It Is Not Transphobic To Be Against The Sexualization Of Children

Tweet

(Sacred Owls) This topic has been a real emotional struggle for us this past year. It is emotional because we feel so deeply when it comes to our goals of working towards total unity between all people. A goal that humanity has struggled with since the beginning. We want real unity. This means that all men, women, or other humans are treated with the same level of respect in every direction AS LONG AS they are not harming anyone. Harm, by our definition (and I would hope, any other decent, and moral persons definition) is when physical and sometimes severe emotional damage is inflicted on someone without their consent. Consent can only be granted by adults, never children. That is why children under 18 are required to have the consent of a parent or legal guardian before they can see a PG-13 or rated R movie. That legal consent is even still restricted, as an adult guardian cannot purchase alcohol, tobacco products, or pornography for children, with good reason.

The reason these things are off the table is because children are not ready for those things physically, or mentally. They are still developing as an organism. There is a biological reason most kids say “YUCK!” when they see people kissing. It is because they have not gone through puberty and their bodies and minds are not there yet. They cannot reproduce. They are not ready for sex. Therefore, should have no real understanding about what is “sexy”, therefore, should not be attempting to be sexy. Watch the video below and notice at the end where the young child lifts his short red skirt at the end of his “vogueing” followed by applause from everyone there. This type of dress is not appropriate for a little girl or a little boy as it is low cut and short on the bottom. Pairing that with sexually suggestive dancing that has been normalized through the corrupt music industry, run by pedophiles is nothing short of creep bait.

Also, do they expect me to believe that his little sister came up with the name LACTACTIA?! The name literally translates to lactation. Milk coming out of a breast through the nipple. Sure, nothing to see here. That is not by accident and the parents are strategically saying that his kid sister picked the name thinking they could fool the average viewer that it is some nonsense name that does not mean anything. There are actually people who fetishize breast feeding. Is that really an appropriate name for a scantily clothed, cross dressing child?! If you think so, you are sick or brainwashed into accepting this deviant behavior.

The sad thing is, I honestly believe this young boy has NO IDEA what he is getting himself into. He just likes the art and attitude of the fashion industry and wants to express himself. What he does not realize is that the fashion world is a sick, predatory, depraved, and dangerous world full of pedophiles, drug addicts, and violent people. Even adults over the age of 18 get destroyed going through this meat grinder of an industry.

Several months ago we posted our opinion on this subject on Facebook and boy did that stir up a shit storm. To be clear, Sacred Owls is 100% fully supportive of any and all Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender, Queer, or other alternative lifestyle choices EXCEPT PEDOPHILIA. Why? Consent. Why is rape a crime? Consent. If two consenting adults want to role play with a rape fantasy, although we find that behavior to be destructive personally, we support your right to do it in the privacy of your home because there is no crime, so long as it is between consenting adults. You need both. To be an adult, and for those adults to consent. Why is a mugging or any other type of assault and/or battery a crime? Consent. If you are part of a fight club and agree, as an adult, that you want to fight and accept the risk of injury or death, this is your right, as an adult. A child legally cannot consent to these things. It is possible to be supportive and accepting of LGBTQ people and be against the sexualization, recruiting, grooming, & indoctrination of children. Sacred Owls fights for equality and justice for those who harm no one regardless of sex, gender, or other. We hunt pedophiles who have co-opted the LGBTQ movement in order to have the P added to the end of LGBTQ. P cannot be added because CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT, THUS MAKING PEDOPHILIA A CRIME.

Some people argue that the age on consent is lower than 18 in some states, and in other countries it is WAY lower. This is true, some states in the United States are 16 and 17 as shown in the map below.

(thesurvivoralliance.com) Map Key: 16 – Blue, 17 – Dark Green, 18 – Light Green

However, there are groups lobbying to LOWER the age to as low as 10 or simply abolish the legal age of consent to sex all together, making prosecution of sexual assault of a minor even more difficult than it already is. Currently, it is not as easy as you think to bring a case involving sexual abuse of a child to trial, let alone get a conviction without DNA evidence or a witness other than the victims sworn testimony. We are currently working a case locally where an Evangelical Christian youth pastor sexually molested a young girl from the ages of 14-16 before she was brave enough to tell his wife which was met with them lawyering up and denying it all together. We are going to release a documentary in the next year about this case once the investigation has been concluded.

Most decent people call us crazy when we tell them the country and really the world is run by a small group of pedophiles. There are occult reasons why they are involved in humanitarian efforts in where they house youths. Why does the Vatican run Boys Town, Nebraska, which has been notorious for sex trafficking of children? We know why. They are sick. They do it for power. They believe in dark arts. They believe you can absorb youth and life force by sexually violating children, using their blood in rituals. These are things so dark and disturbing that most decent people would rather call us crazy than believe that people would do such things when even Netflix has Occult Crime TV series about how often these things happen. The Franklin Cover Up has the most disturbing stories of occult, sexual, ritual abuse of children done by rich and powerful people all the way up to the white house, the Bohemian Grove, and other occult places where wealthy businessmen and politicians gather to do sick things. Some do it for the power, some do it because they are depraved, some do it to blackmail others. Once you have photos or video of an up and coming politician doing things of this nature, they are in your pocket for life. This is a tool used by secret societies like Skull and Bones, The Bohemian Grove, and others.

The FBI released a document of common symbols used by pedophiles. These symbols have been linked to Ping Pong and Besta Pizza as they used them in their logos and artwork. This is what became #pizzagate. Snopes calls Pizzagate “False” yet, there is SO MUCH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION.

So what does this all have to do with trans-children and their relationship with drag queens, and the sexual counter culture? A lot.

Sexual education lobbyists are fighting to force younger and younger children to take courses about sexual preference, identity, anal sex, and other mature topics. When I say force I mean it. Some of these programs are not allowing parents to opt out! All of a sudden there are children far below the age of puberty, let alone the age of sexual consent, dressing in provocative drag. Again, I want to be clear, if a little girl was dressed in this way we would feel the same about it, so it has nothing to do with it being transgender or transsexual. It has to do with the sexualization of children. When we spoke against these practices, and taking children to burlesque shows and drag events, it was met with such hostility from certain people in the Orlando area. They said by saying that putting red lipstick, bold, colorful make up, and evening gowns, high heels, and other suggestive clothing items the WE are sexualizing them, which is ridiculous. You can say that something is inappropriate without thinking something is sexy. I feel like I shouldn’t even need to say that.

