Facebook, The CIA & The Clintons

Secrecy

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 20 2017

This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.

Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of stock in 2012, I’ve been following the trail of its stock price.

In 2012, I wrote:

“But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.”

“Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. ‘Experts’ are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.”

“This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play… First, [insiders] drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.”

In 2013, I followed up and wrote: “Facebook launched its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price was 42 dollars a share.”

“In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55.”

“On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the stock reached an all-time high: 52.21.”

“So…Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices, scaring lots of investors.”

“They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at delicious discounts.”

“Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to move the price. Up. The long climb begins.”

Now, in June of 2017, it’s time to check in again. What’s happened to Facebook’s stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?

From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks—and of course, insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves. The shakeout took the stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to $115.05.

Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.

All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17…and now $150.

Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook’s long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?

I ask that question because of Facebook’s CIA connections:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the park for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an anti-Trump stance, which meant a pro-Hillary stance. Is that a pro-CIA stance? Let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.

The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill HE WAS STILL THEIR MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

“I’m not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….

“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992 Presidential campaign.

That speaks of major planning. In 1992, an obscure governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the White House.

Now, consider the role of the CIA-connected Facebook in the 2016 presidential election. Did Facebook’s strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep the Clintons in power?

Since 1986, have the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?

Was the most recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put Hillary in the White House?

Most people have a problem looking at log-term ops. They conceive of covert actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That’s exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they’re in the clear.

And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and support their favored presidential candidate—all during the same dozen years.

It’s an easy program.

All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Want to understand the Deep State? Here is your Deep, Deep State

TheDeepState2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 14, 2017

Men behind the curtain?

Men who control the government and its policies from the outside?

Men who have immunity from prosecution?

Men who tell presidents what to do?

Men who can hide in plain sight? Men who don’t need to be elected to public office? Men who can laugh at their critics and call them conspiracy theorists and purveyors of fake news? Men who can determine financial and banking policy? Men who can set up corporate tribunals that nullify national courts? Men who can set virtually any national policy agenda they want to?

If an honest press existed, all this would be out in the open by now.

If, as many people are now saying, the CIA and NSA and neocons are the unelected Deep State, then the people I’m talking about would be the Deep, Deep State.

Read on.

Many people think the Trilateral Commission (TC), created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelet, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, could have helped engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In Europe, the financially embattled nations of Greece and Italy brought in Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti as prime ministers. Both men are Trilateral members, and Monti is the former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

In the US, since 1973, author Wood counts eight out of 10 US Trade Representative appointments, and six out of eight World Bank presidents, as American Trilateral members.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC in 1973, with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took no actions which would have brought about an authentic recovery?

A closer look at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Even in what many people mistakenly think of as the TC’s heyday, the 1970s, there were few who realized its overarching power.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force.

Deep State.

Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has nevertheless appointed a significant Trilateral member to a major post. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):

“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council [as deputy director]:

“’Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits’.”

Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.

Note: In this article, I’m not listing Trump appointees who are members of another Rockefeller deep-state organization, the Council on Foreign Relations. Suffice to say, the CFR is a brother of the Trilateral Commission, and, when push comes to shove, the lesser brother. And finally, Goldman Sachs, whose people Trump has surrounded himself with, is a corporate member of the CFR…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

What I Learned From The Declassified CIA Archive

Source: CorbettReport
James Corbett
February 8, 2017

JOIN THE INVESTIGATION: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=21729

The CIA has finally complied with the spirit of an executive order signed over two decades ago and made their archive of declassified 25+ year old documents available to the public. Today James explains what the archive is, how to access it, and the shoddy journalism that’s been produced so far about it in the lying establishment fake news dinosaur press.

Clinton Cash Documentary

TheBreakaway
December 21, 2016

Clinton Cash, is a feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book that the New York Times hailed as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.”

Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as US Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

*Link to buy the book that inspired the movie*: https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-F…

No matter who wins: the case against Hillary Clinton is alive

whiteliesmatter

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
November 8, 2016

Follow the bouncing ball.

