Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Tax Reform / Tax Cut Clears Senate Test Vote As Trump Eyes 'Big Victory'
« Last post by delta5 on November 30, 2017, 12:02:12 AM »
Tax cut bill clears Senate test vote as Trump eyes 'big victory'
By Alex Pappas

Published November 29, 2017
FoxNews.com
The Republican plan to overhaul the nation’s tax system cleared a key procedural hurdle on Wednesday, as President Trump rallied support for the bill and called it the “beginning of the next great chapter for the American worker.”

The bill advanced on a 52-48 party line vote, allowing senators to start debate on the sweeping legislation.

Ahead of the floor vote, President Trump traveled to Missouri to rally support for the bill -- and pressure Congress.

“Now comes the moment of truth,” the president said during a rally in St. Louis. “In the coming days, the American people will learn which politicians are part of the swamp and which politicians want to drain the swamp.”

He said, “The eyes of the world now turn to the United States Senate. ... A successful vote in the Senate this week will bring us one giant step closer to delivering a big victory to the American people.”

Speaking at the St. Charles Convention Center on Wednesday, the president said he is working to “help push our plan for historic tax cuts right across the finish line.”

“A vote to cut taxes is a vote to put America first again,” the president said in St. Louis. “We want to do that, we want to put America first again. It's time to take care of our workers, to protect our communities and to rebuild our great country.”

He also took aim at Missouri’s Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, a top Republican target in the 2018 midterm elections.

“Senator Claire McCaskill -- have you ever heard of her? -- is doing you a tremendous disservice,” Trump said. “She wants your taxes to go up. She's weak on crime. She's weak on borders. She's weak on illegal immigration. And she's weak on the military. Other than that, I think she's doing a fantastic job.”

Critics say both the House and Senate versions will disproportionately help the wealthy and corporations.

But Trump on Wednesday argued some super wealthy people – including himself – won’t like everything in the bill.

President Donald Trump points to sign that reads Merry Christmas as he arrives to speak about tax reform at the St. Charles Convention Center, Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, in St. Charles, Mo. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Ahead of the floor vote, President Trump traveled to Missouri to rally support for the bill -- and pressure Congress.  (AP)

“We're also going to eliminate tax breaks and complex loopholes taken advantage of by the wealthy… I think my accountants are going crazy right now,” he said.

He added: “It's all right. Hey, look, I'm president. I don't care. I don't care anymore. I don't care. Some of my wealthy friends care. Me, I don't care. This is a higher calling.”

The bill still faces hurdles in the Senate, where Republicans have just two votes to spare in their 52-48 edge over Democrats.

“If they send it to my desk, I promise all of the people in this room, my friends, so many friends in this room -- a great state -- I promise you I will sign it,” Trump said. “I promise. I will not veto that bill. There will be no veto.”

As it stands, the Senate’s tax overhaul plan is different from that of the House’s version. The two chambers would need to come together on a unified piece of legislation to advance to President Trump’s desk.

Under the Senate bill, the standard deduction – the amount which reduces the amount of income Americans are taxed – would increase to $12,000 for individual filers and $24,000 for married couples.

When it comes to reducing the corporate tax rate, both chambers want to see the tax rate lowered to 20 percent from 35 percent. However, the Senate measure would delay the implementation for one year.

The Senate’s tax plan would eliminate state and local tax deductions – meaning taxpayers in high-tax states would lose a write-off. This would impact mostly blue states, such as California and New York.

The Senate’s tax plan also includes a repeal of the individual mandate, the ObamaCare requirement for Americans to have health care.

The Senate tax reform measure would leave the mortgage deduction pretty much alone, capping it at $1 million. The House plan, on the other hand, would drastically reduce the cap on the popular deduction to mortgage interest to $500,000.