Some clothing, makeup, and accessories are sexually suggestive according to scientists, psychologists, and most of mainstream society. Again, it has NOTHING TO WITH IDENTIY OR PREFERENCE. Some dances and body language is sexually suggestive and is inappropriate for children. In todays age, everyone is so worried about not being labeled as homophobic or transphobic that they don’t take a hard stance against things that are clearly corrupt and have a larger agenda, so they show their bellies and get on their back in order to show support, regardless of the long term consequences. I have a 7 year old son that is such a wonderful, smart and amazing boy that is open minded, loving, and accepting of everyone. We have a lot of gay, queer, and trans friends that are around us all the time at shows, events we host at our house, or just hanging out. We love and accept them because they are good people, that is why they are in our life. If my son told me one day that he identified as a girl, I would tell him that if that is actually true, I will be supportive. There would be a long conversation about what that actually means, what that lifestyle is like, and why it is not a light hearted decision. If he wanted to wear a dress to school, I would be fine with it! I also respect parents that aren’t that open minded and radical or alternative. I would NOT let him wear a low cut top or short skirt like the 7 year old in the video above. Why? Because that is crossing the line into sexually suggestive clothing that psychologically calls for that sort of attention from creeps. Furthermore, young children have not gone through puberty and do not even understand what sex is, so any behavior or desire to look sexy is learned. I have NOTHING AGAINST drag queens, Ru Paul, or anything like that as long as they are not attempting to recruit, or groom children for pedophile sex. If ANYONE comes close to such a thing, they will be on our radar and we will work with law enforcement to make sure you lose your freedom. The sad thing is there are even people in law enforcement, politics, and religion who join those organizations as agents of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) or other groups to make sure these criminals get away with it, which makes our fight that much harder.

We need your support in this fight.

I would like to end this piece by thanking from the bottom of my heart, all of the true friends who have stuck up for us, defended us, called out those who have made the baseless accusations of transphobia or homophobia pinned against us. We love you and we need more of you in this fight. There is a really great podcast that our friends at PFT Media & Get Rad Records put out that discusses these issues, what we went though, and what their views are in Episode #19 of Tidbits titled Trans AMerica that you can download and/or hear here.

 

 

Tweet

Feds investigate Clinton Foundation over corruption and pay to play politics

It appears the F.B.I. may now have the Clinton Foundation in their sights after numerous Intellihub reports prove corruption claims viable

LITTLE ROCK (INTELLIHUB) — Arkansas attorneys and the FBI are now actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for ‘pay to play’ corruption and other illicit activities.

All of this slowly festered its way out into the forefront after Intellihub founder and director Shepard Ambellas released a bombshell article linking the Clintons to known Uranium deals with the Russians.

Stay tuned to Intellihub over the coming days, weeks, for more details which we will report as they break.

©2018. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

The post Feds investigate Clinton Foundation over corruption and pay to play politics appeared first on Intellihub.

Kevin Shipp: ‘Hillary Clinton Was And Is Running A Global Financial Criminal Syndicate’

Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp says the reason for all the crime and treason at the FBI and DOJ can be boiled down to one thing: a global financial crime spree.  “Hillary Clinton was running and is running a global financial criminal syndicate,” and Shipp believes Barack Obama was in on it.

Shipp believes that this entire scandal, which will likely end up being the biggest in American history, could result in a Constitutional crisis. In an interview with USA Watchdog‘s Greg Hunter, Shipp contends, “There could be a Constitutional crisis in that we could see Congressmen, Senators, former Directors of the FBI, and the CIA perp walked after they receive charges. Could you imagine if senior DOJ officials were arrested, some Congressmen and Senators were arrested and other government officials were arrested on charges and walked out of office?  That’s the Constitutional crisis I am talking about.  Those kinds of high-level arrests would shake up this nation.  It would be huge, and that’s why it has taken so long and methodical in doing this.”

To begin, Shipp just lays it out, as plain as day, and it’s not difficult to understand.

“Hillary Clinton was running and is running a global financial criminal syndicate.  She was using these secret servers to conduct Clinton financial money laundering business.  The shocking thing about that is all the former directors of the CIA that have come out to support her, from Clapper to Brennan to Morell even Robert Gates supporting her being elected, knew about this criminal syndicate.  Comey was protecting it.  Lynch was protecting it.  Weissmann was protecting it.  And that is the big why.  What’s she got on these people?  Are they financial ties?  They had to be aware of this, especially the counter-intelligence units.  We know it was hacked into by foreign intelligence services because it was just hanging out there.  Hillary Clinton was running a secret server outside the Department of State for the purposes of laundering money through the criminal Clinton Foundation.”

Hunter then asks Shipp if he feels that this could be the next “anvil to drop on the toe” of Hillary Clinton and her criminal buddies.

“It’s not just an anvil, I think it is a mountain and the nexus of everything.  This “Clinton Global Initiative” (CGI) is worldwide, and it’s been out there for a couple of decades.  It has now, of course, intertwined former Directors of the CIA and FBI.   George Soros is a part of it.  It’s connected to all kinds of global financial institutions…These people have been backing her, protecting her…James Comey protected Hillary Clinton from prosecution of multiple espionage laws…They have to be connected to this because they are completly witting of the whole thing.

[The global charity fraud is] at least a $100 billion and it connects into a whole lot of things… All these people protecting and defending Hillary Clinton and knowing about her criminal syndicate, this goes into the so-called “Deep State” of our government, and it is connected, involved and intertwined in the global criminal crime syndicate called the Clinton Foundation.  This is probably going to be the biggest scandal in U.S. history–once it’s busted.  I think they are quietly working on it now, and I think they have been for the last year.  It is so huge the arrests and indictments could cause a Constitutional crisis with some people being removed.  Maybe that’s why they are moving slowly.  It all comes back down to the Clinton Foundation and the criminal syndicate.”

When Hunter asked who all was involved in this money laundering scandal, the regular players’ names surfaced, like George Soros. But Shipp also named Barack Obama as a culprit after Hunter specifically asked if the former president was also involved.

“Yes, I am absolutely convinced of it.  George Soros gave $30 million to Obama’s campaign.  Then he gave $27.1 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  Both Obama and Clinton are tied directly into George Soros.  Obama was put into office with millions of dollars that came out of nowhere.  Yes, he’s part of this cabal.  Yes, he’s part of this global syndicate, and in my opinion, the subversion of our government.”

For more information about Kevin Shipp and his background, please visit his website at For The Love Of Freedom.

FBI Launches New Investigation Into the Clinton Foundation

(ZHE) — Exactly two weeks after we reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed DOJ prosecutors to dig into the FBI’s handling of the Uranium One investigation, we learn that the FBI has opened a new investigation of the Clinton Foundation launched by the DOJ – spearheaded by its Little Rock, Arkansas field office, according to John Solomon of The Hill. 

The probe will focus on pay-for-play schemes and tax code violations, according to law enforcement officials and a witness who wishes to remain anonymous.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.

The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said. –The Hill

The witness who was interviewed by Little Rock FBI agents said that questions focused on “government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama’s State Department,” and that the agents were “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough.”

