Bombshell accusation: Hillary never had a State Department email address; all emails were sent to her at her private unsecured email

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2018

Many people have been led to believe Hillary had two separate email accounts. One was a traditional, secure, State Department address, where she received most of her classified information; the other was her personal, sloppily run, wide open, unsecured email, where she received some classified information. But wait.

Paul Sperry (NY Post) has the explosive story. Or, rather, he had it on January 31, 2016. That’s when it was published. What happened to it?

Sperry/2016: “The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal emails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency email address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.”

“’This was all planned in advance’ to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s [State Department] inspector general from 2005 to 2008.”

“The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov email address like previous secretaries.”

“’That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,’ Krongard said in an exclusive interview. ‘How else was she supposed to do business without [an official State Department] email?’”

“He also points to the unusual absence of a permanent [State Department] inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. He said the 5½-year vacancy was unprecedented.”

“’This is a major gap. In fact, it’s without precedent,’ he said. ‘It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG’.”

“Inspectors general serve an essential and unique role in the federal government by independently investigating agency waste, fraud and abuse. Their oversight also covers violations of communications security procedures.”

“’It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,’ Krongard said. An email audit would have easily uncovered the secret information flowing from classified government networks to the private unprotected system she set up in her New York home.”

“He says ‘the key’ to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal emails.”

“’The starting point of the investigation is the material going through SIPRNet. She couldn’t function without the information coming over SIPRNet,’ Krongard said. ‘How did she get it on her home server? It can’t just jump from one system to the other. Someone had to move it, copy it. The question is who did that?’”

“As The Post first reported, the FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s deputies copied top-secret information from the department’s classified network to its unclassified network where it was sent to Hillary’s unsecured, unencrypted email account.”

I did a bit of further searching, and came across a nugget buried in a CNN article, dated 3/3/15, “Team Clinton: ‘Nothing nefarious’ at State,” by Dan Merica and Laura Koran. Here it is:

“On Tuesday, Marie Harf, a deputy State Department spokeswoman, said… ’While Secretary Clinton did not have a classified email system, she did have multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants printing documents for her, secure phone calls, and secure video conferences,’ Harf added.”

Did you catch the key phrase? WHILE SECRETARY CLINTON DID NOT HAVE A CLASSIFIED EMAIL SYSTEM.

What does that indicate? It appears to confirm that Clinton NEVER had a secured, protected, official State Department email address. Therefore, despite denials, she must have been conducting classified government business through her own unsecured email account.

Was this issue ever brought up during interviews the FBI conducted with Hillary? If so, what were her responses?

For example, did she say, “Back off and ease up, boys, we’re all in this together”? Did she say, “We all know I’m trying to shield the Clinton Foundation operations and money”?

She never had an official State Department email account? She conducted all her classified email communication on her unsecured home server? There was no permanent inspector general at the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State? The State Department lied when it said it only discovered her private email account late in the game?

She’s clean as a whistle. Nothing to see here. Don’t worry, be happy.


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.

Say hello to the FBI mole inside the Trump campaign

Say hello to the FBI mole inside the Trump campaign

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2018

Well, you see, the mole wasn’t a spy, he was an informant. Aha. Let’s use a microscope to tell the difference.

The mole: Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor.

Supposedly, Halper was gathering information for the FBI about a suspected Trump-Russia connection.

Well, what else has Halper done? At The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald reports: “Four decades ago, Halper was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush – got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering.”

Oops. That doesn’t smell good. CIA operatives, managed by Halper, infiltrated the presidential campaign, spied on Jimmy Carter and his advisors, and relayed information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan’s team.

But we’re supposed to believe, without evidence, that in 2016 Halper was only trying to dig up information on a Trump-Russia connection.

What more do we know about Stefan Halper, the mole for hire? Breitbart: “Halper…served as an assistant to all three of President Gerald Ford’s Chief of Staffs — Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney…” Quite a trio of politicians. I don’t think you’d want to list them on your resume, if you were applying for a job with an organization that showed a shred of ethics.

And then there is this: In 1984, Halper was the chairman of the Palmer National Bank. Breitbart: “White House official Oliver North wired loaned funds from the Palmer National Bank to a Swiss bank account, which were later used to aid the [Nicaraguan] contras.” The contras, backed by the CIA, were trying to derail the Sandinista government, and in the process, reportedly carried out over 1000 terrorist attacks. Transferring funds from the US to the contras was illegal.

Glenn Greenwald: “…the CIA operative and FBI informant [Stefan Halper] used to gather information on the Trump campaign in the 2016 campaign has, for weeks, been falsely depicted as a sensitive intelligence asset rather than what he actually is: a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential election.”

But don’t worry. Nothing untoward is going on here. The FBI merely needed a man on the inside of the Trump campaign, to make sure Russia wasn’t exercising undue influence on the 2016 presidential election. Nothing more. No problem. Just ask the FBI. They’ll confirm this. The FBI high echelon is squeaky clean. They never lie.

One other thing. Stefan Halper’s father-in-law was Ray Cline, an infamous CIA agent. From Wikispooks: “Cline has been an outspoken proponent of disinformation and direct manipulation of the press by the CIA. In testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Cline defended the use of such covert devices as black propaganda and the funding of journalists, arguing that ‘the First Amendment is only an amendment’.”

“He [Cline] later became director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (1969-73), where he helped coordinate the CIA’s destabilization and eventual overthrow of the Allende government in Chile.”

But again, no problem. Why would we even suspect Halper was engaged in anything illegal during his time as a mole inside the Trump campaign?

The FBI is pure as the driven snow. So is the CIA. All is well.

If you buy that, I have condos for sale on the dark side of the moon.


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.

Secret House memo released: the fallout, the lies, and the bigger picture

Secret House memo released: the fallout, the lies, and the bigger picture

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2018

The House Intelligence Committee’s 4-page memo has been released.

The hullabaloo about the memo unfairly “damaging the reputation” of the FBI and the Dept. of Justice is a joke.

The same types of Democrat ideologues who are spouting that line, now, were screaming at the FBI, decades ago, when COINTELPRO, the Bureau’s op to place spies inside dissident Left groups across the US, was exposed. But suddenly, now, the FBI is pure as the driven snow, and its reputation must not be besmirched; otherwise, Democracy itself could collapse.

And in more recent times, the mainstream Left press, without an ounce of regret or remorse, exposed monumental fraud and incompetence at the FBI’s vaunted forensic lab and stuck a dagger in its heart:

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000…the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death…Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison…”

So forget the idea that the Left is valiantly trying to protect the FBI’s reputation. The Left is trying to say Trump is a crook and a traitor; and whatever works toward that end—including spreading praise on the FBI as a holy church—is in the game plan.

At the heart of the House Committee memo is the charge, boldly expressed, that FBI/DOJ spying on the Trump team was launched or expanded after obtaining a FISA court warrant.

And that warrant, opening the door to spy on Trump team member, Carter Page, was granted based on the notorious Trump dossier, compiled by ex-MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele.

But wait. The dossier was bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton camp. And therefore, in effect, a political op, launched to win the election for Hillary, helped start the ball rolling against Trump and his supposed Russian connections.

That’s bad enough, but that’s not all.

The focus comes back to the Trump dossier. Was it fake or real? Was it accurate or cooked up? If it was fake, a whole pillar of the FBI/DOJ investigation of Trump—including the Mueller probe—collapses.

Many observers have thrown dirt on the dossier, but they are missing one point that stands out like a mountain on a clear day. I’ll explain.

The Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

A British spy’s fantastical story.

First, a bit of background.

The dirty Trump dossier made several claims:

One: Russia had strong blackmail material on Trump and COULD THUS CONTROL A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;

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 to WikiLeaks, who published them. The emails were damaging to Hillary and helped Trump win the election;

Four: Russia obviously wanted Trump to win the election.

British ex-spy, Christopher Steele, who put together the dossier, once worked in Russia and allegedly had many connections there.

Steele assembled the Trump dossier after consulting with a number of Russians and spreading some money around.

Steele claims, in the dossier, that he was talking with 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 to hand the election to Trump?

If such a Russian plot existed, it would be a tightly held secret. VERY TIGHTLY HELD. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE NUMBER-ONE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OP.

AN OP FOR THE AGES.

THE HOLY GRAIL.

BLACKMAIL CONTROL OVER A SITTING US PRESIDENT.

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

And by spilling the beans, they’re pretty much committing suicide, because 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 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 and CONTROL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. No problem.

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

Daniel Craig could play the Steele role in a Netflix series.

I’m working on a 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 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 thumb, completely. This is a Putin operation. 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: Putin wants Trump to win. I don’t like Trump. 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.

Now to the bigger picture: to what degree is the secret House memo, just released, a limited hangout?