Fox News'  Kaitlyn Schallhorn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.
 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/29/trump-in-missouri-senate-must-pass-those-tax-cuts.html

2
Looney Bin / Liberal Double Standard?
« Last post by delta5 on November 29, 2017, 11:54:57 PM »
Congressional Black Caucus not seeking Conyers’ resignation, despite pressure from other Dems
By Joseph Weber

Published November 29, 2017
FoxNews.com
The influential Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday stood behind Democratic Rep. John Conyers amid sexual-misconduct allegations, resignation calls from fellow party leaders and a bipartisan vote to end such behavior.

“We are not urging John to resign,” Rep. Cedric Richmond, the caucus leader, said after members discussed the issue in a closed-door Capitol Hill meeting and amid a House Ethics Committee investigation into Conyers’ alleged conduct.

“We think it's a decision for him and his family and his constituents to make,” said Richmond, a Louisiana Democrat. “When in an elected office, it’s those people in his congressional district … and his family that will weigh in on what happens when the ethics investigation is going on.”

The comments represent a split with Democratic leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who despite initially defending Conyers is said to be pushing privately for his resignation.

Three allegations of sexual misconduct have now been made again Conyers, a Michigan Democratic and the longest-serving sitting House member.

The first surfaced last week, when BuzzFeed posted a story detailing a settlement with a former Conyers staffer who said the 88-year-old lawmaker sexually harassed her, then fired her after she rebuffed his advances.

The news website reported that Conyers' office paid the woman more than $27,000 under a confidentiality agreement to settle a complaint in 2015.

The ethics committee then announced that it had begun an investigation into Conyers, after receiving allegations of sexual harassment and age discrimination involving staff members and about the congressman using "official resources for impermissible personal purposes."

A few days later, a second former staffer came forward with more claims of inappropriate behavior.

Melanie Sloan, a lawyer who worked with Conyers on the House Judiciary Committee, said she was called the congressman's office to discuss an issue and found him “walking around in his underwear.”

Sloan worked on the committee in the 1990s, but it was not clear when the alleged incident occurred. She also claims Conyers often screamed at her, fired and re-hired her, criticized her for not wearing stockings and once even ordered her to baby-sit one of his children.

“I deny [all of] these allegations,” Conyers also said Sunday. “I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family.”

On Tuesday, The Detroit News reported that former staffer Deanna Maher alleges Conyers sexually harassed her, including inappropriate touching, in three incidents from 1997 to 1999. She became the second former Conyers staffer to go public with such accusations.

At a CBC meeting the same day, several members reportedly called for Conyers’ resignation.

Richmond said Wednesday that the allegations, if found to be true, are unacceptable and the CBC is relying on the ethics committee’s findings. 

“All I know is one vehemently denies it, one is saying that it’s true. Ethic has to come down on the legal,” said Richmond, a lawyer. “If these allegations are true, then they are serious, they are disturbing, they are awful, because we just don’t stand for harassment in the workplace or anywhere else.”

Still, top CBC officials’ tentative support for Conyers at this stage comes as several congressional Democrats publicly suggest that he should resign.

“I would think he should,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer, of Oregon, said Wednesday on C-SPAN's “Washington Journal.”

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House’s No. 2 Democrat, later told MSNBC that Conyers should resign if the allegations are true.

Earlier this week, Reps. Kathleen Rice, of New York, and Pramila Jayapal, of Washington state, said they think Conyers should resign.

On Wednesday, the House approved a bipartisan measure requiring lawmakers and aides to take annual anti-harassment training, following a similar move by the Senate.

A few hours earlier, Richmond and fellow Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina, were criticized on social media for suggesting a different standard for members of Congress facing sexual harassment claims, compared with figures like NBC’s Matt Lauer or CBS’s Charlie Rose, who were fired almost immediately.

“Who elected them?” Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat, asked reporters – suggesting elected lawmakers could not be let go so easily.

House Minority Leader Pelosi faced similar backlash Sunday when she told NBC that Conyers is an “icon” in efforts toward women’s equality, while also reserving judgement about the allegations until the ethics committee completes its review.

Within minutes of Conyers announcing he’d stepped down from the Judiciary committee, though, Pelosi released a statement that said: “Zero tolerance means consequences. As a woman and mother of four daughters, I particularly take any accusation of sexual harassment very seriously. … No matter how great an individual’s legacy, it is not a license for harassment.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/29/congressional-black-caucus-not-seeking-conyers-resignation-despite-pressure-from-other-dems.html
3
Asshole Of The Week / Lavar Ball And His Thug Sons
« Last post by delta5 on November 22, 2017, 12:08:13 AM »

Are you fucking kidding me? Does this dumbass understand what President Trump saved his thug sons from?
I guarantee there are no niggas or wiggas thugging around Chinese prisons with their pants pulled down, looking for someone to stick a dick in their asses. Those boys were looking at 5 to 10 years of hard labor and rough treatment. This clown better pull his head out of his ass...

<br /><br />
4
Trump doesn't have to resume Obamacare health care subsidies, judge rules
Published October 25, 2017
Associated Press
A U.S. judge ruled Wednesday that the government does not have to immediately resume paying "Obamacare" health care subsidies that President Donald Trump cut off.

Eighteen state attorneys general, led by California Democrat Xavier Becerra, argued the monthly payments are required under former President Barack Obama's health care law and cutting them off will harm consumers.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco said the Trump administration had the "stronger legal argument" and the emergency relief sought by the states would be "counterproductive" since they had devised workarounds to the lost subsidies that give millions of lower-income people better health care options. The states had asked him to force the government to keep making the payments while the case works its way through the courts, which will take months.

The Trump administration had announced earlier this month that it will cut off cost-sharing reduction payments, which aim to reduce out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people.

Trump has said Obama's law is imploding and has criticized the subsidies as insurance company bailouts. The White House says the government cannot legally continue paying the subsidies because there is no formal authorization from Congress.

Chhabria, an Obama appointee, said at a hearing Monday that California and other states had protected consumers from the loss of the funding so people didn't face an immediate threat of higher insurance costs.

The states limited the plans for which insurers could hike premiums to make up for the lost subsidies and ensured that many people will get more tax credits for their health insurance purchases, the judge said.

Chhabria peppered an attorney for California with questions about why he should force the administration to resume payments when the states had devised a workaround that would benefit many consumers.

"The state of California is standing on the courthouse steps denouncing the president for taking away people's health care, when the truth is that California has come up with a solution to that issue that is going to result in better health care for a lot of people," Chhabria said.

Gregory Brown, who represented California at the hearing, said the loss of the subsidies was creating "uncertainty and chaos" that could lead insurance companies to opt out of the health law.

The administration had been making the monthly payments even as Trump threatened to cut them off to force Democrats to negotiate over health care. A bipartisan effort in Congress to restore the payments has run into opposition.

The payments reimburse insurers for the costs of lowering copays and deductibles, which they are required to do for low-income customers who buy coverage through the health care marketplaces created by Obama's law.

The states argue that the Trump administration violated a law requiring government agencies to obey existing statutes and follow orderly and transparent procedures.

Democratic attorneys general have pushed back against Trump's agenda in the federal courts, looking to block the president's attempts to roll back Obama's policies on the environment, health care and immigration.

The states joining California in the lawsuit are: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, along with the District of Columbia.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/trump-doesnt-have-to-resume-obamacare-health-care-subsidies-judge-rules.html
5
Gag order lifted: DOJ says informant can speak to Congress on Uranium One, Russia bribery case with Clinton links
Published October 25, 2017
FoxNews.com
The Justice Department said Wednesday night that it had lifted a gag order on a former FBI informant involved in a high-profile Russia bribery case, clearing the individual to speak to Congress about Moscow’s Obama-era uranium deals in the U.S. market and other schemes.

In a statement, the department said it had authorized the informant to speak to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in addition to select staffers.

