“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Monday, December 11, 2017

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Bulgaria discovers it has enough bitcoins to pay off fifth of its debt

Bulgaria discovers it has enough bitcoins to pay off fifth of its debt
Dozens of people were arrested in May following an investigation by the Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (SELC) into an alleged customs fraud, according to the article.

Police confiscated 213,519 bitcoins, at the time worth $500 million. The seized amount is now approximately worth a staggering $3.6 billion due to the digital currency’s bull run.

The operation involved a large-scale search of “more than 100 addresses, suspects, and vehicles,” according to SELC. Out of the 23 suspects arrested, five were Bulgarian customs officers. Police seized “equipment, devices for communication, computers, tablets, and bank documents.”
“The organized criminal group consisted of Bulgarian nationals with connections in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Romania, and Serbia,” said SELC.

According to police, the group recruited “corrupted customs officers in all involved countries with the purpose to infiltrate a virus in the customs’ computerized systems.”

“Once the virus was installed, the offenders were able to change shipments, so in the customs’ system it appeared the cargo was already checked and passed.”
SELC has suggested, “the offenders choose bitcoin as a way of investing/saving the money, because it is rather difficult to be tracked and followed.”

The world’s most valuable cryptocurrency bitcoin hit its all-time high of $18,000 last week. Its rise in value this year has been dramatic as the token was worth less than $1,000 on January 1. The combined value of all the bitcoins in circulation has already exceeded the annual output of entire economies such as Portugal and Qatar.

On Monday, bitcoin was trading at $16,669, according to CoinMarketCap.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Believe that at your peril!

The FBI Is No Friend of Liberty and Justice

The FBI's handling of the Michael Flynn case is disturbing.

One of the unfortunate ironies of the manufactured "Russiagate" controversy is the perception of the FBI as a friend of liberty and justice. But the FBI has never been a friend of liberty and justice.

Rather, as James Bovard writes, it "has a long record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that 'the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.' This has practically been the Bureau's motif since its creation in 1908…. The FBI has always used its 'good guy' image to keep a lid on its crimes." (Bovard has made a vocation of cataloging the FBI's many offenses against liberty and justice, for which we are forever in his debt.)

Things are certainly not different today. Take the case of Michael Flynn, the retired lieutenant general who spent less than a month as Donald Trump's national-security adviser. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in connection with conversations he had with Russia's then-ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, between Trump's election and inauguration. One need not be an admirer of Flynn—and for many reasons I certainly am not—to be disturbed by how the FBI has handled this case.

One ought to be immediately suspicious whenever someone is charged with or pleads guilty to lying to the FBI without any underlying crime being charged. Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy points out:
When a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. 
That is not happening in Flynn's situation. Instead, like [former Trump foreign-policy "adviser" George] Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.
When the FBI questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, it already had the transcripts of those conversations—the government eavesdrops on the representatives of foreign governments, among others, and Flynn had been identified, or "unmasked," as the ambassador's conversation partner. The FBI could have simply told Flynn the transcripts contained evidence of a crime (assuming for the sake of argument they did) and charged him with violating the Logan Act or whatever else the FBI had in mind.

But that's not what happened. Instead, the FBI asked Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, apparently to test him. If he lied (which would mean he's pretty stupid since he once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and must have known about the transcripts!) or had a bad memory, he could have been charged with lying to the FBI.

As investigative reporter Robert Parry explains:
What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Adviser Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn's recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency.
In other words, the Justice Department wasn't seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak–the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.
For Americans who worry about how the pervasive surveillance powers of the U.S. government could be put to use criminalizing otherwise constitutionally protected speech and political associations, Flynn's prosecution represents a troubling precedent.
Why didn't the FBI charge Flynn with an underlying crime? It might be because his conversations with Kislyak were not criminal. McCarthy writes:
A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians—initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a "collusion" case arising out of Russia's election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime—he'd be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.
David Stockman shows that the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller themselves indicate the Flynn-Kislyak conversations contained no evidence of criminal behavior.

Flynn spoke to Kislyak to ask that Russia not escalate tensions after President Obama imposed sanctions last December for the alleged election meddling and to ask that Russia not vote to condemn Israel, via a UN Security Council resolution, for its illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. In other words, not only were Flynn's discussions with Kislyak unexceptional—presidential transition-team foreign-policy officials have spoken with representatives of other governments in the past—but the content of those discussions should have raised no suspicions. Would non-escalation of the sanctions controversy or a UN veto have undermined Obama's foreign policy? I don't see how. (True, the Obama administration abstained on the resolution, but would Obama have objected had Russia vetoed it? By the way, Russia voted for it, and the resolution passed, as it should have.)