It turns out that several money bundlers for Hillary Clinton—Fredrick D. Schaufeld, Karen Schaufeld, Sonjia Smith, Michael Bills—donated significant sums to Jill McCabe, who was running for the state senate in Virginia, in 2015.

Well, Jill McCabe’s husband is an assistant FBI director, Andrew McCabe, who was involved in the Hillary email scandal investigation. You know, the investigation that falsely exonerated Hillary.

The hits keep coming. With the Clintons, there is no end of them.

President, no-President, Hillary is not off the hook.

For the moment, forget about FBI Director Comey’s latest flip-flop on the 650,000 Weiner emails. “Yes the Hillary case is reopened, no it’s closed.” Forget that.

Go back to July, when Comey recommended against prosecuting Hillary. He presented enough evidence to send her to prison, but stated that because there was no hostile intent on her part, a case couldn’t be made.

In July, Comey asserted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the FBI investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her unprotected personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

This all adds up to gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. It’s a felony. “Hostile intent” is not the issue. The FBI went after a former CIA Director, General Petraeus, who leaked classified information with no discernible hostile intent, and he was prosecuted. The law is clear.

The law states that gross negligence in handling and transmitting classified materials is enough to warrant prosecution for a crime, and it can carry up to ten years in prison. (Federal Penal Code, Title 18, section 793[f].) The quality of the intent behind the negligence has nothing to do with the law. Good intent, bad intent, neutral intent. All irrelevant. Comey knows that.

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (Title 18, section 793[f], Federal Penal Code)

So, in essence, Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted back in July. Comey rigged her exoneration. (In other hands, the case could still be reopened.)

The recently discovered 650,000 Weiner emails, according to several sources, contain more classified information that flowed between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton. These emails may also contain vital information about pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation. And who knows what else—cloaked references to pedophilia, for example.

Comey claims there is nothing of interest in those 650.000 emails re the Hillary classified email case. Why should we believe him, since he conveniently overlooked the law back in July?

He has a problem: rogue agents at the FBI who are dedicated to bringing Hillary to justice. They are investigating her along several lines. Regardless of the outcome of the election, they’ll apparently continue, and if they can’t get satisfaction in a courtroom, they’ll pass along what they find to Wikileaks or some other outlet.

Information about crimes at the Clinton Foundation continues to pile up. There is no reason to expect it’s going to stop. Hillary, Bill, and their team are running a parallel…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Now Hillary Makes Conspiracy Theory Credible: 50% Believe

conspiracy1
Source: TheDailyBell.com
October 28, 2016

Half Of Americans Believe 9/11 Conspiracy Theories … “The United States is a strongly conspiratorial society.”  …   A majority of Americans believe that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks, one new survey suggests.  And that’s not the only conspiracy theory believed by a wide swath of Americans: Around 40 percent believe the government is hiding information about aliens, the John F. Kennedy assassination and global warming. – The Huffington Post

Before, those who believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories hovered around 20-30 percent according to the mainstream media. Now it’s up to 50 percent, according to this article.

Hell, it’s probably more like 60-70 percent anyway. There is perhaps a hard core of 30 percent of people living in the US who will likely never acknowledge anything wrong with the system or people in power.

But for most citizens, we’ve long suggested the current election is destroying the credibility of the ruling classes and their facilities.

Whatever in government that was supposed to be credible, from the IRS, to the FBI, to the Justice Dept., Congress and the presidency itself, has been visibly damaged by Hillary’s election campaign.

You’d have to be virtually blind – or a staunch partisan of a mythical “USA” – not to notice that the Democratic front-runner has committed actions for which anyone else would have been significantly punished.

And not just Hillary of course but those surrounding her including Bill Clinton and the Foundation that allows them to trade political favors for cash.

Then there’s the mainstream media. The media has investigated little or none of the malfeasance and worse (murders?) surrounding the Clintons, and thus newspapers, magazines and TV, already deprived of viewers and ad revenue, have been further damaged by an obvious, ongoing lack of credibility.

More:

Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination abound, and scientists say these ideas have become embedded in the very culture surrounding his death, with heaps of TV shows, books and movies on them.

