COMPROMISED: Sex-abuser Congressmen are open to massive blackmail

COMPROMISED: Sex-abuser Congressmen are open to massive blackmail

by Jon Rappoport

November 23, 2017

Most people are naïve about how intelligence operations are run. Holding damaging secrets on public figures equals the opportunity for blackmail. This strategy was probably discovered by cave men.

—Sex-abuse claims filed against members of Congress—beyond Al Franken and John Conyers—

Where are all the names of these Congressmen? We’re now told that, in the past 10 years, $17 million has been paid out to accusers in small sums. An unknown part of that money was compensation for explicitly sexual offenses.

There are more cases where the accusers simply gave up and refused to pursue claims. They’re potentially waiting in the wings.

Not only are the Congressmen guilty, they’re open to blackmail. As they vote on bills; as they decide which lobbyists to favor; as they decide what advice to follow from intelligence agencies; as they decide whether to take meetings with agents from other countries; they’re always looking over their shoulders, wondering: HOW MUCH DO THESE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT ME? WHAT SHOULD I DO TO STAY SAFE?

And in some hotel room, late at night, when a person slips them a folder with details of their sexual misdemeanors or felonies, what are they going to do? How are they going to resist whatever is being asked for?

COMPROMISED.

This is the political elephant in the room the mainstream press isn’t talking about.

What about the NSA and the CIA and other spying agencies in the US (and other countries)? How much devastating information about sexual abuse have they gathered on these Congressmen?

How much covert control have the agencies chosen to exercise?

WE OWN YOU.

The levels of complexity can be dizzying. Suppose a guilty Congressman learns actual secrets about another politician? His impulse is to blow the whistle. But can he? What will he bring down on his own head?

Suppose he knows vital secrets about Monsanto, Dow, Exxon, Eli Lilly?

I’LL KEEP YOUR SECRETS IF YOU KEEP MINE.

A BROTHERHOOD OF SECRET-KEEPERS.

An awareness, over the years, spreads through Congress: “Many of us are guilty and we need to protect each other.”

Because it isn’t just the sexual secrets anymore. It’s the subsequent immoral actions taken and not taken, based on being compromised. Based on being controlled.

“Appreciate your committee vote to kill the bill yesterday, Senator. I assure you that thing in Miami last summer…”

“When does our deal end? When are we even? This is worse than prison.”

“It’s not worse. And it never ends. But don’t worry, be happy. Keep playing the game. It’s no skin off your nose.”

“What about honor?”

“Please. You gave that away a long time ago. In Miami. But we also know about the hotel rooms in New York, Washington, Chicago, LA…”

The Congressman can’t believe the bind he’s in. He’s having the above conversation with a man from the CIA. He and the CIA are supposed to be on the same team. And they are, if he’ll understand who is higher in the pecking order, who gives the commands.

One day, he’ll wake up and realize that, among the four women he abused, three were innocent, but one was sent in by the Agency with the task of seducing him. If necessary, at a later date, she could use their night together as blackmail. (For a rough variation on this theme, see numerous accounts of NY Governor Eliot Spitzer’s 2008 hooker scandal, which caused his resignation from office. Spitzer was attacking Wall Street and Big Pharma.)

Then we come to the issue of reporters, who themselves could be compromised, because they’re secretly guilty of sexual abuse.

For example, long-time political reporter, Glenn Thrush (Politico, NY Times, MSNBC), has just been accused of kissing and groping four women. The Times has suspended him from his position covering the White House.

If Thrush, at any time, has been aware of politicians’ misdeeds, did he cover them and expose them fully—or was he “under the gun” to play ball because of his own secrets?

One could reasonably ask this question about Thrush’s relations with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign.

Case in point. WikiLeaks (October 2016) released an email from Thrush to John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager. Thrush was writing an article that referred to Podesta. He emailed Podesta part of the draft, asking him to “fact-check” it. Astonishingly, Thrush remarked in the email:

“No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I fucked up anything.”

Podesta replied: “no problems here.”

