Saturday, July 22, 2017

White House Press Changes: Sean Spicer Out-Sarah Hukabee Promoted-Anthony Scaramucci In

IN THE NEWS

Newly appointed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci says President Donald Trump administration "on track" and will "get the message out."


_____________

Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been promoted to White House press secretary following Sean Spicer's resignation Friday. 


____________

OTHER NEWS

Our Corrupt Media Is Now Haunted By All The Precedents They Set While Colluding With Obama

Barack Obama trafficked guns to Mexican drug lords, secretly delivered pallets filled with billions in cash to Iran's America/Jew-hating mullahs, left four Americans to die in Benghazi and then lied about it, allowed his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to exchange government favors for hundreds of millions of dollars slushed into the Clinton Foundation, sic'd his IRS on everyday, law-abiding Americans, and used a trillion dollars in "stimulus" funds to pay off his cronies, like those behind a boondoggle called Solyndra.
And all along, over eight terrible years, our media did a whole lot more than just let Obama get away with it. They wholeheartedly colluded. They allowed Obama to persecute them through the Department of Justice and to lie to our face (remember: I just now read about it in the newspaper, the IRS did nothing wrong, you can keep your insurance). And when that wasn't enough, the media mercilessly attacked as racist anyone who criticized the Precious and ginned up nothingburgers like Todd Akin to distract from those four dead Americans. And when even that wasn't enough, they themselves lied and obfuscated, covered up and dissembled, and most of all they set all kinds of precedents that, in a delicious form of irony, are now driving this utterly failed institution to the edge of insanity.
The very same media that shrugged when Hillary Clinton set up a secret server, deleted 33,000 government emails, BleachBit'd whatever remained and then literally took a hammer to the devices — the media that set that precedent now wants us to get all worked up over Trump's tweets?
The very same media that buried Bill Clinton's perjury and his numerous victims of sexual abuse — the media that set those precedents now wants us to consider an Access Hollywood video a disqualifier for the presidency? Now wants us to freak out over an awkward handshake?
The very same media that gushed over Barack Obama's magical ability to "slow-walk the truth" — the media that set that precedent now wants us to impeach Trump over how the details of his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer have been released?
The very same media that joined Obama in pointing and laughing at Mitt Romney's concern over Russia, the very same media that told us Obama's serial-appeasement of Russia (refusing Poland missile defense, "more flexibility after the election") was in reality an extraordinary form of statesmanship — the media that set those precedents now wants us to toss Trump out on his ear because he's hoping to work with Putin?
The very same media that covered up the fact that Democrats and Team Hillary worked with the foreign government of Ukraine in the hopes of digging up dirt on Trump, the media that itself has used opposition research from the Russian government (the Golden Showers dossier) in the hopes of destroying Trump — the media that set those precedents now want us to turn on Trump because his son hoped for the same?
The very same media that again and again used "Republican overreach" as a tactic to damage the GOP whenever a Democrat scandal rose up — the media that set that precedent now wants us to side with them when the Trump administration chooses to communicate directly through social media?
The very same media that asked 23 follow-up questions of Trump and none of Hillary — the media that set that precedent now wants us to side with them when the White House limits the press briefings they can peacock in?
The very same media that said nothing when Obama hired a 9-11 Truther as a Czar (and later hired him as one of their own) — the media that set that precedent wants us to be upset over Ivanka and Jared?
The very same media that showed absolutely no interest in recovering even one of Hillary's 33,000 illegally deleted emails — the media that set that precedent, now wants us to share their outrage over the fact that Don Jr. tried to recover them in a 20-minute meeting?
And now — now! — this very same media (with the help of #NeverTrump's forever-preening moral narcissists) is using the spear of Muh Principles to demand that those of us on the political right agree to destroy ourselves in their corrupt crusade, that we acquiesce like second-class citizens to their separate sets of rules?
Like hell.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Injustice Anywhere Is Injustice Everywhere

By William Haupt III


“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

– Francis Bellamy
Those that crossed the Mason-Dixon Line to work in the Civil Rights Movement were shocked to experience denial of justice and the violation of their Constitutional rights.
Photo: Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.

They entered a twilight zone in a mythical Orwellian novel.

Photo: Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin- burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
 

They gathered from around the U.S. for an adventure few knew little about.
 
 
Some wandered to the delta of the Mississippi, the red hills of Georgia, and war zones of Montgomery to Selma for conviviality.