If the FBI/DOJ offered up a fake dossier to the FISA, in order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump team, what else did they do?

The FBI, CIA, and NSA form a blanket of surveillance across America, collecting billions of messages. Are we supposed to believe the FISA warrant was the only effort to gain permission to spy on Trump? Or that legal permission was an issue in the first place?

Of course it wasn’t. The House memo focuses on the legal side of things as a smokescreen.

A politicized group of spying agencies would go a lot further in spying on Trump—but beyond that, we’re talking about spying on all citizens, including Congressional and other government officials, regardless of party affiliation.

There is only one barrier the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies face: when they use surveillance-material in criminal ways, how can the material be released and falsely attributed to other sources?

This is analogous to “parallel construction.” If a law-enforcement agency tries to use illegally obtained evidence as a basis for prosecution, a court will disallow the evidence. Therefore, the agency must concoct a “parallel” investigation that arrives at the desired goal through another route.

In the case of spying on government officials, this “parallel” is rather easy to pull off. It’s accomplished, for example, by anonymous leaks to the press.

You could call this meta-government. Officials are threatened, blackmailed, smeared, and controlled by intelligence agencies.

It works. There is no need for a Steele dossier that blames Russia and Putin or any foreign actor. Actually, placing blame on the Russians—with enough press support—deflects attention from ongoing home-grown operations.

The Trump-FISA-dossier scandal is just the tip of an exceedingly large surveillance iceberg.

An American iceberg.

William Binney, cryptanalyst-mathematician, served 30 years at the NSA: “The FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.”

That’s a lot more spying than three warrants granted by a FISA court to surveil the Trump team. But you’re supposed to look at the warrants and how they were obtained, and not look at the wall-to-wall spying on every American.

You’re supposed to get embroiled in the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee vs. the Democrat members, as they fling accusations at each other.

You’re not supposed to realize the NSA already has thousands of Trump-related documents, illegally obtained over a long period of time, as well as Obama-related documents, and documents on anybody and everybody who communicates electronically.

The endless spying is not for the purpose of catching terrorists. Ultimately, it’s not even for blackmail. It’s for implementing a long-range plan to profile and track and control every person— the Technocrats’ wet dream—and the real-time ongoing energy consumption of each human will be radically diminished, with quotas numerically assigned From Above, and regulated, at automated choke-points, in the Brave New World of promoted and fabricated Scarcity.

“We’re saving the planet. Thank you for your (enforced) participation. Be happy. Feel inspired.”

You’re definitely not supposed to look at that and resist it.


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.

Are FBI “patriots” getting ready to expose the corrupt Mueller probe?

Are FBI “patriots” getting ready to expose the corrupt Mueller probe?

by Jon Rappoport

December 25, 2017

There are two parts to this article. Part one was written before the recent wave of Mueller-FBI demotion, retirement, and reassignment among key personnel. Part one is a kind of roadmap for whistleblower groups. A way to succeed.

Part two comments on the extraordinary “downsizing” of Mueller-FBI personnel, and its possible connection to FBI whistleblowers within the Bureau.

To paraphrase the Ben Bradlee character in the film, All the President’s Men, nothing much is riding on the Mueller investigation, except the presidency; the role of the mainstream press in politicizing and editorializing its coverage of the White House; the immediate future of US-Russia relations; the future of the Clintons in politics; and the intervention of the Surveillance State in the day-to-day activities of a president and his team.

PART ONE

Did the gunslinger Trump collude with Putin in a secret underground cave, thus placing Hillary on a cross of pain? Did the Clinton Foundation make slimy palm-greasing deals all over the world with high-level crooks and launder their money? Will the knight-puppet Robert Mueller uncover any part of the truth? Will His Excellency, Jeff Sessions, stir from his self-induced narcosis, look around, and find out what’s going on?

—We’ve heard a certain tune before: Honorable government employees will soon expose the crimes of such-and-so, they’ll present the evidence and testimony, and they’ll bring down the house on the heads of corrupt agencies. And then…it doesn’t happen.

At infowars, Paul Watson reports on what former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom has told Fox Business: “…patriots within the FBI are about to go public with huge new revelations that could sink the credibility of the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation.”

Against these patriots, “Kallstrom said that a ‘5th estate’ [within the FBI] has been working to sabotage President Trump, led by ‘a bunch of sycophants in the FBI’ who are guilty of ‘obstruction of justice’.”

