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

Connect with us

Gov’t Workers Transporting Plutonium From Texas Said It Was ‘Stolen’ From Car, Investigators Find Worse

Published

on

Two security experts went to Texas to hunt for dangerous nuclear materials that have gone missing. The experts are from the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory and when they arrived in San Antonio to look for the missing materials, they’ve so far come up empty. This is the dangerous nuclear material known as plutonium and it appears that it was supposed to be at a nonprofit research lab.

It appears that their job was to make sure that the radioactive materials made their way safely back to Idaho where it would be stored with other nuclear explosive materials and safeguarded by the government and protected. It looks like something went seriously wrong as the dangerous materials are now missing. This is bad because that little plastic-covered disk of plutonium can fuel a nuclear weapon or be used to make a “dirty” radioactive bomb. Not sure who would want to deal with that, but it sounds absolutely dangerous and simply handling it sounds scary enough to run away from it.

Regardless, it’s missing and it looks like someone stole it. Either it was stolen, or someone leaked the information about the location of the plutonium and it was then purposely stolen. However, judging by what the report suggests, the dangerous items could also be in the hands of an everyday criminal who was just breaking into cars to steal things. The report suggests that the people transporting the plutonium left it in the back of their rental car while they slept in a hotel. Not sure why the experts handling plutonium are forced to use a rental car to transport a highly dangerous material, but something doesn’t sound right.

Just to be clear, this stuff is super strong.

Trending: Mark Zuckerberg Just Stole $315,000 From A Triple-Amputee Vet

Their task was to ensure that the radioactive materials did not fall into the wrong hands on the way back to Idaho, where the government maintains a stockpile of nuclear explosive materials for the military and others.

To ensure they got the right items, the specialists from Idaho brought radiation detectors and small samples of dangerous materials to calibrate them: specifically, a plastic-covered disk of plutonium, a material that can be used to fuel nuclear weapons, and another of cesium, a highly radioactive isotope that could potentially be used in a so-called “dirty” radioactive bomb.

But when they stopped at a Marriott hotel just off Highway 410, in a high-crime neighborhood filled with temp agencies and ranch homes, they left those sensors on the back seat of their rented Ford Expedition. When they awoke the next morning, the window had been smashed and the special valises holding these sensors and nuclear materials had vanished.

More than a year later, state and federal officials don’t know where the plutonium — one of the most valuable and dangerous substances on earth — is. Nor has the cesium been recovered.

No public announcement of the March 21 incident has been made by either the San Antonio police or by the FBI, which the police consulted by telephone. When asked, officials declined to say exactly how much plutonium and cesium were missing. But Idaho lab spokeswoman Sarah Neumann said the plutonium in particular wasn’t enough to be fashioned into a nuclear bomb.

It is nonetheless now part of a much larger amount of plutonium that over the years has gone quietly missing from stockpiles owned by the U.S. military, often without any public notice.

Unlike civilian stocks, which are closely monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and openly regulated — with reports of thefts or disappearances sent to an international agency in Vienna — military stocks tended by the Department of Energy are much less transparent.

The Energy Department, which declined comment for this story, doesn’t talk about instances of lost and stolen nuclear material produced for the military. It has also been less willing than the commission to punish its contractors when they lose track of such material, several incidents suggest.

That approach doesn’t match the government’s rhetoric.

Protecting bomb-usable materials, like the plutonium that went missing in San Antonio, “is an overriding national priority,” President Obama’s press office said in a fact sheet distributed during the fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit that he hosted in late March 2016, a Washington event attended by more than 50 heads of state.

The administration boasted in the declaration that America’s security standards for military-grade materials “meet or exceed the recommendations for civilian nuclear materials” made by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. It also touted the strength of its tracking of such materials, which it said would “ensure timely detection and investigation of anomalies, and deter insider theft/diversion.”

The United States also boasted about its transparency, explaining that it “has published studies and reviews of nuclear security incidents, including lessons learned and corrective actions taken.”

President Donald Trump, speaking to a military audience at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, on Aug. 21, 2017, parroted the Obama administration’s refrain that “we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter.”

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, released in February, similarly emphasized the threat posed by nuclear terrorism, and asserted that “preventing the illicit acquisition of a nuclear weapon, nuclear materials, or related technology and expertise by a violent extremist organization is a significant U.S. national security priority.”

But America’s record of safeguarding such materials isn’t sterling. Gaps between the amount of plutonium that nuclear weapons companies have produced and the amount that the government can actually locate occur frequently enough for officials to have created an acronym for it — MUF, meaning “material unaccounted for.”

If you want my opinion, then this whole incident is “muffed” up.

Why would specialists leave it on the back seat of a rental car? Why would specialists be forced to drive a rental car in the first place? Where’s the plutonium and who stole it? Did someone really steal it or did someone sell it?

It’s time for the Internet detectives to do some work, so start researching and see if you can figure this out. It’s been missing since last year and no one seems to know anything.

If you come across some answers, then share it with your friends.

 

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.

WATCH: Alec Baldwin tells donors to ‘Overthrow’ Trump at Democrat Fundraiser

Published

on

...

* By

These Hollywood lunatics don’t seem to get it. The more they make threats towards our President..The more they fire up the American people. So please..keep it up. That giant red tsunami is coming in November.

Baldwin’s career is so in the gutter that the only job he can get is being unfunny on SNL.

Oh..and by the way..‘The Alec Baldwin Show’ Premiere Totally Bombs. Breitbart has more on that story.

From Fox News:

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Less than 24 hours after reprising his Emmy Award-winning parody of President Trump on “Saturday Night Live,” Alec Baldwin took aim at the president again.

“In an orderly and formal way, and lawful way, we need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump,” Baldwin said Sunday night at a major fundraising dinner for New Hampshire’s Democratic Party.

“I flew here this morning after doing ‘Saturday Night Live’ last night,” the actor, comedian and longtime liberal political activist told a crowd of some 800 party office-holders, candidates, officials and activists, drawing loud applause.

Baldwin said his role as Trump on “SNL” wasn’t supposed to last as long as it has.

“‘Just three shows,’ he said,” Baldwin recalled “SNL” producer Lorne Michaels saying as he tried to convince the actor to portray then-candidate Trump. “‘Till the election,’ he said. ‘Then he’ll be gone,’ he said. ‘Three shows. It will be fun,’ he said.”

But Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election resulted in an extension of Baldwin’s run on the late-night comedy show – including this weekend’s opening sketch about Trump’s recent meeting with rapper Kanye West.

Turning serious, Baldwin then rallied the crowd to vote in next month’s midterm elections, saying “this election and the one that follows in 2020 will be the most consequential elections since the election of FDR.”

He added: “It is time to overthrow the government of Donald Trump — not in a violent way or unlawful way — but it must be overthrown nonetheless.”

Baldwin ended his nearly 20-minute-long speech by putting his own spin on the president’s famous campaign slogan.

“Let’s make America great again by making Donald Trump a casino operator again,” he said.

“Let’s make America great again by making Donald Trump a casino operator again.” — Alec Baldwin

Some New Hampshire Republicans criticized the state’s Democrats for choosing Baldwin as their keynote speaker. They pointed to Baldwin’s past problematic behavior, including making abusive comments to and about women, and making homophobic remarks.

Taking questions from reporters after his speech, Baldwin didn’t directly answer.

“Most of the time people are trying to tar me with a brush about defending Woody Allen,” he said, referring to the filmmaker who has long faced allegations of sexual assault, which he has denied.

Baldwin also told reporters that he’s “always dreamed” of running for office himself, but explained it’s not in the cards for him at this time.

“My wife told me she’d divorce me if I ran for office,” he joked.

He also downplayed suggestions that his Democratic activism would limit the success of “The Alec Baldwin Show,” his new venture on ABC.

Baldwin has long been a backer of Democratic candidates and causes. He famously declared that he’d move to Canada if then-Texas Gov. George Bush won the 2000 presidential election. Though Bush did win, Baldwin didn’t move.

More recently, Baldwin campaigned last year for Democrat Ralph Northam in Virginia’s hotly contested gubernatorial election. And last November he headlined the Iowa Democrats’ major fall fundraising gala.

New Hampshire is the state that holds the first presidential primary every four years — and Sunday night’s dinner over the years has been a key stop for potential Democratic White House hopefuls.

Baldwin previously made headlines in June when he told radio host Howard Stern that if he made a 2020 presidential bid, he would beat Trump.

“If I ran, I would win,” Baldwin said. “I would absolutely win.”

Baldwin said Sunday that if he had decided to run, “I thought it would be such a pleasure to go around the country and try to remind people that, Let’s get back to a time of common sense.”

But Baldwin said he’s not very optimistic when he considers the potential field of Democrats vying for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020.

“I’m hoping that someone that isn’t necessarily on the horizon right now would materialize,” Baldwin said, “because I don’t think anybody that’s a frontrunner now of the top six, seven, eight names that I’ve seen, I don’t think any of them is going to have an easy time of it.”

He also took another shot at the president.

“Every day I wake up, I still am horrified,” he said. “I feel like I’m in some dream that Trump is president of the United States. I almost can’t even say it.”