Politico’s vice president of communications, Brad Dayspring, made an impassioned and transparently moronic defense of his reporter:

“Glenn is one of the top political reporters in the country [!], in no small part because he understands that it is his job to get inside information, not appear perfect when someone illegally hacks email [!]…I can speak with firsthand knowledge and experience that Glenn checks the validity of often complex reporting with everybody, on both sides of the aisle.”

So who is Brad Dayspring, the ardent defender of his “top political reporter?”

Years earlier, on October 25, 2011, while Dayspring was working as Communications Director for House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, ADWEEK reported (link here):

“Turns out Dayspring’s personal Twitter feed, @BDayspring… follows 1,007 accounts, one of which is SexyTwitPics… Description: ‘We RT [retweet] only the HOTTEST Pics DIRECTLY from Sexy Ladies’ Twitter Accts! (No random girls, xxx, guys) Ladies Mention us w your pics! 18+’”

Maybe it’s a stretch, but I’d say the level of intelligence Dayspring exhibited in defending Glenn Thrush is matched by his interest in SexyTwitPics.

One of the elephants in the room is, of course, Bill Clinton. For several decades, people having been writing about his sexual predations. It’s assumed that he and his allies (including his wife) have been able to avoid final excommunication from politics because of their power—but it would be foolish to assume he has been free from blackmail.

We wouldn’t be talking about some reporter with a damning file on Bill Clinton. We would be talking about an agency like the CIA and their file. No one who is a serial abuser simply shrugs off the CIA and blithely walks away.

In other words, the Clintons may have nine lives precisely BECAUSE they made a deal with the devil…


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Here’s what real US-Russian collusion looks like

Here’s what real US-Russian collusion looks like

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2017

The late great author and researcher, Antony Sutton (1925-2002), labored for many years to unearth US-Russian collusion at the highest levels. That’s why Sutton was censored by mainstream news and academic institutions.

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986), and his three-volume classic, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, published between 1968 and 1973, exposed the deep historic relationship between US and Russian power players.

The recent Clinton Uranium One scandal, which gave Putin control over 20% of American uranium, should be viewed in the context of a much larger history.

Sutton meticulously documented the transfer of key technologies from the West to the USSR.

Why would the Rockefellers, Armand Hammer, and others take the lead in such a covert transfer program, over the course of decades? Because: money and profits, on one level.

On another level, bolstering the Russian Communist/Socialist State was part of the elite Rockefeller plan to expand socialism, in many forms, across countries all over the world.

Under the phony guise of helping the downtrodden establish a new and better world for all, the socialist goal was, as usual, top-down control. The theoretical foundation (Marx) was modern; the tyranny was as old as the hills.

Further, supplying Russia with vital technology it sorely lacked would eventually produce the Cold War. That mighty stand-off was a gigantic money maker. It was also created as a threat to Europe, which justified the rise of the European Union—another major Rockefeller/CFR/Bilderberg plan to extend the covert agenda of Socialist Globalism. The EU IS a regional face of Globalism.

With this brief introduction in tow, here are key Antony Sutton quotes from his 1986 book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. The quotes were compiled by Rolf Kenneth Aristos, at http://www.rolfkenneth.no/NWO_review_Sutton_Soviet.html:

“In Korea we have direct killing of Americans with Soviet weapons. The American casualty roll in the Korean War was 33,730 killed and 103,284 wounded…The 130,000-man North Korean Army, which crossed the South Korean border in June 1950, was trained, supported, and equipped by the Soviet Union, and included a brigade of Soviet T-34 medium tanks (with U.S. Christie suspensions). The artillery tractors were direct metric copies of Caterpillar tractors. The trucks came from the Henry Ford-Gorki plant or the ZIL plant. The North Korean Air Force has 180 Yak planes built in plants with U.S. Lend-Lease equipment. These Yaks were later replaced by MiG-15s powered by Russian copies of Rolls-Royce jet engines sold to the Soviet Union in 1947.”