The department said the informant could provide “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market,” including Russian company Rosatom, subsidiary Tenex, Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.

 Congressman shares his take on controversial 2010 deal with Russian-backed company.Video
Rep. DeSantis speaks out about Uranium One investigation
Uranium One refers to the name of a Canada-based company with mines in the U.S. that was bought by Rosatom, a company backed by the Russian state. The State Department, then led by Hillary Clinton, was one of nine U.S. government agencies that had to approve the deal back in 2010.

All three congressional committees launched investigations after The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in fraudulent dealings – including extortion, bribery and kickbacks – as far back as 2009 in a case involving Rosatom’s subsidiary, Tenex. Congressional Republicans have since questioned how the Uranium One deal was approved the following year by an inter-agency committee, and sought to gain access to the informant.

Republicans also have raised concerns about efforts by interested parties to influence the Clintons – citing donations to the Clinton Foundation as well as a $500,000 speaking fee received in Russia by former President Bill Clinton, who reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tweeted Tuesday that the Justice Department should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Uranium One deal.

 Follow
ChuckGrassley ✔@ChuckGrassley
Whoever in DOJ is capable w authority to appoint a special counsel shld do so to investigate Uranium One "whoever" means if u aren't recused
9:33 PM - Oct 24, 2017
 2,062 2,062 Replies   7,555 7,555 Retweets   12,680 12,680 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The informant's attorney, Victoria Toensing, told Fox Business Network Monday that her client can "tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made." The informant earlier was prevented from testifying by former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, according to Toensing, after having signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain and Jake Gibson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/justice-department-provides-fbi-uranium-one-informant-to-congress.html
6
Trump rips Clinton link to Fusion GPS dossier as a 'disgrace,' says Russia 'hoax is turned around'
By Judson Berger, Brooke Singman

Published October 25, 2017
FoxNews.com
President Trump, in a wide-ranging sparring session with reporters Wednesday afternoon, blasted Hillary Clinton over new revelations her campaign helped fund a salacious anti-Trump dossier last year – calling the project a “disgrace” and claiming the tables have turned on Democrats over the “Russia hoax.”

“They’re embarrassed by it, but I think it’s a disgrace,” Trump told reporters, before heading to Texas for a briefing on Hurricane Harvey recovery efforts and a Republican fundraiser. “It’s a very sad commentary on politics in this country.”

In the midst of a court case that threatened to reveal the dossier’s funding, it emerged Tuesday night that political consulting firm Fusion GPS was retained last year by Marc E. Elias, an attorney representing the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. The firm then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to write the dossier that contained unverified and lurid allegations about Trump and his team’s ties to Moscow.

The Washington Post first reported on the connections, which were confirmed by Fox News.

Trump, though, repeatedly said Wednesday that this information only came out because the court case would have revealed it. Amid a series of Russia-related controversies that have Democrats – at least for now – on defense, Trump suggested the allegations of Russia collusion with his campaign have boomeranged and are hurting Democrats.

“The whole Russia thing … this was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing the election,” Trump told reporters. “They lost it and they lost it very badly. And they didn’t know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax.”

Trump added: “Now it’s turning out that the hoax is turned around, and you look at what’s happened with Russia and the uranium deal and the fake dossier, and it’s all turned around.”

'The whole Russia thing...this was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing the election'

- President Donald Trump
Trump was referring not only to the dossier but the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of a Canadian mining company’s sale to a Russian firm that gave them partial control of U.S. uranium reserves.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends a signing of her new book 'What happened' at Barnes & Noble bookstore at Union Square in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., September 12, 2017.  REUTERS/Andrew Kelly - RC121E6CA5A0
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends a signing of her new book 'What happened' at Barnes & Noble bookstore at Union Square in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., September 12, 2017. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly - RC121E6CA5A0

The law firm that retained Fusion GPS reportedly was paid millions in legal fees by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Sources, however, told The Post that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC specifically directed Steele’s work, labeling the intelligence officer simply as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, stressed that the current leadership was not involved in the arrangement.

“Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization," DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement. "But let’s be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened.” 

A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who led the DNC at the time, told Fox News on Wednesday that, “She did not have any knowledge of this arrangement.”

Democratic National Committee Chair, Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is interviewed in New York. Wasserman Schultz is literally getting a run for her money by her South Florida primary opponent, Tim Canova ,thanks to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)
A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., told Fox News that the former DNC chair did not have "any knowledge of this arrangement" with Fusion GPS, or funding the now-infamous Trump dossier.  (AP)

What exactly Hillary Clinton knew is unclear. But Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement that, “I personally wasn’t aware of this during the campaign.” However, he said, “if I had gotten handed it last fall, I would have had no problem passing it along and urging reporters to look into it.”

The Washington Post report noted that while Elias and his law firm retained Fusion GPS in April 2016, the firm’s research before that was funded by an “unknown Republican client” during the GOP primary.

Asked Wednesday if he knows who that was, Trump teased the media.

“I think I would know but I won’t say,” he said. “I have one name in mind. … It will probably be revealed.” 

During his Q&A with reporters on the White House lawn, the president pivoted to a range of other subjects, including Republican unity as compared with Democratic unity.

“I’ll tell you what—honestly, the Republicans are very, very well united,” Trump said, while claiming there’s “hatred, division and animosity” between Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

The president covered immigration, tax reform and opioid abuse.

Trump told reporters he would “love to do a DACA deal,” but he needed something “very substantial” to complete legislation helping so-called dreamers -- listing “the wall” and the ability to “stop drugs from pouring in” to the U.S. Trump again vowed that at some point, the administration would declare a “national emergency” for the opioid epidemic. 

Trump jumped to tax reform, promising an “incredible” plan.

“We’re going to bring back $4 trillion, I think at least, from overseas, and that money is going to be put back into our country,” Trump said.

He also defended his phone conversations with Gold Star families, amid controversy over one phone call with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, who was killed in Niger.

“It’s a rough time for these people. It’s a tough time. It couldn’t be tougher. But I have such respect for those families,” Trump said.

Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., as well as the widow, Myeshia Johnson, had criticized Trump’s tone during that call.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/trump-rips-clinton-link-to-fusion-gps-dossier-as-disgrace-says-russia-hoax-is-turned-around.html
7
Hillary Clinton and the real Russian collusion
By Ned Ryun

Published October 25, 2017
FoxNews.com
You may have heard of the scandal brewing in Washington. Presidential advisers cutting sweetheart deals with a foreign power, signing million dollar lobbying contracts with that foreign power, bribes being proffered, and the foreign government gained unprecedented access to government agencies and crucial U.S. natural resources? And what if I told you that foreign power was Russia?

Collusion you say?  Perhaps.  Collusion with Trump?  Nope.

I’m talking about a news story that fittingly is coming back from the dead just before Halloween to scare a lot of Democrats, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama administration officials.  If you want to take a deeper dive on this issue, read the book "Clinton Cash," by Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute. But here are the basics.

A decade ago, a long-time Clinton Foundation donor, Frank Giustra, sold his uranium company to another firm, Uranium One. With that deal, Uranium One now owned uranium mines in the western U.S., including Wyoming, with about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity, and about ten percent of the actual uranium mined in the U.S.

In 2009, Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear agency, took a 17-percent position in Uranium One. A year later, in the summer of 2010, Rosatom bought majority control of the Uranium One, effectively giving the Russian government-controlled entity proprietary access to one-fifth of the U.S. uranium supply.

Consider this: Russia got its generous foothold in the U.S. uranium market in less time than it takes most 16-year-olds to get a driver’s license.

