Jayson Veley | Natural News | April 12, 2018

The Deep State is alive and well, according to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Appearing on “The Laura Ingraham Show” a few weeks ago, the libertarian-leaning former presidential candidate explained that individuals currently in national security positions are essentially free to exercise their power without any checks from elected representatives.

“Absolutely, there is a deep state, because the deep state is the intelligence agencies that do not have oversight,” Paul explained. “Only eight people in Congress know what they’re doing, and traditionally, those eight people have been a rubber stamp to let the intelligence communities do whatever they want. There is no skeptic among the eight people that are supposedly overseeing the intelligence community.”

It goes without saying that even though the intelligence community is supposed to rise above politics and carry out its functions in a bipartisan way, just like nearly every other American institution, it is susceptible to corruption. The difference, however, is that contrary to how most other levels of government operate, the intelligence community doesn’t have a system of checks to prevent it from engaging in activities that fall outside of legal and constitutional parameters – throw rampant corruption into the mix, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

The Kentucky senator went on to say that the deep state was on full display within Barack Obama’s administration, specifically with CIA Director John Brennan and National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

“John Brennan and James Clapper were doing whatever the hell they wanted, without any judicial warrants, and I think there were numerous people in the Obama administration who were using intelligence – one, to try to bring Trump down; but two, also, they were using it for political purposes,” he explained, adding that “this is very, very worrisome.”

Indeed, it is very worrisome, because the worse the corruption within the FBI and the intelligence community gets, the closer our country gets to a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. Without any checks or oversight, the intelligence community is basically free to do whatever it wants, and that includes acting in a partisan fashion to both defend and attack people based solely on political ideologies.

One of the most blatant examples of corruption and abuse of power within the intelligence community has to do with how Robert Mueller is carrying out this investigation into Trump’s alleged “collusion” with the Russians in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election. This is the same investigation that Tom Fitton, the president of conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, referred to as “corruption at its worst.”

First and foremost, it’s very odd – almost too odd – that the majority of people Robert Mueller recruited for his investigative team are liberal democrats who have a history of supporting, financially or otherwise, left wing politicians and organizations. How anyone can look at the partisanship of Mueller’s team and still conclude that Mueller is a fair and balanced investigator is beyond comprehension.

Additionally, the Daily Wire recently reported that Robert Mueller is investigating a $150,000 donation made to Donald Trump’s charity back in 2015 by a Ukrainian businessman, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that this same Ukrainian businessman has donated anywhere between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, this same businessman (whose name is Victor Pinchuk) even lent his private plane to the Clintons back in 2011 to attend Bill Clinton’s 65th birthday celebration in Los Angeles.

For many, this sort of blatant hypocrisy and corruption within the intelligence community demonstrates two things: first, that the investigation into Trump/Russia collusion has turned into an all-out witch hunt, and second, that there is, in fact, a deep state within the federal government.


Contributed by Jayson Veley of NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

Natural Blaze | naturalblaze.com | February 22, 2018

U.S. Right to Know sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today over CDC’s failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provide documents in response to six requests about its interactions with The Coca-Cola Company.

The public records requests are part of an investigation USRTK is conducting into Coca-Cola’s influence at the CDC and the company’s impact on public policy. Public health evidence suggests that the consumption of sugary sodas is implicated in the obesity epidemic, and may be responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. Nevertheless, evidence gathered to date indicates that CDC staff provided political guidanceto Coca-Cola, allowed Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC, and accepted contributions from Coca-Cola via the CDC Foundation, which has disclosed such contributions as recently as last year.

“We are suing the CDC to uncover the extent and nature of the CDC’s relationship with Coca-Cola,” said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a consumer and public health watchdog group. “Just as it is wrong for the CDC to assist tobacco companies, it is also wrong for CDC to assist obesogenic companies like Coca-Cola.”

Since 2016, USRTK has filed 19 FOIA requests with the CDC. With the documents we received via FOIA from CDC and other sources, we helped expose former CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald’s collegial relationship with Coca-Cola and the company’s former VP and Chief Science and Health Officer Rhona Applebaum in the New York Times and The Intercept.

We also revealed that Barbara Bowman, then-director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, had advised a former Coca-Cola senior vice president on how to stop the World Health Organization from cracking down on added sugar.  Bowman quit the CDC two days after her advice to the former Coca-Cola executive was revealed.

We also helped to uncover CDC staff concerns that CDC’s “mission is being shaped by outside parties and rogue interests” and their call to “clean up this house.”

More findings in our investigation of Coca-Cola’s influence at the CDC are available at: usrtk.org/our-investigations/#coca-cola.