“We found clear evidence that the United States is a strongly conspiratorial society,” study lead author Christopher Bader, a sociologist at Chapman University in California, said in a statement.

In order to denigrate suspicion of the government, the study suggests that people’s views regarding conspiracies have to do with their own emotional makeup. In other words, “paranoid” people believe in “conspiracies.”

This canard worked better when the number of those voicing conspiracy theories was in the single digits, according to surveys. When half or more than half of the public begins to believe in them, something else is going on.

Neither the article nor the study (presumably) acknowledges that the CIA came up with the idea of calling people “conspiracy theorists” if they advance theories that the US government is corrupt and secretly tyrannical.

The conduct of this past campaign and the Clinton’s evident criminality has reinforced all that is wrong with the US in the views of many and, additionally, has made it clear that even the deepest suspicions of how the US operates are justified.

We can come away with two realizations from this.

The first is that despite Hillary’s possible election, the US as a valid and valuable entity is shattered in the eyes of many. This is actually a good development in our view given that the US (and its British controllers) has not been positive for freedom or peace in the world at least since the end of the Civil War.

The second conclusion, which is not a popular one but which we have voiced before, is that the disaffection of the American public was SUPPOSED to be heightened by the Hillary campaign.

The idea here is that chaos and  paranoia is supposed to be endlessly increased until the US, like other nation-states, virtually shatters and more aggressive globalism can be introduced in the wake of the disintegration.

Western nation-states currently have strong cultures. These cultures need to be torn down if true globalization is to be introduced.

The banking elites of this world, mostly located in the City of London, are determined to introduce this chaos, it seems. In Europe chaos is mounting thanks to the introduction of the artificial “immigration crisis.”

In the US, Hillary has served in the place of immigration, cracking the US culture as thoroughly as millions of young Muslim males. Next on the agenda? Possible economic collapse and “world-war” style military activities.

Conclusion: Yes, it sounds grim … and even conspiratorial. But there is much you can do to secure your safety and prosperity – and that of your family’s and even your community’s. You have to realize the civil society you believe in is vanishing (or never existed). And you have to act.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Bill Clinton, Inc: For-profit activities of ex-president revealed in new Podesta emails

Source: RT
October 27, 2016

WikiLeaks’ latest batch of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta reveals eyebrow-raising conflicts of interest between Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, as well as the former president’s “for profit” activities and acceptance of “expensive gifts.” RT America’s Manuel Rapalo has the latest revelations.

Not a Conspiracy: FBI’s Comey Has Been Covering the Clintons’ A**es for Decades


Source: UndergroundReporter.org
James Holbrooks
August 15, 2016

On Thursday, the Daily Caller broke the story that the FBI, who previously refused to recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton amid her email scandal, is now investigating the Clinton Foundation with the support of U.S. attorneys in New York.

The Clinton Foundation’s main offices are in New York, and the move to work with local prosecutors there is a departure from the FBI’s previous, centralized investigations, which coordinated with the Department of Justice.

A senior law enforcement official, who has intimate knowledge of FBI activity, told the Daily Caller that the involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York “would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

New York’s Southern District counts Wall Street within its jurisdiction, and the man who heads that office, Preet Bharara, has built a reputation on targeting big money players awash in fraud and corruption.

Bharara has in the past gone after big banks — such as Citibank and Bank of America — and politicians, like State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Such efforts have garnered him much praise, as highlighted by the Daily Mail:

“Bharara’s pursuit of insider trading cases beginning in 2009 earned him a Time magazine cover and the title of ‘top cop’ to Wall Street.”

The varied and continued data dumps associated with the Clinton email scandal, which have revealed, among other things, deception, coercion, and a pay-to-play scheme involving donors — not to mention an organized attempt by the DNC to sabotage the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders — have severely hampered Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House.

After FBI Director James Comey’s press conference on July 5, in which he recommended no charges be filed against Clinton despite her “extremely careless” use of a private email server, many were left wondering if the FBI was, in fact, actively protecting Clinton from prosecution.