Others came to listen to Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger and Joan Baez. 
But by the time they navigated Highway 61 back to the North, they knew why they’d ventured south—into the “solid south” that had been controlled by the Democratic Party for over one hundred years.
 
“A nation that denies equal access to justice is a prison of malcontents.”

– William Howard
The Civil Rights Movement has taken on an air of inevitability in the popular imagination.
 
Far too many have reduced its significance to a few heroic figures and the words “I have a dream.”

The true purpose of the Civil Rights Movement has been distorted and romanced into something each individual, secular, political or religious group wished it to be for convenience or condemnation. Erased in the re-written civil rights history is the fact that the struggle for black freedom and equality was not a battle between liberals and conservatives, but, instead, it was a battle between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
 
The Civil Rights Movement had only one salient, underlying purpose: To banish the practice of denying equal justice to all Americans.
 
Those ideals are embedded in every founding document. It remains an enigma why so many distort its historical significance, with false narratives promoted by liberal race baiters, media pundits and politicians.

“The true rule of law and justice in a judicial system is one in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others.”
– John Seales 
Three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of all Americans for over two centuries and are considered instrumental to our founding and philosophy of our nation.
 
These are The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

In each founding document, they guarantee us equal rights and equal access to justice, which is the most indispensable right of all.
Without access to justice, none of our rights are guaranteed or protected.
Any American who does not covet their right of expedient access to justice is forsaking liberty.
If we don’t protect that one right, it’s impossible to defend all others.
“The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.”
– Stonewall Jackson 
Americans are continually at the mercy of lesser magistrates who cowardly subvert the provisions in our founding documents to deliver justice.
Our right to justice is guaranteed by the Department of Justice, yet government subordinates regularly invent ways to abridge them.
We hear about this on TV, see it in the fish-wrap and social media during high-profile trials, but hear little about the denial of justice by our local governments.
We permit this to happen daily, yet this is a federal right and is disciplined by the DOJ!
“America was founded upon the doctrine of equal rights. Its cornerstone is the principle every man is endowed with access to equal justice to defend them.”
– Randal Hall
In hearing rooms across this nation, questionable legal practices are being reported to the DOJ to expose a miscarriage of justice in court proceedings.
If a litigant cannot afford a high priced mouth-piece, they are appointed counsel.
If they foresee an unfair advantage for the defense, they seek a change in venue, dispose of a capricious juror and recuse a judge.
Although this is not a perfect system, most Americans have a fighting chance to improve their access to unabridged justice in our courts when they suspect malpractice.
Even a green horn public defender will point out abuses of statutory protections to insure his client has access to justice.
 “Today, there are few times we are powerless to prevent injustice, but we must possess the knowledge on how to do so.”
– May Willard
The biggest offenders are not criminal or civil courts.
We’ve all heard about the speed traps in our local “one-blink-of-the-eye speed limit signs” in rural townships.
Although America has its fair share, they pale in comparison to the rights we thought we had and found out we didn’t have in local and state governments.
These are rights denied at what are billed “informal hearings.”
The only thing informal about these proceedings is how “informally” you find out they were anything but “informal.”

Once a gavel is dropped, and the magistrate makes his decision, more times than not, you leave this “informal hearing” wondering if you just appeared before Judge Judy in a kangaroo court.
“One cannot bandage a mortal wound, that’s been inflicted by a miscarriage of justice.”
– Throe Bradley
This judicial deception has been going on for decades when offended citizens choose to protest any activity they have a right to in the governments they own.
This is common when their property rights are violated.

If their home or business is hijacked by eminent domain, the decision is etched in stone before the commission meeting.
The hearing officer makes up rules as he goes along if they do not have Perry Mason there to scold him.
If their rural neighborhood is rezoned to build a burger joint or county dump, notifications for these meetings are tacked on the bathroom door of the county seat or placed on page 10 in a local throwaway scandal sheet so they can call it legal.
“Those who make the law know best how to break the law without getting caught.”
– Albert Simms
States never reassess all counties at the same time. If they did this they’d have a tax revolt similar to California’s tax tsunami Prop 13 that rocked the U.S. like a New Zealand earthquake from east to west. “Prop 13 made the Gold Coast as infamous as Boston Harbor.”
When a homeowner receives a tax bill for a Taj Mahal and they live in a 1,000 square foot home, they are forced to buy back their rights at dubiously “informal” tax hearings.
The homeowner is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the taxman.
 