On December 15, 2017, USRTK filed six FOIA requests with the CDC regarding its relationship to Coca-Cola.  The CDC acknowledged receipt of these FOIA requests four days later, but has not provided any other response.  The FOIA law states that federal agencies are required to respond within 20 business days.

According to the Coca-Cola transparency database, Coca-Cola contributed $1.1 million to the CDC Foundation during 2010-12.  But Coca-Cola has not disclosed contributions to the CDC Foundation after 2012.  The CDC Foundation discloses such contributions, but not the amounts, in the years 2017, 2016, and 2015none of which are disclosed by Coca-Cola.

Both the CDC and Coca-Cola are based in Atlanta.

CDC has been swept up in two recent scandals. On January 31, CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald quit her post, following a Politico article raising questions about her investments in tobacco and other companies. On December 15, the Washington Post reported that CDC had banned a list of seven words or phrases – such as “evidence-based” and “science-based” – from budget documents.

The USRTK FOIA lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  The USRTK complaint is available at: https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USRTK-v-HHS-complaint.pdf.  The name of the case is U.S. Right to Know v. Department of Health and Human Services. USRTK is represented in this matter by the law office of Mark S. Zaid.

More information about USRTK’s litigation for transparency is at: usrtk.org/our-litigation.

U.S. Right to Know is a nonprofit consumer and public health organization that investigates the risks associated with the corporate food system, and the food industry’s practices and influence on public policy.  For more information, see usrtk.org.

Image credit


Originally published @ Natural Blaze


SHARE:

Alex Thomas | The Daily Sheeple | Jan. 23, 2018

High-level FBI officials that supported Hillary Clinton for president discussed “initiating” physical harm against President Donald Trump in a series of “missing” text messages, according to a shocking new report detailed by two different alternative news outlets.

With the possibility that tens of thousands of text messages between anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were purposefully deleted, many have assumed that they contained bombshell evidence of a conspiracy against Trump and, now, that seems to actually be the case.

In the article, True Pundit details what they claim to be comments made by a high ranking FBI official who believes the missing texts contained actual threats against the life of Donald Trump.

True Pundit reports:

A high-ranking FBI official confirms a number of the missing 50,000 FBI text messages — as well as other text and email messages among FBI brass — reportedly discussed initiating physical harm to President Donald Trump.

The FBI official urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — which oversees the U.S. Secret Service  — to launch an investigation of the Justice Department, the FBI and all text messages missing and otherwise that threatened the President.

“This is dangerous territory and all FBI text messages and personal phones should be examined,” the official said. “It would reveal some frightening conversations.”

Did FBI brass discuss the assassination of President Donald Trump? If not, what was the nature of the threats against the president from inside the alleged premiere law enforcement agency in the United States?

“(Director) Wray wants a lid on this,” the FBI official said. “Many know there was talk of harming Trump politically but there is a group here (in D.C. HQ) that understands it goes deeper. We need a special counsel or Homeland Security. Somebody has to clean this up outside of DOJ. It is unacceptable.

“This is much larger than just texts between two FBI agents.”

The FBI official called on President Trump to do what is necessary to weed out corruption in the FBI.

“Text messages just don’t disappear,” the FBI official said. “Not here. Someone outside DOJ has to look at all emails and texts. These (FBI bosses) are bad people. You’ve only scratched the surface.”

While The Daily Sheeple has been unable to confirm the FBI sources authenticity, Intellihub News has revealed that their own sources also back up the above reporting.

Additionally, this would be bombshell evidence of a direct conspiracy against the president lines up perfectly with what we already know about elements within the bureau who supported Clinton and wanted to take out Trump after his shocking election victory.

One can only hope that the actual FBI memo, as well as the “missing” texts, are eventually released so that the American people have a full picture of what actually happened when unelected Clinton operatives within the government went to work at bypassing the will of the American people in favor of their globalist masters.


Contributed by Alex Thomas of The Daily Sheeple.

Alex Thomas is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Alex’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.


SHARE:


Rachel Blevins | Free Thought Project | Jan. 11, 2018

While Americans celebrated the holidays, President Trump followed in the footsteps of his predecessors by acting in the interest of Wall Street and using the distraction to do something that was not in the best interest of the American people. He pardoned five megabanks for rampant fraud and corruption, which is especially notable because of the amount of money he owes them.

Trump has been using Deutsche Bank since the 1990s, and Financial Times has reported that he now owes the bank at least $130 million in outstanding loans secured in properties in Miami, Chicago, and Washington. However, a source told the Times that the actual number is likely much larger at $300 million.

Reports claimed that Deutsche was the only bank willing to lend Trump money after his companies faced multiple bankruptcies. The relationship has continued over the years, and an analysis from the Wall Street Journal claimed that Trump has received at least $2.5 billion in loans from Deutsche Bank over the last 20 years.