This theory would seem to be in question, however, now that the agency is going around the Justice Department and working with a federal attorney with a reputation for taking down corrupt heavyweights. Indeed, it is curious that the FBI would suddenly sidestep the DOJ a month after it effectively let Hillary Clinton off the hook.

Were the FBI’s hands tied by the Justice Department the first time around?

Is the evidence of corruption within the Clinton shadow now simply too great to ignore?

Are questions surrounding Hillary’s health giving the establishment an opportunity to take out a divisive figurehead for good?

Or is James Comey going rogue?

This last question, if ever affirmed, would perhaps be most profound of all. Because Comey’s ties to the Clintons go back decades, and — as we’ll see — it’s a relationship that has had the now-director of the FBI acting as protector of the dynastic family time and time again.                  

THE CLINTONS’ KNIGHT

“Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment.”

It could easily be assumed these words were written in the days following FBI Director James Comey’s decision in July not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton. While claiming the FBI found no intent of wrongdoing, the director nonetheless delivered a scathing assessment of Clinton and her staff’s use of a private email server to transmit classified information.

But the words are, in actuality, from a TIME article published back in March of this year. And they aren’t in reference to the email controversy. They’re addressing a scandal from the 1990s many will likely be familiar with — Whitewater.

Much of the hard truth in the case would become obscured once the Monica Lewinsky distraction was thrown into the mix, but at its heart the Whitewater investigation centered on failed real estate investments by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates.

And because the subject is now so heavily associated with Bill, a blue dress and a cigar, most would be shocked to discover just how close Hillary came to having charges brought against her during the Whitewater inquiry — to the point where a draft for her indictment had been written.

From a July 9 article in the Washington Post:

“As in the email controversy of today, Clinton’s honesty was a central question facing investigators in 1998 as they weighed whether what they saw as shifting stories from Clinton amounted to an attempt to cover up misconduct.”

And a young James Comey was one of those investigators. Writes TIME:

“Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee.”

Following law school, Comey had served as clerk for a federal judge before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York — yes, the same office Preet Bharara is, at the urging of Comey’s FBI, now using to go after Clinton — as a prosecutor in 1987. As we’ll see, Comey’s association with the Southern District will prove highly beneficial to the Clintons.

In the end, and not at all surprisingly, no charges were brought against then-President Bill Clinton and his wife for their involvement in the Whitewater affair. Several of their associates were convicted, however, of crimes including fraud, tax evasion, and embezzlement. Fortunately — at least for a handful — Slick Willy managed to slide them a pardon in the last hours of his presidency.

And the issue of pardons brings us to the next chapter in the Clinton-Comey relationship.

THE “KING OF OIL”

Marc Rich was a pioneering oil mogul in the 70s and 80s who, as a boy, escaped the wrath of the Nazis by fleeing Belgium with his family and relocating to the United States. After years in Missouri, the family ended up living in New York, where Rich would learn the ropes of the international commodities game.

He would go on to become the most successful — and notorious — businessman and trader of his time. He was so dominant in his field, in fact, that peers came to call him the “King of Oil.”

Rich was also, according to the federal government of the United States, a criminal who had no qualms about dealing with America’s enemies. Wrote Reuters in 2013 upon Rich’s death at 78:

“To his critics he was a white-collar criminal, a serial sanctions breaker, whom they accused of building a fortune trading with revolutionary Iran, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, apartheid-era South Africa, Nicolae Ceausescu’s Romania, Fidel Castro’s Cuba and Augusto Pinochet’s Chile.”

In 1983, Rich was indicted on 65 counts of, among other things, tax evasion and racketeering. Facing a potential life sentence in prison, Rich fled to Switzerland. He would remain on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list for years.

Miraculously, however, Rich was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001, on his last day in office — yes, the same day he pardoned his old Whitewater associates.

Described by a New York Times editorial as a “shocking abuse of presidential power,” the pardon is far less miraculous, though, when considering the multifaceted campaign that went into securing it.

Among the more glaringly questionable details surrounding the pardon are the fact that Rich’s ex-wife had donated $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library — as well as thousands more to Bill’s defense fund during the Whitewater hearings — and the allegations that then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder facilitated the pardon using underhanded methods in exchange for promises of becoming Attorney General in an Al Gore administration.