“By using data of Russian origin it is possible to make an accurate analysis of the origins of this equipment. It was found that all the main diesel and steam-turbine propulsion systems of the ninety-six Soviet ships on the Haiphong supply run that could be identified (i.e., eighty-four out of the ninety-six) originated in design or construction outside the USSR [e.g., the US]. We can conclude, therefore, that if the [US] State and Commerce Departments, in the 1950s and 1960s, had consistently enforced the legislation passed by Congress in 1949, the Soviets would not have had the ability to supply the Vietnamese War – and 50,000 more Americans and countless Vietnamese would be alive today.”

“Who were the government officials responsible for this transfer of known military technology? The concept originally came from National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who reportedly sold President Nixon on the idea that giving military techno¬logy to the Soviets would temper their global territorial ambitions. How Henry arrived at this gigantic non sequitur is not known. Sufficient to state that he aroused considerable concern over his motivations. Not least that Henry had been a paid family employee of the Rockefellers since 1958 and has served as International Advisory Committee Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller concern.”

“Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum is, of course, Moscow’s favored deaf mute capitalist, possibly vying with David Rockefeller for the honor. However, Armand has a personal relationship with the Soviets that could never be achieved by anyone with David’s Ivy League background. One fact never reported in U.S. newspaper biographies of Armand Hammer is that his father, Julius Hammer, was founder and early financier of the Communist Party USA in 1919. Elsewhere this author has reprinted documents backing this statement, and translations of letters from Lenin to Armand Hammer with the salutation ‘Dear Comrade’.”

“That Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum would supply the Soviets with massive plants that can quickly be converted to explosives manufacture is no surprise. What is a surprise is that Armand Hammer has had free access to every President from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan — and equal access to the leaders in the Kremlin.”

“A tractor plant is well suited to tank and self-propelled gun production. The tractor plants at Stalingrad, Kharkov, and Chelyabinsk, erected with almost complete American assistance and equipment, and the Kirov plant in Leningrad, reconstructed by Ford, were used from the start to produce Soviet tanks, armored cars, and self-propelled guns. The enthusiasm with which this tank and armored-vehicle program was pursued, and the diversion of the best Russian engineers and material priorities to military purposes, have been responsible for at least part of the current Soviet problem of lagging tractor production and periodic famines…Since 1931, up to a half of the productive capacity of these ‘tractor’ plants has been used for tank and armored-car production.”

“Soviet tractor plants were established in the early I930s with major U.S. technical and equipment assistance. The Stalingrad tractor plant was completely built in the United States, shipped to Stalingrad, and then installed in prefabricated steel buildings also purchased in the United States. This unit, together with the Kharkov and Chelyabinsk plants and the rebuilt Kirov plant in Leningrad, comprised the Soviet tractor industry at that time, and a considerable part of the Soviet tank industry as well. During the war, equipment from Kharkov was evacuated and installed behind the Urals to form the Altai tractor plant, which opened in 1943.”

These quotes are but a brief sample of Sutton’s research on technology transfers to Russia from the US.

They open up a giant can of worms.

Understanding this history is understanding the elites’ political and economic system (absurdly) called Socialism.

It has never has been “bottom-up.” It has always been “top-down.”

The legions of young dedicated Marxists running around in the streets, under a variety of banners, railing against monopoly crony capitalists, have actually been forwarding these monopolists’ primary goals.

You might want to read that last sentence again.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort

Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort

by Jon Rappoport

October 30, 2017

Here we go. Special counsel Mueller and his team have filed the first federal charges against Trump-campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

CNN is running the headline: MANAFORT, GATES CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE US.

Other press outlets are following suit, emphasizing the “conspiracy against the US.”

CNN writes: “The indictment against the Manafort and Gates contains 12 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.”

—But here is the real takeaway, and of course MSM outlets are ignoring it: the conspiracy charge is a piece of federal boilerplate. Alongside the basket of other charges mentioned above, conspiracy is a general category that is tacked on. It isn’t a specific singular charge. It definitely isn’t “these two men conspired with Russia to hand Trump the election.”

In fact, CNN adds: “The charges do not cover any activities related to the campaign, though it’s possible Mueller could add additional charges.”

But when MSM outlets blare “conspiracy against the United States,” most readers and viewers will assume this does mean a charge of working with Russia to make Trump president.

It’s a nice little devious trick.