“He [Kallstrom] added that the goal from the outset was to ‘destroy the presidency of the United States,’ a claim backed up by the revelation that top anti-Trump FBI agents had settled on an ‘insurance policy,’ namely the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation, to topple Trump if he defeated Hillary.”

“The former assistant director [Kallstrom] then dropped a bombshell, suggesting that insiders within the FBI are about to go public with new revelations about Mueller and Comey.”

“’I think recent events, that I’m aware of, are going to improve that, because there’s going to be something actually something that’s going to happen in my view,’ he said.”

“’I think there’s a lot of patriots [within the FBI] that have just had it up to here, with what’s going on. And they’re to step forward and tell people what the shenanigans have been, how they shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation, how other things, you know, were done that are so anti what the FBI and United States is all about,’ Kallstrom added.”

If Kallstrom is correct in his prediction, and this isn’t just another dud, certain tactics will need to be deployed. Because there is no guarantee that major news media will cover the revelations of “disgruntled FBI agents.” In fact, major media will do everything possible to ignore, downplay, and discredit these whistleblowers.

One: The FBI whistleblowers will need to produce documents wherever possible. Memos, emails, reports, recordings.

Two: The FBI whistleblowers will need to step out into the light and reveal themselves. They will need to do this as a group.

Three: They will need to do as many press interviews as possible, and also hold their own press conferences.

Four: In all these actions, their personal security and protection will have to be very capable.

Five: They must make reference to specifics, revealing FBI actions to: 1) squash investigations into the Clintons, and 2) promote a fake hypothesis that Trump and the Russians colluded to steal the election of 2016.

Six: Generalities won’t do. They can be shot down in minute as “unfounded opinions.”

Seven: The whistleblowers must compose and build their case in honest and compelling fashion.

Eight: They must be relentless. Despite hostile criticisms and other efforts to silence them, they must persist and weather the storms. They must create enough pressure to force a breakthrough—meaning the mainstream press can no longer resist covering their revelations.

Nine: Once they go public, they must acquire support from as many members of Congress as possible.

Ten: I re-emphasize security and protection. The whistleblowers must assume they are under surveillance—with all that implies.

Eleven: They must assume their own backgrounds and personal and professional histories will come under extreme scrutiny—and lead to accusations and defamation—including fake stories.

Twelve: They should obtain the service of an excellent whistleblower attorney, who will file a lawsuit against the FBI on their behalf—even if the suit never gets off the ground.

Thirteen: By the sheer number of their press interviews (with all levels of media), they need to garner as much support as possible from the American people. This is crucial.

Fourteen: They must be able to refer the American people to the specific crimes created by this “fifth column of traitors” inside the FBI, in order to reject the notion that mere “mistakes were made,” or there were simple “errors of judgment,” or different agents “have honest differences of opinion.”

Fifteen: The one or two busiest spokespeople from the whistleblower group must be able to connect with the public. They can’t be cold fish and they can’t be blowhards slinging charges like hash in a diner.

Sixteen: The whistleblowers must insist on testifying before Congress under oath—whether or not this comes to pass. On the other hand, they can’t put all their eggs in that basket. Relying on Congress would be a huge miscalculation.

Seventeen: The whistleblowers must, wherever possible, present evidence that—in addition to squashing investigations into Clinton crimes—the specifics of these crimes were known to the FBI. And “here those specifics are.”

Eighteen: Do whatever is possible to ensure the whistleblower group isn’t infiltrated by an agent(s) from “the other side.”

As you can see, these points are applicable to many situations, where whistleblowers would step out of the shadows and level charges against their employers and colleagues.

Many of the points loosely fall under the heading of “public relations”—in the authentic, not the fake meaning of that term.

Some whistleblowers unfortunately assume that, because “they have the goods,” the truth will carry the day. This is a serious misreading of the way things work.

In a different arena—attempts to pass state measures mandating the labeling of GMO food—I wrote articles criticizing the “label-it” leaders. They were, in a general sense, “whistleblowers,” who were exposing Monsanto and other biotech firms. But their pro-labeling public relations campaigns were poorly executed, and as it turned out, they had been infiltrated at the highest levels. The truth about GMOs was never communicated with any power. The label-it forces had the goods; they just didn’t know how to use them.

You can be an expert at putting the truth together, but if you’re an amateur at putting it across to the public, things fall apart in the blink of an eye.