The Justice Department immediately set up an inquiry to look into the Clinton pardons, which numbered 176 in total. Originally, U.S. Attorney for — you guessed it — the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, had been appointed to lead the investigation. White stepped down before the conclusion of the inquiry, however, and was replaced — rather conveniently — by then-U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia James Comey.

As it happens, Comey was one the prosecutors who’d helped successfully convict Marc Rich fifteen years before. So it was with intimate knowledge of Rich’s criminality that Comey would later tell Congress how “stunned” he was by the pardon of the oil magnate.

Despite this — not to mention the overwhelming evidence of bribery and shady dealings regarding the Clinton pardons — Comey nonetheless determined in 2002 that no criminal wrongdoing by the Clintons had occurred.

THE SPOOK

In February of 2002, former United States diplomat Joseph C. Wilson was sent on a CIA-funded trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium. Upon returning to Washington, D.C., Wilson reported to the CIA that there was little evidence that such a transaction took place.

Not surprisingly, Wilson was taken aback upon hearing President Bush say in the 2003 State of the Union Address that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

In response, Wilson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in July of 2003, titled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” From that article:

“Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

A week after Wilson’s article was published, conservative columnist Robert Novak ran a piece outing Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative and the person who recommended Wilson for the Niger assignment. Novak cited two senior Bush administration staffers as sources of the leak. It would later be revealed that those sources were State Department official Richard Armitage, acting as the primary, and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who confirmed.

There was much speculation at the time that the Bush officials went rogue as revenge for Wilson’s op-ed in which he contradicted the president’s claims. Within months of Novak’s article, the Justice Department had opened an investigation as to who had blown Valerie Plame’s cover.

To avoid the appearance of partiality, Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case — which paved the way for the number two man, James Comey, to step into the top spot.

As a Bush appointee, Comey also desired — seemingly — to avoid the appearance of bias. So, amid calls for an independent investigation, Comey appointed a federal attorney out of Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, to handle the affair.

Fitzgerald, by the way, was a good friend of Comey’s — and godfather to one of his children.

Some viewed the appointment as troubling, but the case proceeded. In the end, no one was charged for the leak, itself. Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, however, who testified during the trial, was convicted of perjury and obstruction.

Libby, who’d been made privy to Plame’s role as a CIA operative by the vice president prior to Novak’s article being published, is thought by another witness in the case, reporter Judith Miller, to have fallen on his sword to protect Cheney.

The whole affair came to be known as “Plamegate.” From a 2007 NBC report, following Libby’s conviction:

“The trial revealed that top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.”

Plame and her husband — who, incidentally, was a Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton in the 90s — have been Clinton supporters for nearly two decades. In an April 2015 op-ed the couple co-authored for USA Today, Plame and Wilson wrote:

“We have known Hillary Clinton both professionally and personally for nearly 20 years, dating back to before President Bill Clinton’s first trip to Africa in 1998 — a trip they both acknowledge changed their lives, and gave considerable meaning to their post-White House years and to the activities of the Clinton Foundation.”

They go on to state that, in the midst of the scandal, “Hillary reached out to us. Her counsel during that tumultuous period was as timely as it was wise.”

A Daily Caller article published in January of this year further highlighted the close ties between the Clintons and Wilson, who, since leaving political life, has worked as an advisor to development groups in Africa. Citing ongoing email dumps, the article states:

“One of Hillary Clinton’s most frequent favor-seekers when she was secretary of state was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a longtime Clinton friend, an endorser of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and an Africa expert with deep business ties to the continent.”

The article goes on to explain that, in most of the cases, Wilson’s requests were met — which amounted to considerable paydays for the former Bill Clinton assistant.

Given these facts, one could be forgiven for finding it odd that James Comey — who’d by then proven himself thoroughly dependable in Clinton-related matters — ended up being the man in charge of the Plamegate investigation. Odder still, one might think, that the godfather of one of Comey’s children was appointed — by Comey himself — to conduct the trial.