All of this was taking place after years of what could best be categorized as challenging times in U.S.-Russia relations, as Russia attempted to annex Georgia, intimidated Ukraine and threatened the former-captive nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia with short-range nuclear weapons.  In short, Russia was doing nothing that would indicate it was a country unwilling to build and potentially use nuclear weapons; the signs of aggression were everywhere.

Now there is a process that the U.S. government uses to ensure that any business deal that may include significant national security issues is given serious, in-depth and careful review and approval. That review is run through the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CIFIUS), which includes representatives from Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, and State, as well as the U.S. trade representative and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and National Security Council. In addition, the director of national intelligence also has input to the review. 

CIFIUS and Congressional reviews killed deals like the Rosatom purchase before. In 2006 it helped kill the deal by a Dubai owned company to buy U.S. ports, in part because of the national security risks it presented, and it killed multiple deals with Chinese companies as well in 2009 and 2010. Yet, between the first week of August 2010 and October 22, 2010, the Obama Administration in expedited time approved the sale of crucial national security resources to Russia by rubber stamping the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom. In 2015, Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, noted the expedited time of the deal's approval in a letter to then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, calling it a deal that was "apparently approved in record speed."

According to most law firms that deal in such matters, CIFIUS reviews involving sensitive national security matters can take up to 120 days. The Rosatom deal took fewer than 90 days.  More outrageous:  it appears there were no Congressional oversight hearings.  Even more outrageous – and puzzling – members of the CIFIUS review board were aware of attempts by Russian government efforts to bribe U.S.-based executives in the U.S. uranium industry at the time this deal was being approved.

This wasn’t simply your typical Clinton back room deal. This was a deal that was reviewed by virtually every senior Obama administration official, many of whom were aware of the Clinton connection, the FBI bribery investigation, and Rosatom’s history.

On October 5th of 2010, Republicans in Congress demanded that the Obama Administration review the Rosatom deal more closely, citing a host of national security issues.  For example, one rationale cited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for approving the deal was that Rosatom did not have an export license to sell or ship the U.S. uranium overseas.  But as the Congressional letter noted, Russia’s government-controlled nuclear companies had been sanctioned numerous times for breaking uranium import-export deals, particularly to the countries they aid in building nuclear capacity, such as Iran (yes, Rosatom helped build the Iranian Bushere nuclear plant and trained Iranian nuclear scientists).  To paraphrase a pop culture reference Vladamir Putin would appreciate: “An export license?  Russia doesn’t need a stinkin’ export license!”

Consider this:  Russia got its generous foothold in the U.S. uranium market in less time than it takes most 16-year-olds to get a driver’s license. Russia got its deal moved through the Obama Administration faster than it took the Obama Administration Department of Justice’s Anti-Trust Division to approve any of the mergers of two U.S. companies it reviewed.

How is that possible?  Clearly there were motivated folks to get the deal done.  One of those was clearly Hillary Clinton, whose family foundation raked in millions from donors with ties to Russia, as well as the uranium industry.  Some media outlets have pointed out that the total take for the foundation may have been as “little” as $4 million.  But for a cash-starved foundation that can’t even afford to give back $250,000 from serial sex-offender Harvey Weinstein, $4 million is a decent cash reserve.

But let’s be clear, this wasn’t simply your typical Clinton back room deal.  This was a deal that was reviewed by virtually every senior Obama administration official, many of whom were aware of the Clinton connection, the FBI bribery investigation, and Rosatom’s history.  And let's not forget either: controlling the global supply chain is the very obvious goal of Putin's. To make matters worse, President Barack Obama reviewed the case.

Why would such a deal go through? Sometimes the easiest explanation is the right one: maybe it was nothing more than a payback to Democrat and Clinton donors. When nothing makes sense in Washington D.C., just follow the money.