Also of note, as tweeted by WikiLeaks and reported by the Dallas Observer, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the IRS since July, 2016 after 64 GOP members of congress received letters urging them to push for an investigation. The investigation is being handled by their Dallas office – far away from Washington insiders.

The Earle Cabell Federal Building in downtown Dallas is an all purpose office complex, a bastion of federal bureaucracy located at 1100 Commerce St. Most people come for a passport or to get business done in front of a federal judge. But inside, a quiet review is underway that has direct ties to the raging presidential election: The local branch of the IRS’ Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division is reviewing the tax status of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

A spokesman for both Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation did not return The Hill‘s calls or emails seeking comments, however they have previously maintained that the Clintons never traded government policy decisions for donations – calling recent focus on the issue a “conservative distraction” from President Trump’s Russia probe.

Of primary interest to the FBI is likely the Uranium One deal, which would grant the Kremlin control over 20 percent of America’s uranium supply, as detailed by author Peter Schweitzer’s book Clinton Cash and the New York Times in 2015. The scheme allowed Russia to buy its way into the U.S. atomic energy business using the same Clinton Foundation pay-for-play relationship used by 16 countries, including Saudi Arabia – which received a 143% increase in weapons sales over the previous administration after donating to the foundation.

A brief timeline of the Uranium One deal:

• Between 2008 – 2010, parties involved with Uranium One donated $145 Million to the Clinton Foundation. You can read more about the parties here.


• June 2009, Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom (through a subsidiary) takes a 17% stake in Uranium One.


• June 2010, Rosatom takes majority (51%) ownership of Uranium One, granting the Kremlin control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium – which Hillary Clinton’s State Department signed off on. The FBI uncovers massive bribery scheme before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approves deal.


• June 29th, 2010, Bill Clinton meets with Vladimir Putin at his home in Russia. Later that day Clinton earns $500,000 for a Moscow speech to Kremlin-linked investment bank Renaissance Capital, which assigned a “buy” rating to Uranium One stock.


• January 2013,  Rosatom State Nuclear Agency acquires the remainder of Uranium one and takes it private.

Also of interest in relation to the Uranium One deal is the fact that weeks after the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s email began, the FBI issued notices to every agency in the CFIUS to preserve records, as discovered by Twitter researcher Katica while looking at FOIA-requested documents.

The agencies which received the request included the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI James Clapper), The National Counter Terrorism Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Five days after the initial request, the same FBI agent sent another round of notifications to the same agencies, adding the National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The next day, September 3rd, 2015, three more agencies were added to the preservation request: The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD)

At this point, every single member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which signed off on the Uranium One deal was served with a notice to preserve records.

* * *

Another report by The Hill from November reveals that an undercover FBI informant in the Russian nuclear industry who was made to sign an “illegal NDA” by former AG Loretta Lynch, claims to have video evidence showing Russian agents with briefcases full of bribe money related to the controversial Uranium One deal – according to The Hill investigative journalist John Solomon and Circa‘s Sara Carter.

The informant, whose identity was revealed by Reuters as William D. Campbell, will testify before congress next week after the NDA which carried the threat of prison time was lifted. Campbell, originally misidentifed by Reuters as a lobbyist is actually a nuclear industry consultant who is currently battling cancer.

As previously reported, Campbell was deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry where he gathered extensive evidence of a racketeering scheme involving bribes and kickbacks.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –The Hill

Campbell’s attorney, former Regan Justice Department official Victoria Toensing, previously told Fox Business host Lou Dobbs “He can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made.”

WikiLeaks also revealed that the house of Saud heavily contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and reports surfaced that they funded 20% of Clinton’s campaign.

Indeed, it appears that the Saudis – the old “pre-crackdown” Saudis of course, who wouldn’t let women drive cars, were hoping for a significant return on their investment under a Hillary Clinton White House with John Podesta ostensibly in the Secretary of State role – similar to the 143% increase in weapons sales granted to the Kingdom and other Clinton-foundation friendly governments while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

As reported by International Business Times: 

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

It’s clear they had a lot riding on Hillary, some say in the hopes of co-opting the US military into an intervention in Syria to topple President Bashar al-Assad. The plan was regime change – with the goal of installing yet another Western friendly puppet government which would rubber-stamp a lucrative Saudi/Qatar pipeline through the country, exiting into the Mediterranean through Turkey – as opposed to a competing Russian / Iranian / Syrian pipeline.

Moreover, WikiLeaks exposed the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar funded ISIS – which then invaded Syria in an effort to co-opt the Arab spring and topple Assad. Recall that Hillary’s plan was to join ISIS in this fight, starting with the institution of a “no fly” zone which would have put the United States in direct conflict with Russia.

There was also, of course, the $1 million check Qatar gave to Bill Clinton on his birthday, as disclosed by WikiLeaks, in which Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s director of foreign policy, writes to senior Clinton Foundation officials explaining the “summary of key points” from his meetings with the “Ambassadors from Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, and Rwanda, in Washington, DC.”

Describing his meeting with the ambassador of Qatar, Desai wrote, “Would like to see WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011.”

It gradually becomes clear that Hillary Clinton was set to use United States military assets at the behest of Saudi Arabia – first for regime change in Syria, and then in Saudi Arabia’s confict with Yemen as the next logical target. It also emerged that Hillary’s right hand woman Huma Abedin has had alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which still haven’t been investigated. John McCain, interestingly enough, chastised Rep. Michele Bachman (R-MN) for pointing this out. In addition, a former Muslim Brotherhood member turned peace activist, Walid Shoebat said in an interview with Front Page Magazine:

The Abedins for decades were actually serving a foreign entity, the government of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and not American Democracy as President Obama stated. -FrontPage

With all that said, and there is much more (to scrape the surface read “Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions”, Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown“, it appears that the FBI should have its hands full re-investigating the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps Attorney General Sessions will even ensure that Clinton loyalists within the organization aren’t responsible for things such as; reaching conclusions, recommending charges, closing investigations and changing language which would exonerate otherwise very illegal behavior.

By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

Jeff Sessions: Reflecting Administration Policies or ‘Reforming’ Them?

We should hope that Jeff Sessions’ recently-instituted changes are not the result of the administration, and rather that he is the sole architect of those abrupt changes in DOJ policy. On the surface, some of them may seem “effective,” however, Sessions’ credibility has been under scrutiny recently for his meetings with the Russian ambassador prior to the President’s election, along with his reluctance to investigate Comey, Mueller, or Hillary Clinton. The first item was supposedly to meet with the Russian ambassador to discuss Ukraine and the separatist conflict in the Donbass.