The Flynn plea certainly does nothing to indicate "collusion" with the Russians. For one thing, the conversations were after the election. And perhaps more important, Kislyak was not looking for favors from Flynn; on the contrary, Flynn was lobbying the Russians (successfully on the sanctions—Vladimir Putin did not retaliate—and unsuccessfully on the UN resolution.) Where's the evidence of Russian influence on the Trump team? There was foreign influence, but it was from Israel, a regular meddler in the American political process. All indications are that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump son-in-law and special envoy to everywhere Jared Kushner to lobby the world to defeat the UN resolution. Kushner, who has helped finance illegal Israeli settlements, then directed Flynn to call every Security Council member, not just Russia.
What about the Logan Act? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law … was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations."

Note also that only two indictments have been brought in 218 years: in 1803 and 1852. Both cases were dropped. Far more serious contacts with foreign governments have occurred.

In 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon (with help from Henry Kissinger who was working in the Johnson administration) had a representative persuade the president of South Vietnam to boycott the peace talks President Lyndon Johnson had been arranging with North Vietnam. That decision most likely prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in combat deaths that would not have occurred. Unlike the Flynn case, Nixon's action undercut the sitting president's policy and, more important, the interests of the American people.
I hold no brief for Flynn, whose conduct while working for Gen. Stanley McChrystalin Afghanistan, his dubious efforts on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case.
Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they have evidence of real offenses against persons and property, bring charges. Otherwise, leave us all alone.
This piece was originally published by The Libertarian Institute.

Saturday, December 09, 2017

UN and the globalist elites are pushing for a one world government with open borders and under UN rule _ Trump Says NO!

The UN Propaganda Film:




The Reality of Mass Migration:

Trump Touts Rejection of U.N. Plan to Force Mass Third World Immigration





Mass Migration
Scott Eisen/Getty Images

At his speech in Pensacola, Florida Friday, President Donald Trump celebrated his decision to take America out of negotiations for the so-called “Global Compact on Migration.”

“I recently withdrew the United States from the United Nations plan for global governance of immigration and refugee policy,” Trump told the raucous crowd, calling the Global Compact a “no borders plan.”

“I heard about this recently … no borders, everyone can come in! If you don’t mind, I rejected that plan, is that OK?” Trump continued.

The plan Trump referenced was the United Nations’ (U.N.) “Global Compact on Migration,” to which the Obama administration pledged the United States participation last year. Talks began this week in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, on the massive United Nations (U.N.) plan to create “safe, regular and orderly migration,” from the third whole to wealthy countries in Europe and North America. On the eve of those talks, however, Trump reversed Obama’s decision and pulled U.S. negotiators.

“I told them, not only do we not want ‘no borders,’ we want the strongest borders you’ve ever seen,” Trump boasted. “America is a sovereign country. We set our immigration rules. We don’t listen to foreign bureaucrats.”


A Boat Load of Bright Young Students and Engineers:



The details of the of the Global Compact are yet to be hammered out, but the outline to which the Obama administration signed on, called the “New York Declaration for Refugee and Migrants,” presents a nightmare scenario for immigration restrictionists and border security advocates.

The declaration stipulates that participating countries should drop laws criminalizing illegal entry and stop detaining illegal immigrants that are caught. Paragraph 33 “reaffirms:”
[T]hat all individuals who have crossed or are seeking to cross international borders are entitled to due process in the assessment of their legal status, entry and stay, we will consider reviewing policies that criminalize crossborder movements. We will also pursue alternatives to detention while these assessments are under way.
And later, the declaration calls for the end of all deportations, “encouraging” that “migrants who do not have permission to stay in the country of destination” leave “preferably on a voluntary basis.”

Perhaps most disturbingly to a country with as robust a tradition of free speech as the United States, the New York Declaration casts resistance to mass migration as racism, xenophobia, and illegal under international law. Paragraph 13 reads:
We recall that our obligations under international law prohibit discrimination of any kind on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Yet in many parts of the world we are witnessing, with great concern, increasingly xenophobic and racist responses to refugees and migrants.
Paragraph 14 then calls for so called “hate speech” laws to be mandatory:
Demonizing refugees or migrants offends profoundly against the values of dignity and equality for every human being … We will take a range of steps to counter such attitudes and behavior, in particular with regard to hate crimes, hate speech and racial violence.
In contrast, Trump offered an unapologetic populist-nationalist vision of national sovereignty and local governance. “America is more than a place on a map, it’s a nation, it’s a family,” he told the crowd. “Our agenda is pro-family, pro-police, pro-workers and 100% pro-American.”

Thursday, December 07, 2017

FBI Director Wray Gets Severe Dry Mouth As He Gets Emulcified by Rep. Jordan Over The Democrats Dodgy Dossier


Bruce Ohr, who met with dossier author Christopher Steele, to be hauled before Congress


The House Intelligence Committee plans to compel testimony from a career Justice Department attorney who met during the election campaign with the writer of the infamous unverified Trump-Russia dossier.