The moment they arrive to face this hit squad, they are intimidated by the judge who is also the jury and only allows them to present what he wants to hear, not what they prepared. They feel like a Roller Derby skater in the “penalty box” wearing a dunce cap and wonder why! To this judge, just showing up is a capital offense!

 
“Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.”

– Dr. King
Denial of justice is generic in local tribunals.
Most are semi-structured to mimic a fair legal process.
There is no impartial verdict, to the detriment of the accused. It is decided in advance.
This violates all formal judicial process.
Rules are invented by the officer obtusely, which even the best jailhouse lawyer cannot defend! If you try to quote law, you are declared out of order.
Humbling intimidation is the worst injustice of all.
Taxpayers are made subservient to justice that is rationed to guarantee they lose.
When a taxpayer is scolded for something insignificant to put them in their place, they are defeated before they have a chance to win or lose and sheepishly give in to the tax man to end this abuse! They quickly learn how it feels to be a punching bag in a federal penitentiary gym!
“Bullies are everywhere, but the worst kind of bully is one who bullies behind the cloak of law.”
– Eely Stalls
President Ronald Reagan once said, “There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
The only way we can guarantee our access to justice is to know the law.
If you feel violated in any way by a magistrate, you have the duty to file a formal complaint with your governmental controlling agency or the federal DOJ.
You must know your rights and how to defend them!
“It takes great courage to stand alone against a judge whose best resource is to intimidate you when you and he both know you are innocent.”
– Reggie Stone 

William Haupt III is a retired professional journalist, citizen legislator in California for 40 plus years, and author. He got his start working to approve prop 13.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Hillary Clinton sided with Russia on sanctions as Bill made $500G on Moscow speech

By Malia Zimmerman  

 
Emails show Bill Clinton paid thousands for speech in Russia

The Russian lawyer who landed a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s campaign with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton had one big thing in common with the Democratic candidate: Both had opposed Russia sanctions targeting human-rights abusers.
Further, former Secretary of State Clinton’s initial opposition coincided with a half-million-dollar speech her husband gave in Moscow – a link her 2016 campaign fought to downplay in the press, according to WikiLeaks-released documents.
Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.
“If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I'd look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing last week. “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”
The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for the speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010 speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company's annual conference. 

The speech is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, considering the company that cut the check was allegedly tied to the scandal that spurred the Global Magnitsky Act, a bill that imposed sanctions on Russians designated as human-rights abusers and eventually would become law in 2012.
This was the same law Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was lobbying against during her sit-down with Trump Jr. last year. And back in 2010, it would have put the Clintons on her side. 
Shortly before Bill Clinton’s speech in 2010, when members of Congress pushing the sanctions bill had asked Hillary Clinton to refuse visas to Russian officials implicated under the policy, the State Department denied the request. The Obama administration initially was opposed to the Magnitsky Act because then-President Barack Obama was seeking a “reset” with Russia and did not want to deepen the divide between the two countries.
Former President Bill Clinton’s speech to Renaissance just weeks later was all the more curious, considering Renaissance’s Russian investment bank executives would have been banned from the U.S. under the law. 
Fast-forward to 2015, and the timeline apparently had caught the attention of Bloomberg News. 
According to a memo from Clinton’s presidential campaign team later published by WikiLeaks, however, the Clinton campaign was able to stop the presses.
“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow,” Jesse Lehrich, on the Rapid Response Communications team for Hillary For America, boasted on May 21, 2015.
The Global Magnitsky Act was named for 36-year-old tax attorney Sergei Magnitsky, who died in the custody of the Russian government after accusing the government and organized crime of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a foreign company, Hermitage Capital Management. Magnitsky, hired by foreign investor and Hermitage owner William Browder, had tracked what turned out to be hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud. He reported the fraud to the Russian authorities, but instead of pursuing charges against the alleged offender, Russian authorities jailed Magnitsky.
After Magnitsky died in November 2009, Browder said Magnitsky proved Renaissance officials were among those orchestrating the scheme.
The State Department finally reversed its position in 2011 and refused visas to some Russians purportedly involved in the financial fraud seeking to enter the country.
The Magnitsky Act passed with bipartisan support in 2012.
Russia retaliated against the U.S., ending any possibility for Americans to adopt Russian orphans and also banning 18 U.S. officials from entering their country.
Malia Zimmerman is an award-winning investigative reporter focusing on crime, homeland security, illegal immigration crime, terrorism and political corruption. Follow her on twitter at @MaliaMZimmerman