The remainder? The Russian Uranium deal was made by Bill Clinton in 2005, finalized two years later. Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State under Obama in January 2009, and Kazakhstan was already sending in tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. Rosatom and Uranium One (a Canadian firm), the GRU (also known as the “Aquarium,” the Russian (formerly USSR’s) version of our CIA, almost 300,000 acres of Wyoming that would be mined for Uranium…

The complexity is staggering, although it is not the scope of this article. Rosatom supplies technicians and equipment to Iran: it is a Russian firm, and as much as Hillary Clinton verbally denounced Putin, she was more than willing (while in her official role as Secretary of State, mind you) to broker a deal giving Putin and Rosatom controlling interest in Uranium One. The Russians would acquire a tremendous amount of American uranium.

The point: all of this is going on, and the Attorney General of the United States, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is much more heavily-engaged in cementing a policy of almost Draconian “reforms” that will help big business, increase statist and oligarchic power in the United States, and tighten the noose a little more around the neck of the American people.

As reported by Rachel Blevins writing for Activist Post, a recent article entitled War on the Poor: Jeff Sessions Rescinds Legal Doc That Ended Debtors’ Prisons, published on 12/30/17. The article covers how Sessions rescinded a policy letter of 2016 that forbids the imprisonment of the poor because they cannot pay court fines and fees. Here is an excerpt from that article quoting Sessions:

“Last month, I ended the longstanding abuse of issuing rules by simply publishing a letter or posting a web page. Congress has provided for a regulatory process in statute, and we are going to follow it. This is good government and prevents confusing the public with improper and wrong advice. Therefore, any guidance that is outdated, used to circumvent the regulatory process, or that improperly goes beyond what is provided for in statutes or regulation should not be given effect. That is why today, we are ending 25 examples of improper or unnecessary guidance documents identified by our Regulatory Reform Task Force led by our Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.  We will continue to look for other examples to rescind, and we will uphold the rule of law.”

So, Sessions is now the Champion of the Rule of Law (De Facto or De Jure being synonymous apparently). Rather, the champion of the will of the corporate and political hierarchy to continue its slow-sliding repeal of justice for the common citizen while turning a blind eye to those nabobs who should be bedecked in orange this very moment.

The prison industries (another “partner” of the federal government) stand to benefit by such a thing. Read Blevins’ article for some sterling examples of where a few dollars due to happy Mayberry-type municipalities were turned into thousands, along with prolonged incarceration and, of course, a ruined record for the individuals. Sessions’ actions are not confined to the justice system, however: as a “moral guardian” and the head of the Department of Justice, Sessions is now attacking marijuana.

Personally, I am against the consumption of cannabis for what is termed “recreational use.” From a medical perspective, however, marijuana (Cannabis sativa) has many applications: for the treatment of glaucoma, and the treatment of severe cancer pain, among many others. For years the AMA (American Medical Association) as well as the federal government denounced and denied the potential for Cannabis to be used medically.

It may interest you to know that even with this denial through the years, the FDA acquired the patent for Marinol, a synthetic derivative-replacement for Cannabis.

Sessions (on January 3) announced that he would be rescinding policies that advocated a “hands off” policy of feds regarding actions in states that legalized the use of marijuana. Federal law supersedes subsequently-created state laws; however, the problem is more than what it appears on the surface. The reasoning by Sessions was given as a way to combat illegal trafficking in marijuana, but the spillover will occur in the state-approved facilities used for genuine medical reasons. An article from the Daily Beast summarizes the new DOJ position on the Sessions maneuver:

The Justice Department itself had trouble explaining why Sessions was making his move now and what immediate ramifications there would be for the decision. In a morning teleconference with reporters, a senior DOJ official simply said that “U.S. Attorneys’ offices need to determine what cases need to be brought.” As to whether or not this decision would lead to more marijuana prosecutions, there was no definitive answer.

“I can’t sit here and say whether it will or won’t lead to more marijuana prosecutions,” one of the officials told reporters.

So, the “official’s” nebulous response is only too apparent: those with influence and those who pay more taxes into the system will (as par for the course) not be prosecuted. As for those others? Who knows what is in store for them.

“U.S. Attorneys’ offices need to determine what cases need to be brought.”

Is this not selective interpretation of the law? Deciding which ones will be brought to trial, and which ones will be ignored?

With liberty and justice for all, right?

So, Sessions is on a crusade that apparently leaves the “prominents” such as those mentioned earlier out of the loop.  The last question is how much the administration either knows about or approves of such maneuvers.  As can clearly be seen from the Uranium One example provided earlier, Hillary Clinton abused her position…and the “big” fish…Obama…squirmed out of the net completely. Interestingly enough, Clinton resigned after Benghazi…where a U.S. consular outpost and CIA annex were attacked and destroyed, and a U.S. ambassador and four of his staff were killed. Obama’s Teflon allowed those rotten eggs to slide right off the surface and onto Clinton’s head…and she resigned before any formal charges could be brought up while she was in office.

How much does this President know? Sessions did try to resign earlier, and the President did not accept his resignation. Surely that could be a ruse to show disagreement between the two, and distance the President from Sessions while the latter came under scrutiny for his meetings with the Russian ambassador. Yet Sessions is still in the DOJ’s top slot, isn’t he? It is unknown whether his changes are his own “reforms,” or rather, a reflection of administration policy.

Follow the money, and there will surely be a trail of some sort in Sessions’ direction. Follow any increases in his bank account, especially any contributions from GlaxoSmithKline, or the other pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in keeping the public addicted to crippling opium-based painkillers such as morphine or oxycontin. Insys Therapeutics is a company that paid $500,000 in 2016 to quell cannabis-favorable initiatives in Arizona by contributing to the opposition groups. The company peddles Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid analgesic 50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine, and very addictive.

The final item to mention: Sessions owns investments in two mutual funds that hold stock in private prisons. In a financial disclosure to Congress in December of 2016, Sessions revealed that he owned Vanguard fund accounts…and Vanguard is the investment management company that owns the most stock in private prisons than in any other in the U.S. You can read more about it here.

Here’s a little more to interest you. This report  from Nonprofit Quarterly explains how former aides to Sessions are in deep with the private prison industry. Here’s an excerpt from that report:

…NPQ wrote about the new memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that brought private prisons back into play on the federal level. We pointed out that stocks for private prisons plummeted when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates ordered they be phased out last year. We reminded you that the day after Trump’s election, those stocks soared. Now, we read in The Nation that in October, just before the election, two of Sessions’ former Senate aides, David Stewart and Ryan Robichaux, became lobbyists for GEO Group, one of the two largest private prison companies, and that the two were specifically engaged to lobby on government contracting. The private prison industry has a big investment in the future of mass incarceration. Even more infuriating, much of that in the short term may be tied to immigration enforcement policies. “With respect to detention services,” said GEO Group CEO George Zoley on a recent call with investors, “we would continue to be the largest provider of detention services to the three largest government agencies—that is, ICE, the Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

No “handwashing” or favoritism there, right? Wrong. Sessions’ rescinding of protection for citizens unable to pay fines from debtors’ prisons and his new crusade on marijuana will surely help to swell the ranks of new “serfs” within the private prison system. If he can do this and skate out of any conflict of interest? Then next he will be receiving something from the pharmaceutical companies to pursue an “attack dog” policy and shut down competition from Cannabis against their opioid analgesics. Sometimes there is no money trail initially, but it always surfaces with time. Business as usual in what used to be the United States of America.

---

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

FBI Deputy Director McCabe "Retiring" After "Trump Insurance Policy" Debacle

Just hours after the FBI’s top lawyer, James Baker, was reassigned, WaPo reports that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will retire in a few months - once he becomes fully eligible for pension benefits.

McCabe, who has been the target of Republican critics for more than a year, spent hours in Congress this past week, facing questions behind closed doors from members of three committees.

Republicans said they were dissatisfied with his answers:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), has called for McCabe’s ouster, saying he “ought to go for reasons of being involved in some of the things that took place in the previous administration. We want to make sure that there’s not undue political influence within the FBI — the [Justice] Department and the FBI.”

Democrats called it a partisan hounding:

Democrats emerging from Thursday’s questioning of McCabe urged him to resist Republicans’ calls to step down, saying the GOP’s new focus on McCabe smells of political opportunism. “Mr. McCabe should in no way be fired by biased political commentary,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.).

But whichever it was, The Washington Post reports, according to people familiar with the matter, McCabe plans to retire in a few months when he becomes fully eligible for pension benefits.

As a reminder, McCabe was former director James B. Comey’s right-hand man, a position that involved him in most of the FBI’s actions that vex President Trump as well as the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, a matter that still riles Democrats.

McCabe won’t become eligible for his full pension until early March. People close to him say he plans to retire as soon as he hits that mark.

“He’s got about 90 days, and some of that will be holiday time. He can make it,’’ said one.

A spokesman for McCabe declined to comment, as did an FBI spokesman.

There is good reason to question McCabe"s perspective and un-biasedness...

His wife, a Democratic candidate for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015, had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from the political action committee led by a close ally of the Clintons. He had also been part of discussions with Justice Department officials that critics said prevented FBI agents from more aggressively pursuing their investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Agents were trying to determine if donations to the foundation were made with an expectation of government favors from Clinton or her allies.

 

After reports about those issues surfaced in October 2016, then-candidate Trump singled out McCabe for criticism, and congressional Republicans demanded detailed answers from the FBI about his role in the Clinton probes — questions they insist remain unanswered.

 

McCabe’s role is being examined by the Justice Department’s inspector general, who has said a report on how the Clinton probe was handled should be finished by spring.

 

Republicans are also focusing on the FBI’s relationship with the author of a dossier containing allegations against Trump. The bureau offered to pay the author of that document after the election to keep pursuing leads and information, but the agreement was never finalized, The Washington Post reported earlier this year.

 

And most recently, one of his senior advisers, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, had exchanged numerous pro-Clinton and anti-Trump text messages with Peter Strzok, the top FBI agent on Mueller’s probe. Strzok was removed by Mueller when he learned of their communications; Page had left the Mueller team two weeks earlier for what officials said were unrelated reasons. In one text, Strzok texted that he thought Clinton should win “100,000,000-0.’’

 

More problematic for McCabe is a text in which Page told Strzok, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.’’

 

Republican lawmakers have seized on that text as evidence Strzok, Page, and possibly McCabe were involved in an effort to somehow ensure Trump would not win the election. But people familiar with the exchange said the officials were debating how overtly they should begin investigating Trump, and that one of the factors they considered was the likelihood Trump could win the presidency - which they considered small.

 

Even that explanation presents a headache for McCabe because it places a conversation in his office about how the expected election outcome should or should not affect the FBI’s investigative decisions.

But apart from that.. he is a great guy, according to his former boss James Comey took to the Twitter to defend him and his lackey James Baker today...

"Sadly, we are now at a point in our political life when anyone can be attacked for partisan gain."

With The FBI"s reputation in tatters (and former FBI Director claiming that anything that exposes corruption or bias is off-limits, "for partisan gain"), it appears FBI Director Christopher Wray may be - just maybe - starting to clean house as first Baker and McCabe (following Peter Strzok"s and Bruce Ohr"s reassignment) are thrown under the bus, perhaps in an effort to appease those looking for Mueller blood.

Meanwhile, Trump predictably wasted no time to lash out at the FBI asking "How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?"

How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

Followed up by "FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!"

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

Ex-FBI Assistant Director: Patriots Within The FBI Will Soon Step Forward And Expose The "Cabal"

Former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom spoke to FBN"s Stewart Varney to discuss recent bombshells concerning the FBI, whose top brass has been conducting a highly politicized witch-hunt of President Trump on behalf of the anti-Trump establishment, while protecting then-candidate Hillary Clinton from criminal charges related to her email investigation, Clinton Foundation involvement in pay-for-play schemes, including a farcical probe of the Uranium One scandal.

James Kallstrom, Fmr FBI Asst Director

When asked about morale at the FBI towards the end of the interview, Kallstrom dropped a very interesting breadcrumb: 

Varney: What"s morale like in the FBI now?

 

Kallstrom: It"s not good, but I think recent events that I"m aware of are going to improve that because there"s going to be actually something that"s going to happen, in my view.

 

Varney: You going to leave us on that?

 

Kallstrom: Well I think there"s a lot of patriots that have had it up to here with what"s going on, and they"re going to step forward and tell people what the shenanigans have been. How they shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation, how other things were done that are so anti-what the FBI and the United States and this country is about.

FOX BUSINESS: Ex-FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom warns "patriots," will soon expose why the Clinton Foundation investigation was "shut down." pic.twitter.com/ubypqqbhRs

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) December 20, 2017

Kallstrom also said he thinks there are people in the Justice department who may face obstruction charges: 

"Now we come to this focus on the fifth estate that I"ve talked about, that includes multiplicities of people. But now we know it also includes a bunch of sycophants in the FBI - they were part of the Comey team, apparently. And people in Justice also that I believe have exposure now for obstruction of justice." 

Regarding Peter Strzok"s infamous "insurance" text to his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page, he said "People tweet each other and they send text messages, but they don"t plan. The FBI is not in the business of planning to destroy a President of the United States," adding "I think they were way above their capability. This guy thinks he"s the lone ranger, this Peter Strzok." 

If that"s his thinking, and they were obviously in Andy"s office plotting some kind of thing. And I think that some kind of thing is what we"re seeing right now. And we"ve seen for the last, what, ever since he"s been elected we"ve seen this facade and this phony challenge to Trump about collusion and Russia, which nothing could be further from the truth. All the collusion is with the Democrats, and it"s very very depressing to be FBI agents. 99 percent are hard working patriotic guys and girls that come to work for the good of the country.

And you"ve got this cabal of people. You"ve got this deputy director (McCabe) who should have been out a long time ago for his actions. And then you’ve got Peter Strzok and who knows how many others. -James Kallstrom

Kallstrom then brought up a question that"s on a lot of minds currently; just what exactly is Jeff Sessions doing right now? 

"I think finally we"re going to get to the end of this, but the big mystery here is the Justice Department. What is the Justice Department doing? What is the Attorney General of the United States doing? You know, it"s too bad for Donald Trump... ...It"s a mystery to me why he hasn"t called over to the Attorney General and told the AG "give the oversight committees the documents they"re looking for." Why is the Trump Justice Department not complying with subpoenas?" 

Varney: I want to summarize this. I want to be very clear about it. I have said in my opinion there is a cabal active within the FBI and the Justice Department.

Kallstrom: Yes

Varney: Which hates trump, which protected Hillary Clinton and tried to bring down Donald Trump. And that is an extraordinary story of interference in an American presidential election.

Kallstrom: yes, yes, yes. It is. Without question that"s what it was. Just like the whole "so-called" Clinton investigation, it was phony from the beginning; No grand jury, giving witnesses immunity, putting all the subjects in one room at the same time. I mean it"s crazy. It"s nuts what they did. 

Watch the clip below: 

Deconstructing The Almighty Russian Hackers Myth

Authored by Patrick Armstrong via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Sometimes things can be made more complicated than they really are.

And such is the case with the story that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee so as to help Trump become president.

In July 2016 Wikileaks released a number of documents showing that the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president had been rigged. A month earlier the DNC had announced it had been "hacked" and the cybersecurity company it hired announced that the Russians had done it – one of the reasons they gave was that the hackers had helpfully left the name of the Polish founder of the Soviet security forces as a clue.

Since then, this story has been broadly accepted and it has spun on and on for eighteen months. But it doesn"t really make any sense.

Let us pretend that Moscow wanted Trump to win. Let us further pretend that Moscow thought that there was a chance that he could win despite the fact that almost all news outlets, pollsters and pundits were completely confident that he could not. And let us pretend that Moscow thought that, with its thumb on the scale, Trump could make it. And, the fourth if, let us pretend that Moscow decided to put its thumb on the scale.

How to do it? Let us pretend (number five) that the strategy was to try and discredit Clinton. Let us further assume (this assumption is the one that"s probably true) that Moscow has very good electronic intelligence capacities. So, we imagine the scene in headquarters as they look for an approach; they quickly find one that is very good, a second that is pretty good and a third area that is worth digging around in.

The Russians would know all about the Uranium One matter where, as even the Clinton-friendly NYT admitted, "a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation". It would be very easy for them to package this as a case of Secretary of State Clinton selling US policy for personal profit. Russian intelligence organisations would have a great deal of true information and would find it easy to manufacture material to fill in any gaps in the story. Presented as a case of corruption and near treason, the story could have done a great deal of damage to her. And, given that it had happened six years earlier, all the details would have been known and ready to be used. It would have been a very powerful attack that even the complaint media would have had difficulty ignoring.

We know, and it"s very likely that the Russians did too, that she ran a private e-mail server on which there were thousands and thousands of official communications. The server was very insecure and we can assume that Russia"s signals intelligence (and everyone else"s, for that matter) had penetrated it. Think of all the real material from that source that could be revealed or twisted to make a scandal. That would make quite a campaign. Further, it is a reasonable assumption that Russian intelligence would have some of the thousands of e-mails that were "bleached". There would be enough material for a months-long campaign of leaks.

Finally, Hillary Clinton has been in public life for many years and there would have been ample opportunities, and, many would say, ample material in her scandal-plagued career, for the construction of many campaigns to weaken her appeal.

So, a preliminary look would suggest that there were several angles of attack of which Uranium One would be the easiest and most effective.

But, failing that, or as a supplement to that, there was plenty of embarrassing and incriminating material in her illicit private server.

Now we have to pretend (number six), contrary to the universal practice of security organs in all times and places, that the (always assumed in the story to be implacably hostile) Russians would decide to forgo the chance of compromising a future POTUS in favour of a harebrained scheme to get another elected.

But we"re supposed to believe that they did. The Russians, the story goes, with all this potential material, with a solid hit with Uranium One, decide instead to expose the finagling inside the Democratic Party structure. And to expose it too late to make any difference. As I said at the beginning, sometimes things are easier to understand when you, as it were, turn them upside down.

In the middle of June 2016 the DNC admits that its documents have been obtained – a "hack" they insist – and almost immediately, "Guccifer 2.0" pops up to claim responsibility and the DNC"s experts (Crowdstrike) claim Russia was behind it. A month passes before Wikileaks releases the first batch of DNC documents showing the extent of the manipulation of the process by Clinton – who had, according to most counts – already secured the nomination about two weeks before. A couple of days before the release, Trump gets the Republican nomination and a couple of days after that Clinton easily wins the Democratic nomination by a thousand-vote majority.

So, the first thing that should have occurred to the observer (but didn"t) was, if the Russians had had this incriminating evidence that the Democratic Party nomination had been fixed in Clinton"s favour, wouldn"t it have been more useful to put it out at a time when Sanders who was, after all, the swindled one, might have been able to do something about it? Instead those supposedly clever Russian state hackers dropped the news out at a time when it made very little difference. No difference in fact: Clinton got the nomination and there was no comeback from Sanders" people.

So, the "Russian hackers" made their arrow, shot it, hit the target and... no one cared. The people who devoutly believe in the Russian hacking story now have to explain (but don"t) why the Russian state, apparently so determined to bring Clinton down, didn"t immediately hit her with the Uranium One documents and anything else they had that could feed the flames of scandal.

But, as we all know, they didn"t. While long rumoured, and even briefly reported on, we only learned of Uranium One in a big way in October 2017 and the fact that her server contained Special Access material (the very highest classified secrets) was confirmed authoritatively only in November 2017. If the Russian had really had this sort of information and the hostility to Clinton that we"re incessantly told that they had, two years earlier would have been the time.

So, on the one hand we are supposed to believe that the Russian government is so clever that it can hack anything, has innumerable social media trolls that influence elections and referendums around the world ("control the American mind"), drives a "fake news" campaign at a fraction of the cost but with far greater effectiveness than the massed legions of the Western media, is a threat to practically everything we hold sacred... but is too stupid to get it right. Possessing great and powerful secrets and a stunningly powerful machine to spread them, it chooses to fire a damp squib too late to make any difference and passes up the chance to have a compromised US president for it to control.