Of course, the Mueller indictments are also being used to blot out the Clinton Uranium One scandal and the Trump dirty dossier scandal, both of which involve the Clintons, and Mueller as well, since he was the head of the FBI when the Bureau discovered all sorts of corruption and bribery involving Russia’s nuclear industry, during Uranium One negotiations, and either failed to disclose the findings, or failed to use them to make an impact on Obama.

Today, it’s all about “conspiracy against the United States,” and the mainstream news audience who thinks and comprehends and talks in terms of vague generalities—like thirsty travelers in the desert spotting the mirage of an oasis.

“OH, CONSPIRACY AGAINST AMERICA, WELL THAT’S IT THEN, THEY NAILED THEM.”

That and $2.75 will get you a ride on the New York Subway.

In case you haven’t read my piece on the Clintons and the Uranium One scandal—which most definitely DOES connect Bill and Hillary to corrupt dealings with the Russians, and which hasn’t been “debunked,” as MSM outlets keep insisting, here it is:

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:

FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. [It was lifted a few days ago.] Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The dirty Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

The dirty Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

A British spy’s fantastical story

by Jon Rappoport

October 27, 2017

“Excuse me, can you help me? I’m a spy.” (Doctor Who)

First, a bit of background.

The dirty Trump dossier made several claims:

One: Russia had strong blackmail material on Trump and could thus control him;

Two: Most damning in that material, Trump used prostitutes while he was in Russia, and paid several of them to urinate on a hotel bed Obama had once slept in;

Three: Russia hacked DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails and passed them on WikiLeaks, who published them. The emails were damaging to Hillary and helped Trump win the election;

Four: Russia wanted Trump to win the election.

Major media are now covering the Trump dossier from a new angle—who paid a British ex-spy to assemble it?

And the answer everyone already knew—Hillary Clinton’s camp and the Democratic National Committee—is out in the open.

Follow the bouncing ball. It goes this way:

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Hillary team and the DNC funneled some $9 million to a Hillary lawyer, Marc Elias, and his law firm, Perkins-Cole.

That money then went to a research firm, GPS Fusion, who passed some part of it on to a British ex-spy, Christopher Steele. Steele had once worked in Russia and allegedly had many connections there.

Steele put together the Trump dossier after consulting with a number of Russians and spreading some money around. He gave the dossier to his employer, GPS Fusion. The dossier found its way to many media outlets, who sat on it for a while and eventually decided to run with it and slam Trump without let-up.

Steele also took the dossier to the FBI (and other intelligence agencies in the US and England). The FBI offered to pay Steele to keep digging up dirt on Trump!—but when the dossier went public and the media trumpeted its claims, the FBI withdrew its offer.

Given that background, let’s go deeper.

The fact that Hillary’s team paid to get damaging info on Trump is no surprise. It’s called opposition research, and many candidates engage in it.

But paying Steele to put together the dossier and hiding the payments —that’s illegal. It’s also a ruse to parlay the un-vetted dossier into a pretext for: Democrat eavesdropping on Trump and his associates, as well as Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump.

The contents of the dossier are open to question. Is Steele’s research accurate?

And here is what no one is examining in any depth. Steele claims, in the dossier, that he was talking with a number of well-placed Russian officials. That’s where he obtained his information.

What? Why would these Russians speak with him? Why would these Russians expose a purported plot, built by their own colleagues, under Putin’s orders, to hand the election to Trump?

If such a plot existed, it would be a tightly controlled secret.

Yet, here are Russian intelligence people spilling the beans to Steele, a former British spy.

And by spilling the beans, they’re risking their own lives, because there is a good chance their Russian colleagues and superiors will be able to track them down and identify them, since they’ve had connections to Steele in the past.

Steele appears to have pulled off an intelligence op for the ages. He goes to Russia, sits down with a number of Russian intel people, asks them questions, and they tell him all about a top-secret plot to sway a US election. No problem.

Keep this in mind as well. While Steele worked for MI-6, the British spy agency, he was stationed in Moscow (1990-92) using a diplomatic cover. In order to put together the numerous Russian sources he was able to tap years later while assembling the Trump dossier, Steele must have blown his cover to pieces as he cultivated those Russian intel sources back in the 1990s. Odd, to say the least.