_______________________

POWERLINE

Collusion Confusion
By John Hinderaker
Many Democrats, and even a few Republicans, have claimed that Donald Trump, Jr’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have information about Hillary Clinton’s illicit dealings with Russia while she was Secretary of State constitutes the long-sought evidence of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, even though the Russian with whom Trump, Jr. met conveyed no such information.
This, I think, overlooks a very basic point. It’s only collusion if the parties’ purpose is bad. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “collusion”:
secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose * acting in collusion with the enemy
Thus, when the U.S., Russia and other countries jointly operate the International Space Station, they aren’t colluding, they are cooperating.
Liberals talk about “collusion” in connection with Trump, Jr’s meeting to paper over the fact that there was nothing wrong with it. Collecting information about corruption on the part of a candidate for office is a good thing, not a bad thing. We know from Clinton Cash that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played a key role in turning over a large part of America’s supply of uranium to the Russians, at about the same time when Russians associated with that country’s government paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill and Hillary Clinton. So we know about the quid and the quo, the only question is whether there was a pro. If the Russian lawyer had had information on this point, it would have been a public service to disclose it.
It is different, of course, if false information about a candidate is being fabricated. Thus, we can properly say that Democrats colluded in the production of a fake dossier on President Trump.
Some have tried to argue that it would have been illegal for Trump, Jr. to get information on Mrs. Clinton from a Russian because under our election laws, foreign nationals and governments can’t provide cash or other things of value to candidates. (Of course, it does sometimes happen, as when the Chinese government supported Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996.) I would consider taking this argument seriously if anyone had ever reported giving information about an opponent to a campaign as an in-kind contribution. To my knowledge, it’s never happened.
Having failed to come up with evidence that the Trump campaign had anything to do with spearfishing the DNC’s and RNC’s email accounts–presumably because it didn’t–the Democrats are now defining collusion down to include innocent conversation toward a proper purpose. If that is the standard, we have photographic evidence of Congressional Democrats colluding with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during President Trump’s speech to the House and Senate in January:

 
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/collusion-confusion.php

___________________

IN OTHER NEWS

SENATE EFFORT TO REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA CARE FAILS
 Senator Mike Lee Withdrew His Support Which Killed ObamaCare Repeal

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed late Monday that he will push the Senate for a clean repeal of ObamaCare, after conceding defeat to repeal and replace the health law.
________________
Trump to Republicans: Let's Repeal ObamaCare
When all else fails, kill it.
President Trump tweeted late Monday that Republicans should “just REPEAL” ObamaCare after two key Republican Senators announced they would not support the bill, ending any chance the bill had of passing the Senate.
Republican Senators Mike Lee, of Utah and Jerry Moran, of Kansas joined Senators Rand Paul, of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine. Republicans hold onto a 52-48 majority and the two senators’ opposition means the bill is effectively dead.
“Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!” Trump tweeted.
Trump appears confident that a straight repeal of ObamaCare is a shoo-in, but moderate Republicans may feel pressure to vote against the legislation. It is also unclear how many Democrats would support the move.
Trump's tweet was in stark contrast to his faith in the Senate just hours before when he predicted the legislation would pass.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., acknowledged the roadblock and, like Trump, said he plans a repeal vote. McConnell also mentioned a two-year delay for a substitute.
"Regretfully, it's now apparent that the effort to repeal and immediately replace the failure of Obamacare will not be successful," McConnell said in a statement. "So, in the coming days, the Senate will vote to take up the House bill with the first amendment in order being what a majority of the Senate has already supported in 2015 and that was vetoed by then-President Obama: a repeal of Obamacare with a two-year delay to provide for a stable transition period to a patient-centered health care system that gives Americans access to quality, affordable care."
It was the second straight failure for McConnell, who had to cancel a vote on an earlier version of the bill last month when defeat became inevitable.
Trump failed to rally support for what has been the GOP's trademark issue for seven years — ever since President Obama and the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
Republicans won the White House and full control of Congress in large part on the basis of their promises to repeal and replace the health law but have struggled to overcome their deep internal divisions and deliver.
The Associated Press reported that Democrats "could barely contain their glee."
 