FBI “patriots” should take a page from the playbook of the reluctant CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, who, in 2014, stated that he and his research colleagues falsified a key study on the effects of the MMR vaccine, thus hiding its connection to autism. Thompson acquired legal representation from a whistleblower attorney, Rick Morgan, and posted his confession on Morgan’s web page. That was step one. It gave Thompson a certain level of protection.

These FBI agents, by positioning themselves as whistleblowers, with an aggressive attorney (better yet, a large team of attorneys), can create the best possible situation for themselves.

—Press conference, a lawyer steps to the podium: “Today, our firm, representing the men and women behind me, all agents of the FBI, are filing several whistleblower suits against the FBI, the Justice Department, and members of the Mueller special probe…these honorable and courageous agents are putting their careers and their lives on the line to serve their country, as their oath demands. The American people must know what is being done in their name, what crimes have been committed against their interests…we call on the people to rally with us as we seek justice…we also call on the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Sessions, to support us and protect these lawsuits as they move forward…”

There is a 1960s technical term for this strategy: Heavy Shit.

You might wonder whether the FBI and various players at the Justice Department would let things get to this point. We could make all sorts of guesses and predictions.

Regardless, when whistleblowers exist, if they have vital information, they plan how to go public. If the former Assistant Director of the FBI, Mr. Kallstrom, was doing more than blowing smoke the other day when he spoke with FOX, such whistleblowers exist now inside the FBI. Whatever truth they have, they are thinking about how to proceed.

Truth, Justice, and the American Way, right?

Wherever it leads.

“Sir, what do you know and when did you first know it?”

“In my case, it was when we, at the Bureau, were looking into the Clinton Foundation and when the initial charge was made that the Russians were trying to get Mr. Trump elected. Would you like me to tell the whole story and present my documents?”

“Yes, I would.”

“All right, here we go. Get ready for a few surprises.”

Sheer fantasy? It’s always fantasy until individuals turn it into reality.

We’ve heard stories before about brave patriots working within major institutions of government—groups of patriots, not lone individuals—who are fed up with corruption and lies and cover-ups—who have proof of major crimes, and who are ready to step forward.

Is this FBI scenario just another story, a wishful hope?

Or is it something more?

Working as a reporter for the past 35 years, I’ve had occasional contact with whistleblowers—individuals and groups. The lone individuals tend to be smarter. The groups often come up with a strategy that is unworkable and foolish. That’s the liability of having a group. People lend to sink to the lowest common denominator. What they manage to agree on is a function of “what they believe they’re supposed to do”—a template snatched from various fantasies which will have very little PENETRATING AND LASTING IMPACT.

PART TWO

Among the Mueller-FBI personnel, a rather remarkable downsizing is occurring.

Peter Strzok: This FBI agent was a key figure in investigations of the Hillary Clinton email server, and the purported Russian influence in the 2016 US presidential election. Strzok was the lead FBI agent on Muller’s team probing the Russian-influence theory. Muller fired Strzok from his team, when Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages surfaced.

Andrew McCabe: The deputy director of the FBI has just announced he will retire. He has been under fire, amid charges he was biased in favor of Hillary Clinton during the FBI investigation of her private email server. McCabe’s wife, in her run for a seat in the Virginia State Senate, received a donation of $675,000 from “the Virginia Democratic Party and Common Good VA, the political action committee of [Terry] McAuliffe, a longtime friend and supporter of both Hillary and Bill Clinton who is now the outgoing governor of Virginia,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Jim Baker: He has been “reassigned.” The Examiner: “Baker, who became general [FBI] counsel under [FBI Director James] Comey, has come under scrutiny by congressional Republicans investigating whether he leaked information [to the media] from the infamous Trump dossier, which contains unverified claims about Trump’s deep ties to Russia.”

Bruce Ohr: FOX: “A senior Justice Department official was demoted…amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump ‘dossier,’ the department confirmed to Fox News.”

There is increasing pressure on other FBI-DOJ-Mueller officials—including Mueller himself—because of conflicts of interest and/or concealment of the roles they’ve played in the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations, as well as the Uranium One deal.

It is possible that FBI insiders/agents, who are fed up with political bias inside the FBI-DOJ-Mueller nexus, have assisted in the effort to downsize the Mueller forces.

If so, this would be another whistleblower strategy, a covert one. Instead of stepping out of the shadows as a group, these agents would leak information to loyal Trump appointees, who in turn would take action.

An internal struggle is taking place.