Remember, the theory at the time was that the Republican establishment was going after Joseph Wilson because he dared to challenge the word of President Bush. It was retaliation. So it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the staunchly Democratic Clintons — in an equally retaliatory measure — would protect their friend Wilson, and activate the trusted James Comey to do it.

And it worked. Plamegate saw Vice President Dick Cheney lose his chief of staff and longtime ally, “Scooter” Libby.

THE LOYALIST

In July of 2004, the news broke that the Justice Department was investigating former Clinton aide Sandy Berger over allegations he removed and even destroyed classified material from the National Archives while acting as the Clinton administration’s hand-selected official in charge of reviewing documents for the independent commission on 9/11.

Berger, who served as national security advisor to Bill Clinton for all of the president’s second term, was reportedly observed acting in a secretive and highly suspicious manner while in the archives. Wrote CNN in 2004:

“Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.”

The investigation had actually been going on since October of the previous year, but that fact wasn’t made public until days before the commission was set to release its final report — prompting many to speculate the move was political in nature, a way for the Bush administration to avert attention away from the commission’s inevitably damning conclusions.

“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” the campaign of then-presidential hopeful John Kerry said in a statement.

But others had more serious concerns. Some were asking if Berger, the longtime Clinton loyalist, had been sent into the archives not to prevent damaging information about 9/11 from reaching the commission, but rather, to destroy material that could potentially be harmful to the Clinton dynasty down the road.

Such as, say, Hillary Clinton’s attempts at the Oval Office.

In any case, Berger was floated a sweetheart deal by the Justice Department in 2005. For charges that could’ve seen him behind bars, Berger was fined $50,000 and forced to give up his security clearance for three years.

The Deputy Attorney General in charge of that case? James Comey.

“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey told reporters in 2004.

Just not so seriously — as his findings in the current email scandal prove — when they involve a Clinton.

Interestingly, Berger was named an advisor to Hillary in her failed 2008 bid for the White House — a move that, quite understandably, raised a considerable number of eyebrows at the time. Additionally, a State Department email dump in 2015 revealed that Berger was advising then-Secretary of State Clinton — albeit far more secretly — as recently as 2009.

THE CONCLUSION

With data dumps coming fast and furious, and with a new investigation underway, there’s no telling what will be revealed about Hillary Clinton, her network of associates, or the Clinton Foundation in the days ahead. But if the past is any indicator, none of it will be good.

And there’s so much more than emails to consider. The information presented here highlights a pattern of protection given to a political behemoth by a strategically-placed operative. But this is merely one facet of a much larger, and much older, system at play.

Within the last two weeks alone, Underground Reporter has written on both the recent spike in the so-called “Clinton body count” and the revelation that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich may very well be the source behind Wikileaks’ DNC leak — a suggestion made by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that had one Clinton strategist immediately calling for his death.

Consider, for instance, that Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff at the State Department — and who is now under scrutiny for working for the Clinton Foundation, which she’s currently on the board of, while on State Department time — attempted to destroy Clinton-related emails back in 2015. A judge had to issue an order to prevent her from doing so.

Consider that Mills at one time worked for the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, a New York partner of which prepared tax returns for the Clintons. The firm also did patent work for the software company that created email encryption for the very server at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Interestingly, Sandy Berger — the Clinton bag man who destroyed classified documents in the National Archives —worked for years at Hogan & Hartson as well.

Consider also that United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch — who, as it was recently revealed, refused to sanction an investigation into the Clinton Foundation even after three separate FBI field offices made requests —also worked at Hogan & Hartson.

Consider further that the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, which appears to be connected to the Clintons at every turn, was also one of Hillary’s biggest donors in the legal industry during her first bid for the White House.

Consider that it was Lynch, then the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of the New York, who signed off a sweetheart deal for banking giant HSBC, which allowed it to skate with a paltry fine in a massive money-laundering case. And while you’re at it, consider that the Clinton Foundation has received over $81 million in “donations” from HSBC clients.