Let’s imagine a similar scenario playing out in the US. During a campaign to elect a president of Russia, a Russian ex-spy who once worked at the Russian Embassy in Washington, under diplomatic cover, comes to the US and sits down with a few of his old pals from the CIA.

Risking their reputations, careers, and lives, these CIA people tell him that, under orders from the president of the US, they’ve been putting together files on one of the Russian presidential candidates. They tell him they favor this candidate. They tell him they have important blackmail info on this candidate and can control him if he wins the Russian election. THEY HAND HIM THE MOST IMPORTANT INFO IN THE FILES.

Poof. No problem. The Russian ex-spy returns to Russia with the info.

Really? How likely is that?

If we bend and twist credulity, and assume Christopher Steele did extract highly secret info about a Russian plot to hand the election to Trump and then control Trump as a Russian asset—if we assume all that to be true, well, we have just uncovered a MAJOR FRACTURE in the Russian intelligence establishment.

We have uncovered a volatile rebellion in the Russian ranks, a rebellion against Putin himself. This rebellion is so relentless, the Russian instigators are willing to risk life and limb to forward it.

Their hostility toward Putin is so great, they’ve picked this operation—Russia influencing the US election on behalf of Trump—to torpedo the president of Russia.

If you were Putin, what could you do? The answer is obvious, and what you could do would be quite effective:

“All right, men, I’ve brought you here because I trust you, and I’d better be right in that trust. I want you to collect every shred of information that exists on this British spy, Steele, going all the way back to when he was first stationed in Moscow. I want to know everyone he knew, everyone he had coffee and drinks and lunches and dinner with—every single Russian. I want you to unearth every detail, and find out who he tapped a year ago, when he put together this Trump dossier. Give me names. Don’t fail.”

Of course, these Russians who supposedly handed over key information to Steele already knew, at the time, that this would happen. They would be hounded and most likely exposed. But…they didn’t care. They were willing to go to the wall.

OR…Steele never accumulated all the information in the Trump dossier. He made unwarranted leaps of inference. He inflated information. He invented key facts. He wanted to satisfy his employers, GPS Fusion, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC. They wanted dirt on Trump, and he gave them dirt.

For example, Steele claims, in the Trump dossier, that he discovered Russians hacked the DNC servers, extracted thousands of emails, and passed them on WikiLeaks. The implication is, Russian operatives told Steele about the plot.

As we know, there has been a great deal of discussion around this point. Was there a hack of DNC emails, or was it a leak from inside the DNC? Without trying to draw a final conclusion from myriad technical and political analysis, I’ll point to a statement, published in The Nation, by a several analysts from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

“For more than a year, we have been pointing out that any data acquired by a hack would have had to come across the Internet. The blanket coverage of the Internet by the NSA, its UK counterpart GCHQ, and others would be able to produce copies of that data and show where the data originated and where it went. But US intelligence has produced no evidence that hacking by Russia led to it acquiring the DNC e-mails and passing them on to WikiLeaks.”

That’s a cogent point. If Steele really did extract a confession from Russian intelligence officials pointing to a Russian hack of the DNC emails, why doesn’t the NSA or GCHQ confirm it and show us the evidence?

All in all, Steele has built a Trump dossier based on his highly questionable access to Russian intelligence professionals. If at this point, he cares about convincing us he’s on the level, he’ll have to do a lot of talking. At a recent photo op, he declined to comment on anything more than how happy he was to get back to work for his current private-sector company, Chawton Holdings. Otherwise, he was a silent bland egg.

That isn’t going to cut it.

We’re left with a fantastical story about his penetration of Russian higher-ups. Daniel Craig could play the Steele role in a Netflix series, and a bunch of good Russian actors who’ve been hanging around since the early James Bond movies, hoping for work, could step in, but beyond that, Steele has nothing to offer.

I’m working on the Netflix script. Here are the first few lines:

Steele: Hi, Ivan, remember me?