The committee has learned that Bruce Ohr, an associate attorney general, not only spoke with dossier writer Christopher Steele but also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, whose Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele with Democratic Party money.

“Pursuant to the House Intelligence Committee’s prior subpoenas and information requests, the Department of Justice should have provided the committee with information on contacts that DOJ official Bruce Ohr had with Fusion GPS representatives and Christopher Steele.,” said committee chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican. “The Committee will issue a subpoena to Bruce Ohr for information on this matter.”

The committee is investigating Fusion’s financial arrangements, including the reasons for paying three journalists. It was Mr. Nunes’ first subpoena for Fusion bank records that forced Democrats to admit that the party and Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the dossier beginning in June 2016.

The dossier has taken on immense importance. The FBI relied on it in July 2016 to begin an investigation into the Trump campaign and any collusion with Russia over the hacking of Democratic Party computers. It relied on the dossier to obtain at least one eavesdropping warrant on a Trump associate.

The dossier contains salacious material and allegations of collusion against President Trump and his people, with Russia. None of those charges has been confirmed publicly.

Republicans have labeled the dossier a piece of fiction and demanded the FBI disclosed publicly how it was used to investigate Mr. Trump.

The top FBI agent over seeing the probe was Peter Strzok. He was removed last summer by Special Counsel Robert Mueller after investigators discovered he was sending anti-Trump pro-Hillary Clinton text messages to his lover
Republicans believe Mr. Strzok must have played a big role in getting the FBI to embrace the dossier.

Fox News first reported the Ohr subpoena. Fox said Mr. Ohr wore two hats at Justice. He led a drug enforcement task force and was a close aide to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He has relinquished the latter role, Fox said.
The Ohr investigation adds to suspicions among Republicans that a “deep state” of anti-Trump current and former federal officials have worked to sabotage Mr. Trumpas candidate, president elect and president.



Monday, December 04, 2017

Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible

Mueller’s Credibility Problem


The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.


Robert Mueller
Robert Mueller Photo: thew/epa-efe/rex/shutterstock/EPA/Shutterstock
By
Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview. 

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr.

 McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent. 

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

***

Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive. 

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.
Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Liars on the Potomac



New documents reveal FBI's Clinton cover-up

Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting triggered FBI hunt for leaker

American Center for Law and Justice says documents show FBI was more focused on keeping the meeting quiet than the meeting itself.

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.
And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
Richard Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.
What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. 
What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch's lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.
Because of the revelation in our other lawsuit, the FBI – without our knowledge—"reopened" our FOIA request. The agency supposedly found about 30 pages of information, which it needed six weeks to review. The FBI finally gave them to us late Thursday.

Now we know why the FBI played shell games. The documents show that FBI officials were concerned solely about the leaking of details of the tarmac meeting. None of the documents show top agency officials cared one whit about the propriety of the meeting itself, but only about who blew the whistle on the covert tête-à-tête.
In one email, an FBI official writes “we need to find that guy.” And in another we learn that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” An FBI official working on Lynch’s security detail even goes so far as to suggest non-disclosure agreements to keep the full facts from coming forth.
No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until we caught it red-handed, hiding and lying about them.

Simply put, the FBI appears to be fully complicit in a cover-up that attempted to influence a presidential election for a favored candidate – Hillary Clinton. And the truth was trampled on a Phoenix tarmac.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch Inc. is a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Trump Should Have Followed Through on His Campaign Promise to Prosecute Clinton Immediately - Why He picked Jeff Sessions Is Beyond Me

Trump: 'So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed' but 'nothing happens' to Hillary Clinton

President Trump reignited the “Crooked Hillary” attacks in a series of tweets calling attention to what he views as a double standard between how Hillary Clinton's email scandal was handled versus the controversy surrounding former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty in federal court Friday to lying to the FBI.

So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now famous FBI holiday “interrogation” with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times...and nothing happens to her? Rigged system, or just a double standard?

A few minutes later the president followed up by taking a swipe at the Justice Department.

Many people in our Country are asking what the “Justice” Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and “acid washed” 33,000 Emails? No justice!

During the 2016 election, Clinton was under FBI investigation for the usage of an unauthorized personal email server while serving as secretary of state during the Obama administration. She was reportedly interrogated by the FBI over a holiday weekend in 2016, which appears to be what Trump was referring to.

Ultimately the investigation found that there was no criminal wrongdoing in her actions, with former FBI Director James Comey saying last summer calling her conduct "extremely careless."

Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February after it was revealed he misled Trump officials about his communications with the Russian ambassador.
Throughout the year, Flynn has been a leading subject of scrutiny in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. He pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contact with Russian officials in January and has stated he will cooperate with Mueller.

Lying to the FBI could get Flynn up to five years of prison time, but court documents suggest that the sentence could be lighter.