And consider that months after the HSBC deal was struck by Loretta Lynch, James Comey joined the controversial bank’s board of directors. He would remain there until his appointment as Director of the FBI in 2013 — just in time to prepare for the hurricane that would be the Clinton email scandal.

Consider all these connections — and consider those we can’t yet see.

The FBI’s decision to initiate an investigation into the Clinton Foundation raises many questions, to be sure. But at this point, all the public can really do is speculate. There is, however, one conclusion that can be definitively made.

With the FBI led by a man who has continuously protected the Clintons for nearly two decades going around the DOJ and opening a criminal probe — spearheaded by a man with a reputation for being tough on corrupt elites — into the Clinton Foundation, something, however ambiguous it might be at the moment, has unquestionably changed.

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org


This article (Not a Conspiracy: FBI’s Comey Has Been Covering the Clintons’ A**es for Decades) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to James Holbrooks and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com. Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey

Two Deaths Of Anti-Clinton Activists In Two Days Raises Serious Questions

[Editor’s Note]

These two deaths is part of a larger pattern of dozens of dead people around Clintons spanning three decades.  The count was up to 46 at the time of the article below.  Please Read:

Another Clinton Associate Found Dead, Bill & Hillary’s Body Count Increases | The Political Insider

1billhill
Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Claire Bernish
August 8, 2016

Once again, as another Clinton seeks the highest office in the land, suspicious deaths have begun piling up — in two days, two activists avidly opposed to Hillary Clinton died under mysterious circumstances.

When rumors fly about the so-called Clinton body count, it’s deaths like these — where even family members lack explanations for their loved ones’ passing — that people are referring to.

Shawn Lucas was recently featured in a video uploaded to YouTube, happily serving the Democratic National Committee and its now-ousted head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, with a class-action lawsuit alleging fraud for rigging the primary that led to the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Democratic presidential nominee.

As the Daily Sheeple reported, Lucas’ girlfriend found him lifeless on the bathroom floor August 2, and summoned emergency services, but they were unable to revive the man who had appeared healthy in video footage just one month prior. Though typically considered an unreliable source, Snopes claims to have contacted Lucas’ employer for information about his death, but the obviously distraught person on the phone was unable to confirm anything or offer further details other than that Lucas had, indeed, passed away August 2.

A post to Facebook by user Niko D. House showed similar astonishment and lack of explanation for Lucas’ death, and promised further information would be revealed as it becomes available.

deaths

Three days later, information remains scant, at best, and no obituary has yet been made public.

Just one day prior to Lucas’ mysterious death, prominent Clinton critic and researcher and reporter for American Free Press, Victor Thorn (Scott Robert Makufka), was found on a mountain near his home, dead from a gunshot wound — on his 54th birthday.

Though Thorn’s death is being called a suicide, rumors and questions have been circulating online, given his outspoken stance on the Clintons. AFP inquired with State College, Pennsylvania, police regarding the journalist and author’s death, but was told only “something happened” and was not given confirmation even of the victim’s identity.

Now four days later, no further information has been released, nor has an obituary surfaced online.

Though AFP released a statement citing Makufka’s family saying they did not suspect foul play, the nature of his work — including recent successful releases of Crowning Clinton: Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be in the White House and the Hillary (And Bill) trilogy — have left fans highly suspicious of the circumstances.

These two deaths come on the heels of several others recently, including high-level DNC staffer, Seth Rich, on July 10.

Rich was gunned down near his Washington, D.C., residence around 4 a.m. by unknown assailants, and no witnesses have come forward claiming to have seen or heard what actually took place. According to the Washington Post, Rich had been developing computer software that would allow people to enter their names and receive a map to their polling location, and had been in charge of voter expansion data.

Precious little else is known about the sudden, violent demise of the 27-year-old with the promising future in the Democratic Party.

On June 22, former president of the U.N. General Assembly, John Ashe, died after what authorities claim was an unfortunate accident during a workout session — in which his throat was crushed.

Incidentally, Ashe had been slated to testify against Clinton in a corruption hearing just days later.

