Connect with us

Politics

DOJ “Taking Fresh Look” At Hillary Email Scandal

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

A month ago, Trump took a direct shot (one of many, actually) at his own “Justice” Department for not following up on what many in the country believe to be a fraudulent investigation by the FBI that cleared Hillary Clinton of crimes far greater than those which Special Counsel Mueller has alleged against Trump allies like Michael Flynn.

Alas, according to an exclusive report from the Daily Beast, citing sources close to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Hillary’s email problems may be just getting started as the DOJ has allegedly decided to “take a fresh look” at the FBI’s investigation of her private server.

Justice Department officials are taking a fresh look at Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, The Daily Beast has learned.

An ally of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is familiar with the thinking at the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters described it as an effort to gather new details on how Clinton and her aides handled classified material. Officials’ questions include how much classified information was sent over Clinton’s server; who put that information into an unclassified environment, and how; and which investigators knew about these matters and when. The Sessions ally also said officials have questions about immunity agreements that Clinton aides may have made.

Stephen Boyd, who heads the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs, appeared to hint at the department’s interest in Clinton’s emails in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte on Nov. 13. In the letter, Boyd wrote that that Sessions “directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues” the chairman was concerned about. He also wrote that those prosecutors would “make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened,” and that they would sen dthose recommendations directly to the attorney general and his top deputy, Rod Rosenstein.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department refused to confirm or deny the story from the Daily Beast.

Ironically, this new information comes just one day after a mysterious fire broke out at Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, NY…Destroying evidence can be very dangerous perhaps…

Of course, as we’ve pointed out numerous times over the past year and half, the FBI’s, or more accurately James Comey’s, decision to not proceed with any charges in the Hillary email investigation has confounded many Americans given the FBI’s own documentation of what clearly seems to be intentional criminal activities. Take for example, the time that Hillary and her staff clearly instructed their IT manager to delete emails despite full knowledge of a subpoena from Congress (see: The “Oh Shit” Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena)…

Then, on March 4, 2015, Hillary received a subpoena from the House for all of her emails on her personal servers.

Which brings us to the “Oh Shit” moment.

On March 25, 2015, the Undisclosed PRN Staff Member had a “conference call with President Clinton’s staff.” Apparently, in the days following that call, the Undisclosed PRN Staff Member had an “‘oh shit’ moment” when he realized he had forgotten to wipe the PRN server clean as he had been instructed to do back in December by Cheryl Mills.

Therefore, sometime within the 6 days after a call with “President Clinton’s Staff,” that PRN server was wiped clean using BleachBit despite the subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi received weeks earlier on March 4, 2016.

Not to mention the follow-on crime committed when Paul Combetta at first lied to the FBI about deleting the emails but subsequently “remembered.” So, what did Combetta get for committing perjury? Surely, he was rewarded with an indictment…just the same as Michael Flynn, right? While that might make sense to some folks, unlike Flynn, Combetta received a sweet immunity deal for lying to the FBI instead of an indictment…(see: The “Oh Shit” Guy That Wiped Hillary’s Server With BleachBit Was Just Granted Immunity).

Meanwhile, lets not forget the clear political bias of the FBI, obstruction of justice by Obama’s attorney general, etc…

Dismissed FBI Agent Is One Who Changed Hillary Email Scandal Language From “Grossly Negligent” To “Extremely Careless”
Prominent Democrat Connected To Clintons Donated $675,000 To Campaign Of Deputy FBI Director’s Wife.

Bill Clinton Holds ‘Private’ Meeting With Loretta Lynch As FBI Probes Hillary
Of course, the key question is whether this is all just another distraction gimmick being employed by the White House or whether Trump intends to make good on another campaign promise…

Trump: “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception.”

Clinton: “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.”

Trump: “Because you’d be in jail.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Economy

China Pressuring Wall Street To Stop Trump On Trade War

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

If anyone still doubted President Trump’s determination to slap tariffs on all – or even more than all – Chinese goods flowing into the US, they probably don’t anymore. So far this week, the president has taken to twitter to trash his own Treasury Secretary’s efforts to restart talks with the Chinese, before Trump publicly declared on Friday that he intends to move ahead with plans to slap 25% tariffs on another $200 billion worth of goods.

Given the president’s unflinching resolve in pursuing his trade agenda, it’s understandable why a shrewd businessmen would go to great lengths to avoid getting in the middle of what looks to be a protracted geopolitical dogfight.

But unfortunately for top Wall Street firms, many of which harbor ambitions of expanding their business in China, that may no longer be an option. Because while the Trump administration has largely left them alone, the Chinese are now trying to use whatever leverage they can (i.e. preferential access to the world’s second-largest economy) to push America’s top bankers to intervene on Beijing’s behalf.