However, covert insider actions, such as these, are only valuable in the short run. If the corruption within the FBI and the DOJ are going to be exposed at a deeper level (and there may be no bottom, when all cards are laid on the table), whistleblowers will have to come out into the open, with a large and coherent case.

The Trump, anti-Trump situation is but the latest in a long line of clues about federal law-enforcement bias. For example, here is one thread among many:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Two years after the Oklahoma City Bombing bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

Let that one sink in.

The deeper you go, the more crimes you find.


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.

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.

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone footage wiped clean by FBI

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone-footage wiped clean by FBI

What??

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2017

Paul Watson at infowars has the story:

“Workers at the Route 91 festival during which Stephen Paddock unleashed his massacre have reportedly been given back their phones and laptops by the FBI only to discover that all messages and videos from the night of the attack have been wiped clean.”

“According to a Las Vegas resident who posted a status update on Facebook, ‘A bunch of people that worked the Route 91 [concert] said they got their cell phones back today. They all said that all their phones are completely wiped clean! All messages and info from that weekend are completely gone. Anyone else experience this’?”

“’A few different people who were vendors there are all saying the same thing,’ the woman later comments.”

“Later in the thread, a Route 91 worker confirms the story, commenting, ‘Of course. It’s an active federal crime scene. They can wipe it clean. I was the beverage manager for the entire event. My laptop is wiped clean’.”

What?

First of all, in a recent article, I demonstrated in detail why you can never trust what the FBI says about evidence in any investigation. There is a notorious history of the Bureau cooking and slanting and inventing data to support prosecutions.

Second, who says the FBI can take people’s phones and laptops, watch and copy the video footage, and then wipe it all away before returning the devices to their owners?

The FBI literally owns the crime scene AND any record of what happened at that scene? Baloney.

The obvious reason for wiping out the footage: it contained evidence that contradicts the official scenario. And most likely, that evidence revealed multiple shooters.

As Vegas cops, the FBI, and the owners of the Mandalay Hotel have changed and massaged the official narrative, one assertion has remained constant: there was only one shooter, and he was Stephen Paddock.

Law-enforcement pounced on that claim early on, without the slightest justification. Without interviewing multiple witnesses who state they saw other shooters.

“Okay, the mass shooting happened yesterday and we know there was only one shooter. That’s it. Don’t ask us any questions about this. Anyone who disagrees with us is spreading rumors and impeding the investigation.”

Admitting multiple shooters is admitting there was cooperation, collusion, conspiracy, a plan, and a purpose for that plan beyond “the lone gunman was crazy.” This is the door law-enforcement keeps slamming shut every time it opens.

And now we have reports that the FBI has wiped witnesses’ phones and laptops. No more footage of the shooting. No more evidence.

Let’s be clear: the FBI is impeding the investigation.

There is no Constitutional rule that states private citizens can’t investigate crimes. There never was. There never will be.

Law enforcement doesn’t OWN investigations.

If they did, every time a journalist probes beneath the surface of a crime and uncovers important information, the FBI could say, “Well, we just opened an investigation of that very crime, and therefore we want all your notes and we want you to cease and desist your inquiry. Shut up and go cover Sunday picnics.”

In most cases, law-enforcement doesn’t have to worry about mainstream reporters. Those denizens simply take dictation from local cops and federal cops and their stories appear in papers and TV news broadcasts wiped clean of independent thought.

That leaves the truth a wide open field.

Private citizens and non-mainstream journalists own that field, not through edict, but through default. Don’t blame us. If you were doing your jobs, we wouldn’t have to do them for you.

Your first rule would be: stop lying.

Destruction of evidence is a felony. Those concert workers whose phones and laptops were wiped clean had a felony committed against them. By agents of government who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Thousands of smart lawyers out there will say, “Come on, there’s no way you could make a charge like that stick.” Well, maybe there would be a way, if enough of you decided there has been enough destruction of the Constitution and it’s time to stand up and be counted, come hell or high water.

Meanwhile, whoever can look past the lies and fabrications and distortions of a criminal investigation can say something because they saw something.

Here is a quick excerpt from my recent piece about the FBI’s stance on crime probes. It should give you a clue about the Bureau’s attitude and reputation:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

In the Vegas shooting case, the FBI is saying: Trust us. We’re the pros. We do investigations the right way. Now give us your cell phone so we can look at video footage of the shooting and make a copy and wipe your phone clean and give it back to you.

Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. The centurions are on duty.


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.