Of course, the list of suspicious deaths — due to accidents, suicides, random shootings, and more — is so lengthy, it has been the subject of entire books, ironically enough, including one authored by none other than Makufka, a.k.a. Victor Thorn, titled Hillary (And Bill): The Murder Volume.

More information on any of these odd deaths will be reported as it becomes available — but don’t hold your breath. If the other cases can be a guide, information about the deaths of those with even loose Clinton associations have a tendency to never be fully explained.

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org


This article (Two Deaths of Anti-Clinton Activists In Two Days Raise Serious Questions) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com. Image credit: YouTube/Jam PAC

New ‘Clinton Cash’ Film Reveals How The Couple Exploited Colombian Rainforest To Generate Millions For Clinton Foundation

Clinton Cash
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
August 4, 2016

An explosive new film detailing how Bill and Hillary Clinton used their positions of power and influence to raise millions for themselves and billions for their “charitable” foundation details, among other things, a deal that helped to enrich a friend and donor at the expense of invaluable, irreplaceable rainforest.

The film, “Clinton Cash,” which you can view online in its entirety here, thoroughly explains the nexus between Hillary Clinton’s State Department, her ex-president husband, the Clinton Foundation, and foreign governments and business interests all conspiring to raise money at the expense of ordinary people and the environment.

Here is one of the most egregious examples.

In June 2010, Bill Clinton, along with friend and mining billionaire Frank Guistra, a Canadian, flew into Bogota, Colombia, where, coincidentally, they arrive at about the same time as Secretary Clinton, who flew in on a government plane. In her memoirs, which she wrote after leaving the State Department, she claimed that the meeting between her, her husband and Guistra was just happenstance – as if the two of them had no idea they would both be in Bogota, Colombia at the same time.

Follow the money

But of course, the meeting wasn’t just happenstance.

The following morning, after the Clintons dined together at a restaurant in the capital city, Bill Clinton has an early morning meeting with outgoing President Alvaro Uribe; Secretary Clinton had a noon lunch meeting with Uribe as well. During the meeting with Mrs. Clinton, the U.S. government grants Colombia a number of technical agreements the Uribe administration had been seeking.

In the days that followed, three companies belonging to Guistra received major concessions from the Colombian government. One of the companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood Inc., received permission to cut timber from a rainforest along the Pacific coast.

One more thing: The rainforest timber was not bound for the United States or even Canada; it was exported to China.

Environmentalists, as well as many of the Colombian people, figured out what was going on eventually and were outraged. Eventually, the permit to cut timber was pulled by a new Colombian government, but not before Giustra’s company was able to massively profit from cutting down acres upon acres of irreplaceable rainforest.

For their part, the Clintons have come out in public in support of “sustainable forests” and other environmental causes, but after receiving millions in donations to their foundation – and after Bill Clinton raked in nearly $2 million in speaking fees – their environmentalism took a back seat to their desire for payola.

So much for principles

It wasn’t just the Colombian timber deal where the Clintons’ ostensible environmental principles were ignored. There was Clinton chicanery when it came to the Keystone XL pipeline as well, one of the touchstones of the so-called “climate change” debate. (See more on that here) The pipeline is designed to carry oil from tar sands fields in Canada to refineries in Texas and Louisiana.

When Hillary Clinton was named as President-Elect Obama’s secretary of state in late 2008, there was an issue related to the pipeline waiting for her on her desk. She was to decide whether or not to approve an environmental and economic impact statement and decide whether the pipeline project should be approved; it was a State Department decision (among others) because the pipeline was multinational in scope.

At that exact time, Bill Clinton received an offer of nearly $2 million to give 10 speeches in Canada – from entities that had never before hired him to speak. The company that offered the deal, TD Bank Investment Group, it turns out, is a major shareholder in the Keystone XL project.

Clinton gave the last speech in May 2011; three months later, Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. released an environmental impact letter widely seen as favoring the construction of the pipeline. She had in her hands the power to kill the deal but she, mysteriously, signed it – even though she and her boss, Obama, seemed to be opposed to the pipeline as an environmental issue.

Watch the entire Clinton Cash documentary here.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

YouTube.com

FoodForensics.com

NaturalNews.com