In other words, it"s nonsense: we don"t really need the forensics of VIPS; we don"t need to argue with people who say it"s fake news about Seth Rich, or that Assange is a Putinbot, or carefully ignore Murray. Those efforts are useful enough but they"re not necessary. In any case, the Russia story is a Gish gallop and a whole academy of wise men and women couldn"t keep up with the latest. (Robert Parry bravely attempts to list the most prominent ones from the Vermont power facility, through all 17 agencies to 14^th not 4^th.)

Just common sense will do it: if the Russians had wanted to bring Hillary Clinton down, they had far more powerful charges which they could have detonated much earlier. It is not plausible that all they had was the rigging evidence and that they then deployed it too late to have an effect.

Or, maybe they"re not so all-competent in which case all the other stuff we"ve had shoved down our throats for months about "Russian information warfare" is even bigger nonsense.

Top Nuclear Official Agrees With Senator Who Says Obama Admin "Misled" On Uranium One Deal

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Kristine Svinicki responded to questions raised by Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) regarding a key aspect of the Uranium One deal, agreeing that the Obama Administration had not "fully depicted" the complexity of the transaction which ultimately gave the Kremlin control over 20% of US uranium. 

“I would note that, as your letter makes clear, the responses you have received have not fully depicted the complexity of this issue” -Kristine Svinicki, NRC Chair

Svinicki"s response fell short of agreeing with Barrasso that he had been "misled" over the deal to export yellowcake uranium from the Senator"s home state of Wyoming out of the country.

Barrasso says he was given "misleading" answers on whether or not Russian mined US uranium would be allowed to leave the country, based on revelations from The Hill which revealed the Obama administration allowed the uranium to leave the country by "piggy-backing" onto an export license held by shipping company, RSB Logistic Services Inc. 

Rep. John Barrasso (R-WY)

In a Monday letter to the NRC and the Energy Department, Barrasso wrote:

Prior to the approval of the sale [of Uranium One], I wrote to then-President Barack Obama registering my strong concerns regarding Russian control over American uranium production facilities and Russia"s ability to ship U.S. uranium overseas. I also requested immediate notification should ARMZ file for a license to export U.S. uranium. Based on information that has recently come to light, I now believe the response I received, and the process by which I received it, were both misleading.

 

On March 21, 2011, former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko responded to my letter on behalf of then-President Obama stating:

 ‘At this time, neither Uranium One Inc. nor ARMZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One, Inc. or 

ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use in reactor fuel’

 

The NRC staff made a similar statement in their recommendation to approve the transfer control of Uranium One to ARMZ, stating: 

 

 "before the licensee may export uranium to a foreign country, they must first comply with the NRC"s regulations and seek a specific license for such purpose."

 

Recent reporting by The Hill uncovered that Uranium One was able to export uranium without obtaining a specific export license. Beginning in 2012, Uranium One exported U.S. uranium by ‘piggy-backing’ as a supplier on an export license held by the shipping company, RSB Logistic Services Inc.

Barrasso originally wrote to the Obama administration in 2010 with concerns over Russia"s ability to export uranium overseas. In 2011, Obama-appointed NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko off the letter, noting the company would need an export license.

Barrasso says this was misleading during a Wednesday Senate hearing, stating “I specifically raised concerns about future exports of U.S. uranium by Uranium One,” adding “I believe the Obama administration’s response to my letter was at best misleading.”

Following Barrasso"s comments, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works requested that the NRC and the Energy Department produce documents related to the Obama administration"s response to the 2010 letter. Barrasso says he has evidence that the Energy Department misled him on their role in approving the uranium exports, and pointed out the enormous loophole which allowed Uranium One to export without a license. 

“Uranium One did not need a specific NRC license to export U.S. uranium,” said Barrasso, adding “Instead, Uranium One only needed to be, and later was, listed as a supplier on a transport company’s NRC export license.”

The New York Times covered the Uranium One story in 2015, detailing donations which poured into the Clinton Foundation from individuals associated with the deal - which was later found to be upwards of $140 million. Meanwhile, a series of follow-up reports from The Hill have filled in the gaps with several bombshells, including: 

• The FBI had a mole deep within the Russian uranium industry who gathered evidence of millions of dollars routed to  the Clinton Foundation by Russian nuclear officials. 


• The mole says there is a video showing Russians stuffing a briefcase full of bribe money, joking about Americans.


• Bill Clinton met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at his Moscow estate right before the Uranium One deal was approved, which was the same day he collected a $500,000 check for a speech to a Russian investment bank which issued a favorable rating to Uranium One stock. 

As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

 

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.

 

“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team. -The Hill

• There was an internal scramble at the FBI to preserve records from all of the agencies which approved the Uranium One deal, as uncovered by Twitter user "Katica" after pouring through emails obtained via FOIA request. 

The agencies which received the request included the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI James Clapper), The National Counter Terrorism Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

 

Five days after the initial request, the same FBI agent sent another round of notifications to the same agencies, adding the National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS).

The next day, September 3rd, 2015, three more agencies were added to the preservation request: The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD)

 

At this point, every single member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which signed off on the Uranium One deal was served with a notice to preserve records. 

There is so much more to the deal involving players like Tony Podesta, Paul Manafort, and various members of the Obama administration - one wonders if, and when, the dam will ever break under the overwhelming weight of malfeasance - sending waves of corrupt politicians and lobbyists down the drain. 

The Internecine Deep State Conflict Moves To Stage Two

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

It now seems evident that the Neoliberal Camp of the U.S. Deep State is highly vulnerable on an individual basis.

I tend to notice things like a year-old blog entry suddenly getting thousands of page views. The essay that received a surge of recent interest: Is the Deep State at War--With Itself? (December 13, 2016).

I"m reprinting the essay below for those interested, as nothing has emerged to change the conclusions.

That in itself reveals that the internecine war within America"s Deep State is if anything heating up as those attempting to hang a "Russian collusion" narrative on their Deep State opponents have failed to produce any proof of this collusion despite a year of effort.

Then all of a sudden big political donor Harvey Weinstein gets taken down for behaviors that have been well-known within the circles of power for 20+ years. So what changed? Why did Mr. Weinstein"s protective wall suddenly fail after serving him so effectively for decades?

But Mr. Weinstein was only the first to fall. Now high-profile figures across the mainstream media are toppling like dominoes. Doesn"t it seem a bit peculiar that all these Protected Privileged are suddenly being exposed, disgraced and removed from positions of influence and power?

Maybe it"s just random coincidence, but I doubt it. It has the scent of an intentional covert campaign. It"s well known that the mainstream media and Hollywood has been in bed with the security agencies for decades, and so it seems non-random that suddenly all these big-shots have lost their Protected Privileged Status more or less at once.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it looks like those who played on the losing side"s team (or cheered from the sidelines) just had their privileges revoked.