Reuters reported Friday that top Chinese officials have hastily organized an investment conference in Beijing and requested the presence of several top Wall Street firms. The conference will be chaired by former PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan and ex-Goldman Sachs President John Thornton, and feature an appearance by Chinese vice-president Wang Qishan. Dubbed “the firefighter” by the Chinese people, Quishan, in addition to being the most powerful of China’s vice presidents, is also one of the senior Communist officials involved in managing the trade dispute.

While market liberalization is certainly a priority for the Chinese, it’s difficult to imagine that these top officials are planning to attend this conference – especially with so much else going on – just to brainstorm ideas about how China can proceed with opening up its financial sector.

The subtext here is obvious: China wants to figure out who in the US financial services community can help them get through to Trump and help stop this conflict before losses in China’s currency and stock market spiral out of control. And if the carrot of access doesn’t work, China has already proven adept at leveraging the stick.

(Full Article Here)

Continue Reading

Politics

Jeff Bezos Thinks President Trump’s “Attacks” Are “Dangerous”

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

A day after unveiling his first major charitable initiative (an announcement that arrived, coincidentally, we’re sure, after a bruising week of headlines detailing the latest crop of worker-abuse allegations directed at Amazon), Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (also the world’s wealthiest man) disappointed hundreds of powerful people who had convened to hear him speak – as rumors swirled that he might reveal the location of Amazon’s much-hyped HQ2 – last night at the Economic Club of Washington DC. But instead of an outright reveal, Bezos assured his audience that Amazon plans to announce the location by the end of the year, though he wouldn’t elaborate beyond that.

According to CNBC, Bezos, who was interviewed by private equity titan David Rubenstein, assured his audience that Amazon’s team is “working hard” on evaluating the finalists (the company announced 20 finalists earlier this year).

“The answer is very simple…We will answer the decision before the end of the year,” Bezos said. “We will get there.” Bezos swiftly changed the subject to his recently launched “Day One” charitable fund, which he recently seeded with $2 billion of his personal fortune.

As is his nature, Bezos shared his intentions to expand the “Day One” fund as his team learns more about the “business” of philanthropy.

“I believe in the power of wandering,” Bezos said. “All of my best decisions in business and life have been made with heart, intuition, guts — not analysis.”

He later said he would like to invest “a lot of money” in an enterprise that most rational investors would view as a “really bad investment”, a statement that turned into a plug for his Blue Origin space exploration company.

(Full Article Here)

Continue Reading

Politics

Bailing Out The Rich Only Makes It Worse

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

In 1948, the architect of the post-war American suburb, William Levitt, explained the point of the housing finance system. “No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist,” he said. “He has too much to do.”

It’s worth reflecting on this quote on the ten-year anniversary of the financial crisis, because it speaks to how the architects of the bailouts shaped our culture. Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson, the three key men in charge, basically argue that the bailouts they executed between 2007 and 2009 were unfair, but necessary to preserve stability. It’s time to ask, though: just what stability did they preserve?

These three men paint the financial crisis largely as a technical one. But let’s not get lost in the fancy terms they use, like “normalization of credit flows,” in discussing what happened and why. The excessively wonky tone is intentional – it’s intended to hide the politics of what happened. So let’s look at what the bailouts actually were, in normal human language.

The official response to the financial crisis ended a 75-year-old American policy of pursuing broad homeownership as a social goal. Since at least Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American leaders had deliberately organized the financial system to put more people in their own homes. In 2011, the Obama administration changed this policy, pushing renting over owning. The CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, echoed this view shortly thereafter. There are many reasons for the change, and not all of them were bad. But what’s important to understand is that the financial crisis was a full-scale assault on the longstanding social contract linking Americans with the financial system through their house.

The way Geithner orchestrated this was through a two-tiered series of policy choices. During the crisis, everyone needed money from the government, but Geithner offered money to the big guy, and not the little guy.

First, he found mechanisms, all of them very technical—and well-reported in Adam Tooze’s new book Crashed—to throw unlimited amounts of credit at institutions controlled by financial executives in the United States and Europe. (Eric Holder, meanwhile, also de facto granted legal amnesty to executives for possible securities fraud associated with the crisis.)

Second, Geithner chose to deny money and credit to the middle class in the midst of a foreclosure crisis. The Obama administration supported this by neutering laws against illegal foreclosures.

The response to the financial crisis was about reorganizing property rights. If you were close to power, you enjoyed unlimited rights and no responsibilities, and if you were far from power, you got screwed. This shaped the world into what it is today. As Levitt pointed out, when people have no stake in the system, they get radical.

Did this prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.

(Full Article Here)

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.