Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Hours Before Damning IG Report Was Released, Look What Scandalous FBI Agents Were Caught Hiding

‘agents threatened to leak the fact they found more’

Published

on

In a previously unreleased text message exchange between FBI agents Peter Strozk and Lisa Page, they drop a bombshell revelation regarding their purpose and intent in sabotaging the Trump campaign in an effort to ensure he was not elected. This text reveals what is perhaps the most significant and the most direct indicator of the feelings of both agents regarding a potential Trump presidency.

Both agents were removed from the probe by special counsel Robert Mueller but both are still currently employed with the FBI.

The Washington Post reported that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report includes an August 2016 text message exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page about Trump’s chance of being elected president.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

Trending: Cop Pulls Man Over for Best Anti-Obama Sticker He’s Ever Seen – It’s Priceless!

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Michael Horowitz’s review from a few months ago previously revealed other alarming anti-Trump messages between Strozk and Page who were known to be romantically involved. The so-called “stop Trump” text takes the previously discovered texts a step further and gives credence to claims from President Trump and the White House that the FBI was actively working against him during the 2016 Presidential election.

Yet, the IG report itself states: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”
It is also important to note the leaked conclusion from the Inspector General’s report specifically states – “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.” According to the IG’s office, this is in thanks to policies designed to protect the institutions from allegations of abuse, political interference, and biased enforcement of the law.”

The highly anticipated report from the DOJ’s Inspector General (OIG) regarding Horowitz’s conclusions were leaked to Bloomberg Thursday morning with claims stating that despite any personal animus the FBI employees had against President Trump, bias did not creep into their conduct or affect them in any way. This is even in spite of the changes made in the language of Hillary Clinton’s  “exoneration” letter through extensive edits.  Those edits effectively decriminalized her behavior.

Many people and even some Washington officials disagree with the IG’s assessment. Sen. John Kennedy (LA-R) went on the record with Fox News’ “Outnumbered Overtime” to state: “In Louisiana, we call that bias, we don’t call that objective.”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, (SC-R), said in a statement the report shows “an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI.”

“Peter Strzok’s manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation…His bias impacted his decision making and he assigned to himself the role of stopping the Trump campaign or ending a Trump Presidency,” Gowdy said. “This is not the FBI I know.”

Needless to say, the IG report – what we know of it, is starting to seem a lot like disgraced former FBI Director James Comey laying out all of Hillary’s alleged crimes in great detail, only to exonerate her by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against the former Secretary of State.

And in yet another twist it seems Inspector General Horowitz himself is coming under suspicion for displaying personal bias of his own, despite a reputation amongst right-leaning individuals as a servant of justice and above reproach.

According to a bombshell revelation from Paul Sperry, a freelance investigative journalist for the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News, Horowitz may have been closer to Comey than previously thought. Sperry tweeted of Horowitz’s possible bias, stating – “CAUTION: IG Michael Horowitz and James Comey worked together in 1990s in US Attorneys office in Manhattan. In addition, Horowitz married to former CNN and PBS producer, who gave money to Obama and who previously worked as a senior aide to Dukakis during presidential campaign.”

It seems Horowitz did little more than spend American tax dollars in an effort to perpetuate a government coverup for continued corruption.

For example, the report revealed the FBI general counsel was “concerned with potential Hatch Act violations” by former Deputy Director to the FBI Andrew McCabe after he met with Clinton operative Terry McAuliffe at the governor’s mansion to raise money for his election wife’s campaign to run for the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat, as well as conflicts of interest concerning the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and into Hillary Clinton herself.

The FBI then failed to reassess or even investigate McCabe’s potential Hatch Act violations and investigative conflicts after he left the Washington field office to take the position as the deputy FBI director at FBI headquarters. The IG report states – “When McCabe served as [associate deputy director], he was occasionally present at meetings where the [Clinton email investigation] was discussed.” So McCabe was, in fact, actively involved in the Clinton email probe in 2015 while his wife was actively campaigning and running for political office, as well as receiving campaign donations from known associates of the Clintons themselves.

Not only was McCabe actively involved in the Clinton investigations, the IG found at least three separate instances where McCabe continued to involve himself in the Clinton investigation matters in spite of November 1, 2016, recusal from the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Comey then claimed to the IG through the course of the investigation that he did not know that his deputy’s wife had taken money from Clinton’s former campaign manager until he read about the glaring conflict in the Wall Street Journal in Oct 2016.  Comey further stated that had he known, he would have taken McCabe off the Clinton email case immediately.

The IG report further reveals that Comey did not want to condemn Clinton while clearing her. The only reason he decided to condemn her actions at all is because former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was caught meeting with Bill Clinton in the now infamous meeting on the tarmac just days before FBI agents interviewed Hillary for the first and only time. Apparently clearing her looked bad enough, now he had to make it look good so he made a public show of scolding her.

The only reason Comey consented to reopened the Clinton case just prior to the 2016 presidential election was because New York bureau agents threatened to leak the fact they found more State Department emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, husband to Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin.  Comey was loathed to reopen the case and in fact, sat on the information along with McCabe for more than a month.  No further investigation, no subpoena, no action whatsoever despite knowing national security was actively being compromised. They did NOTHING for another month!

Yet the American people are supposed to believe this report from the IG’s office is unbiased? Is this more of the same dog and pony show and the American taxpayers are once again footing the bill?

What do you think?

Share this with a friend.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading

News

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house

Published

on

A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend