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

Connect with us

News

Mueller Warned And Must Listen Or Release Of His Darkest Secret Will Blow Up In His Face

Here comes the Trump Train!

Published

on

Former Mayor of New York City and current lawyer to President Donald Trump himself, Rudy Giuliani, made an appearance on Fox News recently to elaborate on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recent attempts to justify his continued “witch hunt.”

Speaking with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Giuliani explained why President Trump’s legal team will not be jumping into Mueller’s perjury trap any time soon and explained the investigation should be “over by September.” He explained Mueller should “Stop the nonsense! You are trying to trap him because you don’t have a case!”

Then he dropped a bombshell, suggesting the “real story” is that the investigation isn’t just going to fizzle out – “it’s going to blow up on them.”

Giuliani stated  –  “The reality is, the real story here is not that this case is going to fizzle. It’s going to BLOW UP on them! The real question is what we talked about before. There’s a lot more to what they did that nobody knows about yet. A lot more to the obstruction of justice, to the collusion, to the fake dossier.”

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

To which Hannity replied – I know some of it.”

According to Giuliani, the only collusion that took place in the 2016 presidential election was within the US intelligence community and its use of the unverified and now discredited Kremlin-linked Steele Dossier to obtain “several fraudulent FISA wires” in complete violation of the fourth amendment among others.

“Can it get any worse? I mean, what do we need to know that this is a totally illegitimate investigation based on a report, a dossier that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats — probably the biggest illegality so far, the biggest collusion so far. Completely made up. Completely made up. Led to nothing except several fraudulent FISA wires,” said Giuliani.

Guilliani went on to describe Mueller’s team as a “different kind of Watergate,” which is corrupt “through and through.” Stating of the special counsel team, “I believe that when this plays out over the next year or two, it’s not going to be about President Trump … It’s going to be about all the things they did.”

Guilanni added – “To try to bring Steele back in when he was completely discredited… And Mueller is going to have a lot to answer for. I said a long time ago the investigation here has to be on the investigators. Cuz we can’t let this happen again in America.”

Despite the best efforts of the Mainstream Media, the Democratic Party, and the so-called “Resistance,” Americans continue to lose support for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and President Trump’s approval ratings continue to rise.

As Statista’s Sarah Feldman notes, Mueller’s inquiry has been going on for more than a year now and evidence has yet to emerge of any collusion other than in the imaginations of some of President Trump’s more ardent opposition.

Infographic: Public Support for Mueller Investigation Waning | Statista

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX 1st District) made note via the Director Blue blog that Mueller himself has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people. Gohmert makes note of Mueller’s history of targeting and unjustly imprisoning the innocent noting the infamous Whitey Bulger case.

He states in part –

“The Boston Globe noted Robert Mueller’s connection with the Whitey Bulger case in an article entitled, “One Lingering Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller.” The Globe said this: “[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two FBI agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset…

Mueller was the head of the Criminal Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney, then as Acting U.S. Attorney. I could not find any explanation online by Mueller as to why he insisted on keeping the defendants in prison that FBI agents—in the pocket of Whitey Bulger— had framed for a m****r they did not commit. Make no mistake: these were not honorable people he had incarcerated. But it was part of a pattern that eventually became quite clear that Mueller was more concerned with convicting and putting people in jail he disliked, even if they were innocent of the charges than he was with ferreting out the truth. I found no explanation as to why he did not bear any responsibility for the $100 million paid to the defendants who were framed by FBI agents under his control. The Boston Globe said, “Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.”

The New York Times explained the relationship this way: “In the 1980’s, while [FBI Agent] Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a ’top echelon informant.'”

Gohmert also notes of Mueller’s character assassinations on former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA-7th district), stating –

“Curt Weldon gave a series of speeches, recounting what he saw and what he knew, regarding the failures of the FBI and the Clinton administration to share information that could have prevented 9/11.

Congressman Weldon tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he felt had mishandled actionable intelligence which he said could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks. He recounted many examples of similar intelligence failures.

In 2006, the Robert Mueller-led FBI took horrendously unjust actions to derail Curt Weldon’s reelection bid just weeks before the vote—actions that were later described as a “hit job”: “Each of Weldon’s 10 previous re-elections had been by sizable margins. Polls showed he was up by 5-7 points [in the fall of 2006]. Three weeks prior to the election, however, a national story ran about Weldon based upon anonymous sources that an investigation was underway against him and his daughter, alleging illegal activities involving his congressional work. Weldon had received no prior notification of any such investigation and was dumbfounded that such a story would run especially since he regularly briefed the FBI and intelligence agencies on his work.

A week after the news story broke, alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, FBI agents from Washington raided the home of Weldon’s daughter at 7:00 AM on a Monday morning… Local TV and print media had all been alerted to the raid in advance and were already in position to cover the story.”

Sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?

 

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

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

News

First Trans Dem Nominee Has Jaw-Dropping Message For ‘Radicalized Christians’

I thought the LGBT crowd was supposed to be tolerant?

Published

on

One of the fresh new faces of the Democratic Party is also the first transgender nominee for governor in Vermont. Her name is Christine Hallquist and she’s got a message for Christians! Based on observations of Hallquist’s previous Tweets, it appears as though she is evidently disgusted by the Christian religion and has utilized Twitter as a means by which to attack those who follow the faith. Hallquist has several Tweets that call out “radicalized Christians” and she even uses the Islamic Sharia Law in comparison.

The website, Daily Caller, had located several of the Tweets in question, each resorting to inflammatory or intolerant attacks on the Christian beliefs.

The first tweet stated “And we worry about sharia law!! Radicalized Christians are a part of the American landscape, and we tolerate it.” This was in reference to a young girl being too good at soccer and having short hair, so the league thought she was a boy. They made a huge mistake, but Hallquist used this as an example to compare Sharia Law and radicalized Christianity. The young girl may have been targeted because maybe there was a jealous parent on another team, but it’s not directly certain that the decisions regarding the soccer league had anything to do with religion. Many may perceive Sharia Law to be much worse than removing someone or a team from a soccer league.

Hallquist’s next Tweet stated “Some of these Christian evangelist’s are just downright crazy” and she posted a link to the Babylon Bee, which is a well-known satire site. This site posts articles that are clearly fake and made as a joke for entertainment purposes only. Hallquist might have thought the website was real and used it as her method of attacking Christians again.

Another Tweet involved a message from PinkNews who talked about anti-LGBT trolls “sending horrific abuse to a 9-year-old girl” and right away Hallquist targeted Christians once again. She stated “Of course! Probably most of them call themselves Christians.”

Another attack on Christians involved a Tweet by LGBTQ Nation. They posted about a mother who killed her son because he was gay. Christine Hallquist attacked Christians and said “I’ll bet she called herself a “Christian.”

Another Tweet found Hallquist targeting Christians once again. This one referred to another Tweet by LGBTQ Nation who reported about a transgender woman be denied food at a soup kitchen. Hallquist then stated, “I am guessing that this so-called Christian hypocrites would’ve not allowed Mary, the mother of Jesus, because she wore a Hijab” and many of the replies to Hallquist were quite indifferent.

The Daily Caller stated this about Hallquist: “Christine Hallquist, the country’s first major party transgender candidate as the newly minted Democratic nominee for the governorship of Vermont, once tweeted an insinuation that “radicalized Christians” are a problem that Americans currently “tolerate.”

“And we worry about sharia law!!” Hallquist tweeted in June 2017 along with a link to an article from “LGBTQ Nation” about a girl disqualified from a soccer team because she looked like a boy. “Radicalized Christians are a part of the American landscape, and we tolerate it.”

Hallquist’s tweets about Christians didn’t stop there. In January 2018, the Vermont candidate for governor tweeted a link to a Christian satire site jokingly claiming that a Christian evangelist said President Trump “was merely sharing the gospel” with Stormy Daniels along with the caption (and an obvious punctuation error) “Some of these Christian evangelist’s are just downright crazy.”

Several other tweets seemed to show a disdain for conservative Christians, including an assertion that people who allow children to be harassed for being gay probably “call themselves Christians.”

Hallquist won Tuesday’s Democratic primary for the Vermont governor’s race and is set to challenge incumbent GOP Gov. Phil Scott in November.”

It’s very clear to see that Hallquist is using Twitter to display her intolerance for the Christian beliefs. She has taken numerous news articles and referenced them in alignment with Christianity, thus using various news sources as a way to scrutinize the Christian faith.

She is displaying an act of intolerance towards the religion and it appears as though she is encompassing all believers of Christianity in her messages that speak out against the religion.

What would you say to someone who challenges your religion?

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