Ivan: Why, it’s Chris Steele! Haven’t seen you in years. Let’s see, you were working for MI-6 in the old days here in Moscow, right? Pretending you were a diplomat. Yes, we had a few lunches back then.

Steele: Right. Look, I was wondering whether you can tell me anything about a super-secret file you guys are building on Donald Trump. This is the off the record, of course.

Ivan: Sure. We’re blackmailing him. If we can help him win the election, he’ll be under our control, completely. This is a Putin operation. I don’t like it myself. I think it’s over the top. Anything I can do to put a thorn in Putin’s side, I’m ready to help. It’s a little noisy here in the restaurant. Why don’t we go over to my office and I’ll show you all the data.

Steele: That’d be great.

Ivan: We also hacked the DNC and stole thousands of emails. We’re leaking them to Julian Assange. Be sure to keep my name out of it.

Steele: Of course.

Ivan: Putin wants Trump to win. I don’t like Trump or Putin. I prefer Hillary. I assume you do, too.

Steele: Well, sure. I’m working for her. That’s why I’m here.

Ivan: Wonderful…

It’s a sure-fire hit.

It’s so believable.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Boom: the Clintons, US uranium, Putin, and the FBI

Boom: The Clintons, US uranium, Putin, and the FBI

by Jon Rappoport

October 23, 2017

In 2016, long before the current news story broke about the FBI concealing a multi-year investigation into Russian bribery, the Clintons, US uranium, and Russia, I wrote about the scandal and spelled it out in simple terms.

A writer for the Washington Post then called me and tried to extract a statement he could use to discredit the story. I declined to give him anything, except a link to a key 2015 NY Times piece, which he said he’d “read many times.” I’m not sure why he had to read it more than once. Perhaps he suffers from a mental deficit.

Anyway, here is the piece I wrote then. It’s more relevant than ever. Then I’ll make some comments on the present situation.

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—-suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:
FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Harvey Clinton, I mean Bill Weinstein

Harvey Clinton, I mean Bill Weinstein

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2017

Now that everyone in Hollywood is taking such a brave stance after 20 years and pointing an accusing finger at Harvey Weinstein (cue massive applause and bravos), perhaps we should review Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward women who claim they were abused, attacked, and raped.

Hillary, too, was “disgusted” to learn about Weinstein’s outrageous crimes. Of course, thinking she is still on the campaign trail, she took the opportunity to equate Weinstein and Donald Trump. She somehow forgot about her own hubby Bill. When reminded, she says all that is in the past and it’s “already been litigated.” Which is lawyer talk for “we got away with it.”

Let’s see. Here are a few choice bits culled from dailywire.com:

In 1992, Hillary describes one of Bill’s women, Gennifer Flowers, as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She says, if given the chance to cross-examine Flowers in court, “I mean, I would crucify her.”

Hillary on Monica Lewinsky: “narcissistic loony toon.”

Hillary, while practicing as a lawyer, defends a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. She wins the case. Then on tape, she’s caught saying, “He [her client] took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” Then she breaks up laughing.

Hillary talking about Weinstein has the moral high ground of a dump truck unloading toxic chemicals in a landfill.

Lest we forget, there is this, from Zero Hedge (1/25/17, via Disobedient Media): “…the shocking discovery that Hillary and Bill Clinton provided assistance to convicted child trafficker, Laura Silsby, resulting in a reduced sentence for child trafficking.”

“Silsby was arrested at the Haitian border attempting to smuggle 33 children out of Haiti without documentation. Her sentence and charges were reduced after an intervention by Bill Clinton.”

“Hillary and Bill Clinton took an extraordinary interest in Silsby’s case from the moment she was arrested and almost immediately stepped in on her behalf. The Harvard Human Rights Journal stated that one of Bill Clinton’s first acts as special envoy for the United Nations in Haiti ‘was to put out the fire of a child abduction scandal involving American citizens.’ On February 7th, 2010, The Sunday Times reported that Bill Clinton had intervened to strike a deal with the Haitian government, securing the release of all co-conspirators except for Silsby. Prosecutors ultimately sought a six-month sentence in Silsby’s case, reducing charges for conspiracy and child abduction to mere ‘arranging irregular travel.’ A shockingly light penalty given the circumstances of her arrest, which would likely not have been possible but for the intervention of the Clintons in Silsby’s case.”