While this scandal's original focus was on Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation, it goes far deeper into a Democratic administration than anyone within the party wants to admit. Which is perhaps why President Obama seemed less than excited about pushing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Perhaps in a rare moment of self-recollection and awareness, he realized that eventually the breadth of this story would end up exactly where we are today, with all eyes looking at Obama's appointees, wondering why they sold America’s national security for the uranium-market equivalent of 30 pieces of silver.   

Ned Ryun is the Founder and CEO of American Majority, a national grassroots organization. Learn more at AmericanMajority.org.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
8
Support And Board Requests / Posting Articles
« Last post by delta5 on October 24, 2017, 09:44:36 PM »
When posting an article, please include a link back to the article URL at the bottom. This will help keep us out of trouble under Fair Use.
9
Asshole Of The Week / Re: Rep. Frederica Wilson, Another Liberal Moonbat
« Last post by delta5 on October 21, 2017, 04:30:20 AM »
If I were President Trump, I would ban her from all White House activities. She would NOT be welcome if I were President...
10
Asshole Of The Week / Rep. Frederica Wilson, Another Liberal Moonbat
« Last post by delta5 on October 21, 2017, 04:12:12 AM »
Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson: White House 'is full of white supremacists'
Published October 20, 2017
FoxNews.com

Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson, in the midst of a public feud with the Trump administration over the treatment of a Gold Star family, said the “White House itself is full of white supremacists.”

In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, Wilson pushed back against comments made by White House chief of staff John Kelly during a Thursday press briefing in which he criticized Wilson’s involvement in a personal call President Trump made to the family of fallen Army Sgt. La David Johnson.

Johnson was one of four Americans killed in an ambush in Niger on Oct. 4. In the call, the president told Johnson’s widow that her husband “knew what he signed up for,” Wilson claimed. But Trump said that Wilson "totally fabricated" what he told Myeshia Johnson, the soldier's widow.

WHITE HOUSE DOUBLES DOWN ON JOHN KELLY’S 'EMPTY BARREL' SLAM: 'ALL HAT, NO CATTLE'

Kelly said he was “broken-hearted” by Wilson’s involvement in the call. During his remarks, Kelly also criticized Wilson by recalling her comments during the 2015 dedication of a FBI field office in Miramar, Fla.

He said Wilson “talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money, the $20 million, to build the building, and she sat down.”

“And we were stunned, stunned that she'd done it," Kelly said of Wilson's remarks during the event. "Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned."

But video of that event, released on Friday, showed that Wilson did not actually talk about the building’s funding, but instead spoke of her own efforts getting legislation passed that named the building after the fallen agents it was dedicated for.

Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., talks to reporters, Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017, in Miami Gardens, Fla. Wilson is standing by her statement that President Donald Trump told Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson killed in an ambush in Niger, that her husband "knew what he signed up for." In a Wednesday morning tweet, Trump said Wilson's description of the call was "fabricated." (AP Photo/Alan Diaz)
Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., is standing by her statement that President Trump told the widow of a fallen soldier that her husband "knew what he signed up for."  (AP Photo/Alan Diaz)

“I feel very sorry for him because he feels such a need to lie on me and I’m not even his enemy,” Wilson said of Kelly, according to The Times. “I just can’t even imagine why he would fabricate something like that. That is absolutely insane. I’m just flabbergasted because it’s very easy to trace.”

Wilson didn’t label Kelly a racist in the piece but did claim that others in the White House are.

“They are making themselves look like fools. They have no credibility,” she said. “They are trying to assassinate my character, and they are assassinating their own because everything they say is coming out and shown to be a lie.”

The White House didn't back down from Kelly's comments during a Friday afternoon press briefing. Kelly, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “absolutely” stands by his criticism.

“As Gen. Kelly pointed out, if you're able to make a sacred act like honoring American heroes all about yourself, you’re an empty barrel,” Sanders said. “If you don't understand that reference, I will put it a little bit more simply. As we say in the South: ‘all hat, no cattle.’”

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/20/frederica-wilson-white-house-is-full-white-supremacists.html

Pages: [1] 2 3