"This second failure of Trumpcare is proof positive that the core of this bill is unworkable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said. "Rather than repeating the same failed, partisan process yet again, Republicans should start from scratch and work with Democrats on a bill that lowers premiums, provides long term stability to the markets and improves our health care system."
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Media Fail: Just 9% of Rs Think Team Trump Colluded w/ Russia (Down from 18% in April)

By Tony Lee


Republicans may be consolidating behind President Donald Trump—and against the legacy media—the more the establishment press sensationalize their Russia coverage.

Despite the legacy media’s wall-to-wall coverage of various Russia-related “scandals” involving President Donald Trump’s associates since April, “the number of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who think that the Russians sought to influence the election, and that the Trump team intentionally helped them,” has plummeted from 18 percent in April to 9 percent, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Sunday. (Translation : 91 per cent do not think Russians influenced the election)
The poll was conducted July 10-13. Partisan divisions in the poll were “35-23-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.” Its margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
On July 11, the second day the poll was in the field, Donald Trump Jr. released his emails with publicist Rob Goldstone regarding a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya that Trump Jr. eventually attended with Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner during the 2016 election.
On July 12, the third day of the poll, CNN’s morning show New Day spent 93 percent of its airtime on the Russia scandal, according to a Media Research Center study. Other networks—along with other CNN shows—devoted a considerable amount of time to the Russia scandal throughout the week.
And yet, the media’s incessant Russia coverage has not even convinced that many more Democrats that Trump’s associates intentionally helped Russia influence the election. According to the poll, the number of Democrats who believe this (64%) went up just four percentage points from April. That, according to ABC, is “not a significant shift.”
Reporters who have gone outside of the D.C.-New York media bubbles have found that working-class voters, especially conservatives, are “angry” at the legacy media for overhyping their various Russia stories. An Iowa news director emailed CNN’s Brian Stelter last week and said conservatives in his state were “extremely angry” at the press because they think the legacy media are using Russia stories to “oust” Trump.
“They think the Trump/Russia deal is a coup attempt by the media, and don’t think there is anything to the Russia/ Trump, Jr. emails,” Robert Leonard, the news director, wrote. “They don’t understand why the media is trying to oust our duly elected president. They think there is a double standard — why isn’t anyone investigating the Clinton campaign/Russia connections? They are standing firm behind Trump.”

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Hillary Used "Fusion GPS" Phony Oppo Info From Kremlin That Sought To Damage Trump