Were we to speculate on the meaning of this first-sweep of the media: how about a campaign to strip the failed narrative of its media supporters? Now that everyone sees the lay of the land, the Second Stage will be to collect all the dirty laundry that"s been hidden away out of fear, and then methodically expose, disgrace and remove the next layer of media/entertainment supporters of the failed narrative.

Stage Three will be to collect and release the same sort of evidence against the political class. We can discern evidence for this campaign in the number of candidates who suddenly declare they won"t be running for re-election for personal reasons, or to "move on to other projects," etc.

As this campaign moves up the wealth-power pyramid, we"ll see more big shots resigning or retiring. Those that resist will find all their dirty laundry is suddenly being made public.

Isn"t it interesting that PBS and the rest of the mainstream media went all out to support Hillary Clinton"s recent media campaign to revive the "Russian collusion" narrative via her new book, yet the campaign fell flat with the American public?

This is remarkable: a highly coordinated, massive media campaign failed to re-energize the "Russian collusion" narrative, and may have actually backfired by drawing renewed interest in Russian dealings with the Clinton Foundation during Hillary"s term as Secretary of State.

I hesitate to draw a military analogy, but it certainly feels like a replay of the Battle of Midway, in which an over-confident Japanese Imperial Navy was poised to declare victory until the cream of its fleet, four aircraft carriers, were sunk or disabled in the space of a few moments by U.S. Navy dive bombers.

The grand attack that was supposed to reverse these catastrophic losses--Hillary"s book and accompanying media blitz--fizzled, and that failure clearly eroded the defenses of those who supported this counter-attack by the demoralized but still powerful Neoliberal Camp of the Deep State.

It now seems evident that the Neoliberal Camp of the U.S. Deep State is highly vulnerable on an individual basis: all too many over-confident big-wigs appear to have counted a bit too much on their Protected Privileged Status being permanent.

Collectively, they appear to have forgotten, perhaps as a result of their titanic hubris, that only the paranoid survive.

Various cliques within the 3-Letter Agencies are frantically trying to protect their satraps and benefactors, but the tide has turned and all the threats and pay-offs that defended the Protected Privileged so effectively for decades are no longer working.

Now the Protected Privileged are running scared, as well they should, for the opposing camp within the 3-Letter Agencies has all the dirty laundry it needs to bring down the Neoliberal Camp, one disgraced big-shot at a time.

The way of the Tao is reversal.

Here"s last year"s essay on the Deep State conflict:

Is the Deep State at War--With Itself?

December 14, 2016

 

The recent pronouncement by the C.I.A. that Russian hackers intervened in the U.S. presidential election doesn"t pass the sniff test--on multiple levels. Let"s consider the story on the most basic levels.

 

1. If the report is so "secret," why is it dominating the news flow?

 

2. Why was the "secret report" released now?

 

3. What actual forensic evidence is there of intervention? Were voting machines tampered with? Or is this "secret report" just another dose of fact-free "fake news" like The Washington Post"s list of 200 "Russian propaganda" websites?

 

4. The report claims the entire U.S. intelligence community is in agreement on the "proof of Russian intervention on behalf of Trump" story, but then there"s this:

 

"The C.I.A. presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered."

 

Given that the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) was so secret that its existence was denied for decades, do you really think the NSA is going to go public if it disagrees with the C.I.A.?

 

Given the structure of the Deep State and the intelligence community, "minor disagreements" could well mean complete, total disavowal of the C.I.A."s report.

 

That this is the reality is suggested by the F.B.I."s denunciation of the report"s evidence-free, sweeping conclusion: FBI Disputes CIA"s "Fuzzy And Ambiguous" Claims That Russia Sought To Influence Presidential Election

 

5. The supposed interventions clearly fall under the purview of the NSA. So why is the C.I.A. going public in what is clearly a politicized report intended to influence the public via massive, sustained coverage in the mainstream media?

 

6. Notice the double standard: so when the U.S. attempts to influence public opinion in other nations, it"s OK, but when other nations pursue the same goal, it"s not OK?

 

7. What are we to make of the sustained campaign to elevate "Russian hackers and propaganda" from signal noise to the deciding factor in the U.S. election?

 

8. Russian hacking and attempts to influence American public opinion are not new. The intelligence agencies tasked with protecting American cyberspace have long identified state-sponsored hacking from Russia and China as major threats. So why, all of a sudden, are we being told the Russians successfully influenced a U.S. election?

 

What changed? What new capabilities did they develop?

 

9. And most importantly, what evidence is there that Russian efforts affected the election? Were digital fingerprints found on voting machine records? Were payments to American media employees uncovered?

 

Shouldn"t statements purported to be "fact" or the "truth" be substantiated beyond "trust us, an agency with a long history of failed intelligence, misinformation and illegal over-reach"?

 

10. Doesn"t it raise alarms that such a momentous accusation is totally devoid of evidence? If you"re going public with the conclusion, you have to go public with at least some of the evidence.

 

Here"s the media blitz and some skeptical response:

 

CIA: Russia intervened to help Trump win

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Former UK Ambassador Blasts "CIA"s Blatant Lies", Shows "A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims"

Longtime readers know I have proposed a major divide in the Deep State--the elements of the federal government which don"t change regardless of who is in elected office. This includes the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the diplomatic and trade infrastructure, Research and Revelopment, and America"s own organs of media "framing" and "placement."

Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

More recently, I wondered if the more progressive elements of the Deep State recognized the dangers to U.S. security posed by the neocons and their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and had decided to undermine her candidacy:

Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)

In other words, it"s not the Russians who sabotaged Hillary--it"s America"s own Deep State that undermined her coronation. It wasn"t a matter of personalities; it was much more profound than that. It was about the risks posed by the neocon strategies and policies, and just as importantly, the politicization of the intelligence network.

And this is precisely what we discern in the C.I.A."s unprecedented and quite frankly, absurd "secret report:" a blatantly politicized "report" that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence agencies. (Silence doesn"t mean approval in this sphere.)

We can now discern the warring camps of the Deep State more clearly. On the one side is the C.I.A., the mainstream media, and the civilians who have feasted on wealth and power from their participation in the neocon"s Global Project.

On the other side is the Defense Department"s own intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear and present danger to the security of the nation.

From this perspective, the C.I.A."s rash, evidence-free "report" is a rear-guard political action against the winning faction of the Deep State. The Deep State elements that profited from the neocon agenda were confident that Hillary"s victory would guarantee another eight years of globalist intervention. Her loss means they are now on the defensive, and like a cornered, enraged beast, they are lashing out with whatever they have in hand.

This goes a long way in explaining the C.I.A"s release of a painfully threadbare and politicized "report."

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print, $5.95 audiobook) For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.