Even assuming Hillary did not directly intervene in the case, what about her husband Bill? What does Hillary have to say about him?

I believe it would be: It’s all in the past, it’s already been litigated—we got away with it.

For the Clintons, the present has a magical way of dissolving into the past.

After all, Bill, when questioned about sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, defended his “I did not do it” answer with, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

“Is,” as in right now, as opposed to “was,” in the recent past.

I’m not committing a crime right now, so “What difference, at this point, does it make?” That’s what Hillary said when she was grilled about the Benghazi attack and how she lied about the cause.

The present magically vanishes into the past.

The Clinton way.

And when the past is brought up—that’s already been litigated.

The Clintons—pure as the driven snow.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Hillary’s new book: It’s Never My Fault

Hillary’s new book: It’s Never My Fault

by Jon Rappoport

July 31, 2017

This is an antidote to Hillary’s new book, titled, “What Happened,” which I would sub-title, Why Was I So Clueless? The book purports to explain her loss in the 2016 election.

What would Hillary think if she could think?

First of all, she would think about the team trying to get her elected and the problems they faced: they had a candidate who basically had no platform, no cogent ideas, only a slim file of vapid generalities. She couldn’t deliver a coherent speech.

The team had to devise a way to keep her out of the spotlight on the campaign trail. This, the last time I looked, is not a winning strategy.

“How can we minimize her appearances?”

Hillary would think about that.

She would think about why sexism (her favorite), Putin, Comey, WikiLeaks, and “fake news” don’t explain her loss. How they didn’t add up to an Electoral College defeat.

She would think about her supporters whining, “But she won the popular vote.” That complaint only highlights the failure of her team to realize the Electoral College system (which any fifth-grader can understand) was the umbrella under which the election was actually conducted.

She would think about why serving as a senator and secretary of state doesn’t automatically entitle her to the job of president.

She would think about her past crimes—there is not enough time or room to detail them here.

She would think about why Americans who have lost their jobs didn’t trust her to bring those jobs back.

She would think about Trump and his resonating messages—regardless of whether Trump intends to deliver on those messages.

She would think about the Left’s political correctness, and all the people who hate it.

She would think about college students who defected from her camp to support an old radical socialist (who owns three homes and has pocketed close to a million dollars from his latest book about income inequality).

She would think about the distance between her vague promises and the interests of non-white voters.

She would think about the numbers of Americans who don’t embrace the growing Welfare State and don’t want to pay taxes to support it.

She would think about what many Americans really think about open borders and unchecked immigration.

She would think about the emotional impact of promoting Globalism and an “interdependent world” (it takes a village) vs. promoting Nationalism.

She would think about the dead rotting core of the Democratic Party.

She would think about effect of the previous president, Barack Obama, harping on racism whenever he could.

She would think about her history of support for a federally dictated national health insurance plan.

She would think about her duplicitous husband, with whom she is forever linked.

She would think about her husband’s faded ability to mobilize Americans on any political issue whatsoever.

She would think about (cough, cough, stumble, stumble) her health issues.

She would think about her failure to project an aura of strength.

She would think about the wisdom of trying to assume the mantle of president before the election had taken place.

She would think about her decades-long transparent pursuit of power for its own sake.

She would think about her own team lying to her about her “positive impact” on the public during the campaign. She would think about why they had to lie, given her ironclad delusions about her own “deserved status.”

She would think about the rebound effect of Hollywood sycophants piling on in her favor.

She would think about these things if she could.

She can’t, because then she would understand.

She would understand why she lost, and why she would most definitely lose a race for dogcatcher.

She would understand her long history of pretending to accrue prestige, based on nothing.

She would understand that her own Party has been humoring her for decades and faking loyalty where none existed.

She would understand that, during the campaign, the news networks, eternally in need of ratings, would cover Donald Trump every day, because she, Hillary, was a ratings washout, and he was a rating magnet.

This last factor is the bitterest pill of all.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.