Christopher Steele - Trump Dossier Author
While most in the media continue to focus on a meeting that all parties involved say resulted in no damaging material against Hillary Clinton, there’s little attention being paid to the fact that Hillary’s supporters were able to successfully use a foreign intelligence agent to disseminate false information to the mainstream American press.
The phony information allegedly came from inside the Kremlin and sought to damage then-candidate Donald Trump.
Newly-released British court documents show that Fusion GPS, an “oppo firm” funded by Hillary’s supporters, successfully managed to get a former spy to discuss the phony foreign intelligence with The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, Mother Jones and CNN.
From McClatchy:
“Later, Democrats paid for the same research on Trump’s past and alleged Russian ties.
Fusion GPS contracted with Steele, who had once worked as an undercover spy in Moscow.
The court document lifted a veil on Washington’s inner workings, with Steele laying out how Fusion briefed select reporters on the material for which it and Steele had been paid to gather.
‘The journalists initially briefed at the end of September 2016 by the Second Defendant (Steele) and Fusion at Fusion’s instruction were from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker and CNN,’ Steele’s lawyers said, adding that he “verbally and in person” briefed the first three organizations in mid-October and a reporter from Mother Jones via Skype.”
On the heels of a CNN report refuting Clinton campaign officials’ claims that the DNC never worked with a foreign government to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, we now know that Democrats actually used a foreign agent to disseminate phony information to the American mainstream media that allegedly came from inside the Kremlin.
 And hardly anyone is paying any attention to it.
 Background
Fusion GPS is an opposition research firm funded by Hillary Clinton supporters in the summer of 2016.
“But congressional sources say it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary Clinton, anti-Trump agenda. ‘These weren’t mercenaries or hired guns,’ a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. ‘These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House.’
"Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democratic ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.
"Moreover, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.” (Paul Sperry, Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators,” New York Post, 6/24/17)
Fusion GPS hired foreign intelligence agent Christopher Steele to compile the now-infamous dossier containing unproven allegations against President Trump.
“Fusion GPS, which is based in Washington DC and was established by former Wall Street Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, found itself in the spotlight earlier this year after it emerged it was behind an “oppo research” dossier containing unproven and often salacious allegations about Mr Trump.
"The company had originally been hired by Republican rivals of Mr Trump during the primary campaign. After he secured the party's nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic financial supporters of Ms Clinton.
"In the summer of 2016, GPS hired former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, to help their work.” (Andrew Buncombe, “Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr linked to investigation group behind salacious Steele Dossier,” The Independent, 7/10/17)
Steele “once worked as an undercover spy in Moscow.”
“Fusion GPS contracted with Steele, who had once worked as an undercover spy in Moscow.” (Kevin G. Hall, “John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case,” McClatchy, 7/11/17)
The dossier contains several anonymous sources from inside the Kremlin.
“The dossier quotes from a large number of anonymous sources. It cites ‘a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin’, ‘a senior Russian foreign ministry figure’ and “a senior Russian financial official’.” (Luke Harding, “What we know – and what’s true – about the Trump-Russia dossier,” The Guardian, 1/11/17)
Despite denials from multiple DNC and former Clinton campaign officials, a DNC contractor worked with the Ukrainian government “to dig up dirt on Donald Trump and his top aides.”
“Multiple Democratic National Committee officials, former Clinton campaign officials and Democratic sources denied that the Democratic committee or Clinton campaign worked with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Donald Trump and his top aides.
"But multiple Democratic sources said that a DNC contractor, whose work included organizing political events for Ukranian-Americans, did tell DNC operatives that Ukrainian officials would be willing to deliver damaging information on Trump's campaign and, most notably, Paul Manafort, his then-campaign head who has previously advised Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian President who has close ties to Moscow.” (Dan Merica, “DNC denies working with Ukrainian government, but contractor floated anti-Trump material,” CNN, 7/12/17)
Compiled by the Republican National Committee

Thursday, July 13, 2017

DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team

By John Solomon and Jonathan Easley
 
The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.

This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.
Later, a series of events between an intermediary for the attorney and the Trump campaign ultimately led to the controversy surrounding the president's eldest son.
Just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.
She also engaged in a pro-Russia lobbying campaign and attended an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. where Russian supporters showed a movie that challenged the underpinnings of the U.S. human rights law known as the Magnitysky Act, which Russian leader Vladimir Putin has reviled and tried to reverse.
The Magnitsky Act imposed financial and other sanctions on Russia for alleged human rights violations connected to the death of a Russian lawyer who claimed to uncover fraud during Putin's reign. Russia retaliated after the law was passed in 2012 by suspending Americans' ability to adopt Russian children.
At least five congressional staffers and State Department officials attended that movie showing, according to a Foreign Agent Registration Act complaint filed with the Justice Department about Veselnitskaya’s efforts.

And Veselnitskaya also attended a dinner with the chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing Russia policy, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and roughly 20 other guests at a dinner club frequented by Republicans.

In an interview with The Hill on Wednesday, Rohrabacher said, “There was a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club here with about 20 people. I think I was the only congressman there. They were talking about the Magnitysky case. But that wasn’t just the topic. There was a lot of other things going on. So I think she was there but I don’t remember any type of conversation with her between us. But I understand she was at the table.”

Rohrabacher said he believed Veselnitskaya and her U.S. colleagues, which included former Democratic Congressman Ronald Dellums, were lobbying other lawmakers to reverse the Magnitysky Act and restore the ability of Americans to adopt Russian children that Moscow had suspended.

“I don’t think this was very heavily lobbied at all compared with the other issues we deal with,” he said.

As for his former congressional colleague Dellums, Rohrabacher said he recalled having a conversation about the Magnitsky Act and the adoption issue, “Ron and I like each other … I have to believe he was hired a lobbyist but I don’t know."

Veselnitskaya did not return a call seeking comment Wednesday at her Moscow office. Dellums also did not return a call to his office seeking comment.

But in an interview with NBC News earlier this week, Veselnitskaya acknowledged her contacts with Donald Trump Jr. and in Washington were part of a lobbying campaign to get members of Congress and American political figures to see "the real circumstances behind the Magnitsky Act.”

That work was a far cry from the narrow reason the U.S. government initially gave for allowing Veselnitskaya into the U.S. in late 2015, according to federal court records.

The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.

During a court hearing in early January 2016 as Veselnitskaya’s permission to stay in the country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.

“In October the government bypassed
the normal visa process and gave a type of extraordinary permission to enter the country called immigration parole,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing Jan. 6, 2016.

“That's a discretionary act that the statute allows the Attorney
General to do in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, we did that so that Mr. Katsyv could testify. And we made the further accommodation of allowing his Russian lawyer into the country to assist,” he added.

The prosecutor said Justice was willing to allow the Russian lawyer to enter the United States again as the trial in the case approached so she could help prepare and attend the proceedings.

The court record indicates the presiding judge asked the Justice Department to extend Veselnitskaya’s immigration parole another week until he decided motions in the case. There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in New York confirmed Wednesday to The Hill that it let Veselnitskaya into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 to early January 2016.

Justice Department and State Department officials could not immediately explain how the Russian lawyer was still in the country in June for the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the events in Washington D.C.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has demanded the U.S. government provide him all records on how Veselnitskaya entered and traveled in the U.S., a request that could shed additional light on her activities.

Interviews with a half dozen Americans who came in contact with Veselnitskaya or monitored her U.S. activities in 2016 make clear that one of her primary goals was to see if the Congress and/or other political leaders would be interested in repealing the 2012 Magnitsky Act punishing Russia or at least ensure the Magnitsky name would not be used on a new law working its way through Congress in 2016 to punish human rights violators across the globe.

“There’s zero doubt that she and her U.S. colleagues were lobbying to repeal Magnitsky or at least ensure his name was removed from the global law Congress was considering,” said U.S. businessman William Browder, who was the main proponent for the Magnitsky Act and who filed a FARA complaint against Veselnitskaya, Dellums and other U.S. officials claiming they should have registered as foreign agent lobbyists because of the work.

The 2012 law punished Russia for the prison death of Moscow lawyer/accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who U.S. authorities allege uncovered a massive $230 million money laundering scheme involving Russian government official that hurt U.S. companies.

Magnitsky became a cause celeb in the United States after his mysterious death in a Russian prison, but Russian officials have disputed his version of events and in 2011 posthumously convicted him of fraud in Russia.

It is that alternate theory of the Magnitsky fraud cause that Veselnitskaya and her U.S. allies tried to get into the hands of American officials, including Rohrabacher, the Trump team and other leaders.

Browder's complaint, which alleges that Washington lobbyists working with Veselnitskaya failed to register as foreign agents, is still pending at the Justice Department. It identified several events in Washington that Veselnitskaya and her allies attended or staged in June 2016.

All of them occurred in the days immediately after the Russian lawyer used a music promoter friend to get an audience June 9 with Trump’s eldest son promising dirt on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and instead using the meeting to talk about Magnitsky and the adoption issue, according to Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya.

On June 13, Veselnitskaya attended the screening of an anti-Magnitsky movie at the Newseum, which drew a handful of congressional staffers and State Department officials, according to Browder’s complaint.

The next day, she appeared in the front row of a hearing chaired by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), sitting right behind a former U.S. ambassador who testified on the future of U.S-Russia policy.

Rohrabacher said he recalled around the same time a conversation with Dellums about Magnitsky and the adoption issue and then attending a dinner that included Veselnitskaya at the Capitol Hill Club with about 20 people.

Sources close to the lobbying effort to rename the Magnisky Act, conducted over the summer of 2016, said it fizzled after only a month or two. They described Veselnitskaya, who does not speak English, as a mysterious and shadowy figure. They said they were confused as to whether she had an official role in the lobbying campaign, although she was present for several meetings.

The sources also described their interactions with Veselnitskaya in the same way that Trump Jr. did. They claimed not to know who she worked for or what her motives were.

“Natalia didn’t speak a word of English,” said one source. “Don’t let anyone tell you this was a sophisticated lobbying effort. It was the least professional campaign I’ve ever seen. If she’s the cream of the Moscow intelligence community then we have nothing to worry about.”
The sources added they met with Veselnitksaya only once or twice over the course of the lobbying campaign, which culminated with airing of a Russian documentary that challenged the notion that Magnitsky was beaten to death in a Russian prison

About 80 people, including congressional staffers and State Department employees attended the viewing at the Newseum.