Continue Reading

BREAKING: Federal Judge Dismisses Stormy Daniels’ Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump

Published

on

...

* By

This is breaking right now. A federal judge has dismissed Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against Trump, and said that Trump is entitled to legal fees from her.

Trump has emerged victorious!

The Washington Times is reporting:

“A judge has dismissed the defamation lawsuit brought against President Trump by a porn star who claims to have had an affair with him.

According to a Fox News report, the judge also ordered the porn actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford and who has been represented by attorney Michael Avenatti, to pay Mr. Trump’s legal fees — customarily, a rebuke of a lawsuit ever being brought.

“No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer Mr. Avenatti can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels,” said Trump attorney Charles Harder in a statement issued by the White House.”

Stormy’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti responded:

“Re Judge’s limited ruling: Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.

We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.”

The Hollywood Reporter also reported:

“A judge sees Trump’s tweet about a “con job” as “rhetorical hyperbole” and orders the porn queen to pay his attorneys fees.

First Amendment.

Stormy Daniels was the plaintiff in this one.

She not only sued Trump to invalidate a hush agreement over an alleged affair, but in the midst of the controversy, her attorney Michael Avenatti sheparded a claim over one of Trump’s tweets.

Last April, Avenatti released a sketch of a man who allegedly threatened Daniels into remaining silent back in 2011. Trump tweeted, “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”

In response, Trump moved to have the complaint stricken under Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, which provides special protection against frivolous litigation usurping one’s free speech activity. Charles Harder, his attorney, argued that the statement at issue represented protected opinion and that Daniels hadn’t sufficiently alleged damages nor stated facts to show Trump acted with actual malice.

U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero concludes that Daniels has failed to establish a prima facie case for defamation.

“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” states the opinion. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”

The judge continues by defining “rhetorical hyperbole” as “extravagant exaggeration employed for rhetorical effect” and characterizes Trump’s tweet as displaying “an incredulous tone, suggesting that the content of his tweet was not meant to be understood as a literal statement about Plaintiff. Instead, Mr. Trump sought to use language to challenge Plaintiff’s account of her affair and the threat that she purportedly received in 2011. As the United States Supreme Court has held, a published statement that is ‘pointed, exaggerated, and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage’ cannot constitute a defamatory statement.”

Otero adds that Trump made a “one-off rhetorical comment, not a sustained attack on the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims” and that this distinguishes this suit from other cases where courts have seen enough to deem defamation from a public statement. The judge adds that Daniels’ assumption that Trump knew of the 2011 threat doesn’t establish facts adding up that he did, in fact, know about the threat. The judge ends up agreeing with Trump that Daniels hasn’t shown actual malice nor adequately pled damages.

Daniels won’t get the opportunity to amend her complaint to cure deficiencies, and what’s more under Texas’ anti-SLAPP statute, she now has to pay Trump’s legal costs — perhaps a rubbing of salt in the wound to those who contributed to Daniels’ legal defense fund. However, she does have a right to pursue an appeal.

UPDATE: In a tweet following publication of this story, Avenatti attempted to frame the ruling as “limited” and said it wouldn’t affect her other claims looking to invalidate the contract. (There, Trump offered her a covenant not to sue and is arguing a court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain that controversy.) Avenatti added, “We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.””

A little history on the lawsuit:

A U.S. federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday appeared poised to throw out adult film actress Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump on free-speech grounds, Reuters reported.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, sued the president in April over a tweet in which he denied her claims of being subtly threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011.”

“Daniels said the man was threatening her for going public about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the affair took place, and cast doubt on her story of being threatened.

“A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Trump tweeted.

Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti said the tweet damaged her credibility by portraying her as a liar. Trump’s attorneys have asked a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss the suit.

“The question is whether the tweet by the president is protected communication or political hyperbole and non-defamatory on its face,” U.S. District Judge James Otero said during Monday’s hearing.

“He’s a public official, he’s president of the United States, so it doesn’t get much higher than that,” Otero said. “It’s free speech by a public official on a matter of public concern.”

He continued, “(Allowing) the complaint to go forward and to have one consider this to be defamatory in the context it was made would have a chilling effect,” Otero said during the hearing.

Avenatti told reporters he expects a ruling within days and plans to appeal if the suit is dismissed.

Otero scheduled a hearing Dec. 3 to discuss Trump’s efforts to dismiss another lawsuit by Daniels over a hush-money agreement related to their alleged affair.

Daniels sued Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who negotiated the deal, so she could speak publicly about the alleged affair without fear of reprisal. Cohen had threatened to sue her for $20 million.”

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend