. Spam is included in the database, things like special offers from the Sports Authority. We also learn that John Podesta believes that aliens from other planets have landed on earth (ID 1802, 45274, etc.). More at “The long, strange history of John Podesta’s space alien obsession” in the Washington Post, April 8, 2016.

When Greenwald made his “sociopath” comment, before Pizzagate, I thought about John Podesta’s son, Gabe, an officer in the Air Force. Gabe seems to have absolutely no connection to his father’s political work and to be a decent person, unlike almost everyone who actually works for the DNC or HRC.Gabe was serving in the Air Force and seems committed to doing his duty.

In one email, however, he complains about his co-workers. It’s the kind of thing a lot of us have done in a private email to a friend or family member. I thought of Greenwald’s warning and imagined trouble among the people Gabe works with as an example of “damage” done by the lack of editing in the Wikileaks releases.

A gun incident occurred at Comet Pizza on December 5, 2016. Harassment of the people associated with pizza restaurants mentioned in some Pizzagate related publications seems to have been intense. With these two types of aggression, we now have a more serious example of harm, as per the Greenwald “sociopath” comment above. See “Fake News Onslaught Targets Pizzeria as Nest of Child-Trafficking” in the New York times on November 21, 2016. The BBC also ran a story with “fake” in the headline prior to the shooting, “The saga of ‘Pizzagate’: The fake story that shows how conspiracy theories spread” on December 2, 2016.

Shooting up a restaurant, or whatever happened, and harassing people based on innuendo on the internet are despicable. People are being harassed and their lives upended completely unjustly.

While Pizzagate is certainly a rumor, an unconfirmed set of coincidences, the scandal has not been debunked by the New York Times or the BBC or anyone else. It could be debunked, assuming there is no merit to the actual evidence. Pizzagate is not yet “fake” news. A blog called “aceloewgold” has a discussion I found useful.

“Aliens” is fake news. Podesta believes aliens have landed on earth. That is fake. There is no basis for the idea that aliens have been on earth. No reasonable person can find any credible reason to accept the idea. Aliens do not occasionally land on earth. If they did, we’d likely know about it. You don’t need to debunk the claim. The New York Times and the BBC did not debunk this idea. Like many crazy ideas out there, the alien idea is simply baseless.

Pedophile rings do exist, unlike alien visitors. The vatican (Wikipedia “Catholic Church sexual abuse cases”), Belgium (Reuters: “275,000 in Belgium Protest Handling of Child Sex Scandal” October 21, 1996), Norway (“Massive paedophile ring uncovered by police in Norway after arrest of 51 men” The Independent, November 23, 2016), Canada (“Alleged pedophile ring busted by police in Quebec, Toronto: 7 cities involved, including Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, after 3-year probe of online activities” CBC News January 27, 2016), the BBC (Wikipedia “BBC sexual abuse cases”): pedophilia rings happen. An inquiry in Australia found that 7% of Catholic Church staff were child rapists for a number of decades. Connected, prestigious people have been involved in all of the abuse networks cited above.

While Pizzagate is a rumor, the routine violations of election law are facts. While the pedophilia story is very weak in terms of evidence, the idea that Google would try to sway an election is absolutely terrifying. A memorandum against conflict of interest has the force of law and Hillary Clinton broke her agreement. Clinton helped create Isis. If the media did not cover up the career-ending nature of these and other facts, they would now have the credibility to debunk Pizzagate. If the media did not collude in fixing an election, or attempting to, they would have the credibility to write off a story as “fake” and people would believe it.

What did or did not happen at Comet Pizza or whether Hillary Clinton knew about whatever happened in any place are not central to the rumor. Hillary is a bit player in Pizzagate and the restaurant site as such is not necessarily central either.

What does Pizzagate allege? At a minimum, that there is something mildly creepy about James Alefantis and John and Tony Podesta. The scandal, if it’s anything at all, might not involve any violations of law or might not involve many people. It might be some people who have some strange sexual proclivities that they share in ways that are not illegal, as sort of a low end “scandal” emerging from the coincidences that build up to Pizzagate.

At most, on the high end, you might have something like a pedophile ring. Those do exist.

The “evidence” for Pizzagate is all circumstantial. Most people on any board talking about this agree that there is no evidence to indict let alone convict anyone. Mostly, the rumor is a set of questions.

Comet Pizza and Besta Pizza had logos that appear to resemble symbols used by pedophiles. See Slate “The Pedophile’s Secret Code” December 3, 2007 for a discussion of the FBI symbol information sheet or Wikileaks for a copy of the original FBI publication.

Both Podestas, Tony and John, have pedophilia-related art collections.

The screen shots from Alefantis’ Instagram page can only be seen as controversial by interpreting the comments and context. No one has claimed the screenshots are fake, as far as I can tell. Look up “Alefantis screenshots.” Even with comments most are not obscene or explicit, although the innuendos do seem disturbing. There is one of a girl “tied up.” There is one referring to John Podesta’s odd art collection. The term “chickenlover” appears in a comment next to what might be an innocent photo posted by Alefantis: is it a tasteless joke? The term refers to a man who has sex with very young children.

The trigger for the controversy were pizza-themed emails sent by or to Podesta in Wikileaks. Those emails are clearly real and not fake. To debunk those, you would need to explain what appears to be pizza code language and something other than pedophile double speak. If Pizzagate is “fake” let’s get rid of it and cover the real news in Wikileaks. Here’s how you get rid of it, to debunk Pizzagate, you could do any of the following:

Find out if the archived Instagram account, now on the web as screen shots, really belonged to James Alefantis. Alefantis posted the picture. He may have taken the picture. If those screenshots are fake, that would put a huge dent in Pizzagate. The screenshots should be part of any story claiming to debunk Pizzagate.

Is Australian citizen Michael Quinn, convicted pedophile, one of the shirtless, bearded men in a picture posted by James Alefantis? Does the t-shirt in the picture say, “I love children” in French or does it refer to a neighbor or cafe in Washington? There can be no guilt by association, but Michael Quinn was convicted of purchasing access to a child to rape, a contact made online.

Did Tony and John Podesta socialize frequently with James Alefantis? Was James Alefantis the former boyfriend of Clinton confidant David Brock? If Alefantis has no significant connection to Clinton, then his sexual proclivities may be a scandal, but not a political one. So, ask them. Tony Podesta celebrated his birthday at Alefantis’ restaurant? Once? Often?

What do the references to pizza in the Wikileak emails mean? Clearly not pizza. You can visit on Reddit r/WikiLeaks you might still be able to track down “official_thread_for_leaks_and_evidence” for much discussion of the pizza comments in the Podesta emails. Someone could ask John Podesta. If he has a credible answer, then that would solve that problem.

It really does sound like code for something. What? I don’t talk about pizza as something that is a matter of time, an hour, or a date coming up. In fact, although I eat pizza, I rarely talk about it. Podesta is usually quite taciturn and clearly quite busy in these emails. Yet he has time to talk about pizza.

The weirdest emails are the “handkerchief… map that seems pizza-related” (ID 32795) and the “pool party” emails (ID 10052). Do people normally enjoy watching children they don’t know swim in a pool? John Podesta seems to.

Did Bill Clinton ditch his secret service detail to fly on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane (Lolita Express) 12 times? 26 times? See “Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously known” on Fox News May 13, 2016. Where did he go? Why? As far as I’m concerned, if Bill admitted to sex with adult prostitutes, that would be no big scandal. If the implication is sex with underage sex slaves, well, that’s worse. Why not find out? Ask him. I don’t expect him to admit to a crime, but he should be able to say yes or no to questions about flying on the plane and visiting the island. If he was not on the island for sex, why was he there? Was he there? If he was there for sex, it may be a private matter, depending on the kind of sex. This should have been a bigger story for some time.

Dennis Hastert, Republican former speaker of the House, convicted pedophile, knew the Podesta brothers for 40 years. Emails pertaining to his arrest suggest concern for him on the part of John Podesta but not for his victims. However, John Podesta may have expressed concern for the victims in another forum. The issue here, as far as debunking the Pizzagate story, would be to re-open Hastert’s history. Was he a life-long pedophile, even when sharing an apartment with Tony Podesta? Was the extent of his criminal activity covered up in any way? This should have been a bigger story at the time.

Laura Silsby (Wikipedia), was convicted of child trafficking children from Haiti. Her lawyer in that case was himself convicted of sex trafficking of minors, Jorge Puello Torres. Clinton aide Huma Abedin kept Hillary posted on Silsby’s activities for many years prior to the conviction (ID Clinton 2772). Clinton ID 3741 includes “Transportation of the Children: $1800 to charter a bus in the DR to bring 100 children” by Silsby, a request for funding from Clinton. Others in Clinton Wikileaks relating to Silsby: ID 3741, 3465, 3539, Did Hillary Clinton intervene personally to reduce the charges when Silsby was on trial in Haiti? Also see Daily Mail, February 8, 2010, “The child snatchers: Special report from Haiti on the U.S. missionaries accused of ‘stealing orphans’ and why — most shockingly of all — their parents say they would give them away again.”

We have five convicted pedophiles and child traffickers possibly in this story: Hastert, Epstein, Silsby, Torres and Quinn. Hastert is a long time friend of the Podestas. Epstein is friends with Bill Clinton. Silsby knows Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton is concerned about her fate. Torres works for Silsby. Quinn may or may not know Alefantis.

These connections can be debunked but have not been. For example: It’s not Quinn in the photo with Alefantis. The Podestas have nothing to do with and were unaware of Hastert’s pedophilia. Bill did not fly on Epstein’s plane and/or did not have sex with underage children on his island in the Virgin Islands. Hillary did not intervene on Silsby’s behalf and/or did not know what she was really up to. I don’t know any convicted pedophiles while four are poking around the Clinton circle. But their circle is wider than mine. Maybe it’s a coincidence.

There are many ways for a journalist with access to these people or, certainly, an investigator with a badge, to clear this up. Unfortunately, the MSM has ignored a series of major scandals and has no credibility to simply write off Pizzagate as entirely fake. It’s a rumor. It’s not a wacko aliens area 51 story. There are pieces of evidence. Some of them could be fake. Are they? Vigilante harassment is terrible. I know that Wikileaks has revealed profound corruption at the heart of government that has nothing to do with this rumor. I know that I don’t believe the hype when it comes to the MSM. Pizzagate? I do not know what to believe, personally.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.