There have been concerns about Trump’s ties to the bank becoming a conflict of interest, dating back to the 2016 election, and the evidence to support those concerns is now becoming clear.

During the week of Christmas, the Federal Register announced that the Trump Administration had issued waivers to Citigroup, JPMorgan, Barclays, UBS and Deutsche Bank—all megabanks facing charges of fraud and corruption.

The banks were involved in the LIBOR Scandal, in which they colluded to deliberately depress the rate at which they paid out on investments. By suppressing the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) at the beginning of an economic crisis in 2007, the megabanks were able to boost their earnings and to give their customers a false sense of security.

Deutsche Bank pled guilty to wire fraud in a U.S. court in 2015, and it went on to pay $3.5 billion for its role in the LIBOR scandal—more than any other bank involved—before it reached a $7.2 billion settlement with the Justice Department in early 2017.

Then in June 2017, Deutsche Bank trader David Liew, who is based in Singapore, pleaded guilty to conspiring to spoof gold, silver, platinum and palladium futures in federal court in Chicago, confirming that the biggest banks in the world have conspired to rig precious metals markets.

While Trump granted 5-year exemptions to Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Barclays, and 3-year exemptions to UBS and Deutsche Bank, it should be noted that his administration is not the only one to have done this. As International Business Times noted, “In late 2016, the Obama administration extended temporary one-year waivers to five banks,” which just happened to be the same ones Trump has now extended the exemptions on—revealing the real rulers in DC.

Not surprisingly, the latest decision to pardon the banks comes in stark contrast to one of Trump’s most applauded campaign promises—that he would finally stand up against Wall Street and demand that the most powerful banks be held accountable to the public.

“I’m not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us. We’re going to tax Wall Street,” Trump said during a campaign rally in January 2016.


Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on FacebookTwitter and YouTube. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.


SHARE:


Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | January 6, 2018

If this doesn’t show you how crooked the federal judicial system is, nothing will.

Ammon Bundy’s attorney in the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Refuge case, Marcus Mumford, had criminal charges filed against him after he was tased and tackled by federal marshalls for simply arguing for his client’s release in court.

Listen to his account of what happened.

Judge Anna Brown said that Mumford was issuing a threat, and that is why he was charged.

Back in April 2017, The Oregonian reported:

Attorney Marcus Mumford, who last month had criminal charges dismissed against him stemming from his arrest on the day his client Ammon Bundy was acquitted of conspiracy in federal court in Portland, now faces more legal challenges.

Oregon’s Chief U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman is seeking to revoke Mumford’s ability to practice law in any federal court in the District of Oregon, a rare move.

In a court filing Wednesday, Mosman cited Mumford’s repeated failures or refusals to observe court rulings in the Bundy trial last fall, repeated instances of Mumford arguing with the judge with a raised voice and sometimes in the jury’s presence, inappropriate commentary on a witness in the presence of a jury, his arguing for Bundy’s release from trial after his acquittal “without a good-faith basis to believe that the pre-existing custody order” from Nevada was not still in effect and his yelling at the court when he objected to the trial judge’s rulings.

Mosman also alleged that Mumford failed to timely disclose to the trial judge that Rick Koerber, who served as part of Bundy’s defense team, was also a client of Mumford’s in an unrelated, criminal proceeding.  In 2014, a federal judge in Utah tossed out 18 charges against Koerber that had alleged he operated a giant Ponzi scheme through his real estate company, but Koerber was recently re-indicted on 18 charges in January.

The judge filed 25 exhibits with his order, mostly transcripts from Bundy’s trial to support his move to revoke Mumford’s admission to practice in federal court in Oregon.

For Mumford’s part, he simply responded in an email, “My initial reaction is ‘the Empire strikes back.’ I know of no court order that I violated, and no reason to impose some kind of lifetime ban to practice law in Oregon.”

Mumford then filed an 11-page memo in which he wrote about the challenges against the court he raised during the trial.

“In these matters, I do not necessarily intend to argue in each instance that I was right and the court was wrong,” Mumford wrote.  “As Judge Brown pointed out, there were several instances over the course of the trial where we likely just misunderstood each other.”

“There should be no mistake that I think the Court is gravely mistaken to even issue its (order to show cause),” Mumford added. “Nevertheless, I take this matter seriously.”

However, NextRush Free reports, “Judge [John C.] Coughenour agreed to a request by federal prosecutors to drop the criminal charges after Mumford’s lawyer asked for communications between the marshals.  Mumford’s legal assistant and other defense lawyers said the federal marshals in the courtroom were antagonistic towards him.”

As of today, Nextrush Free reported, “In a series of rulings Judge Coughenour has ruled against Mumford including this latest request for a delay citing a new lawyer representing him and the presence of witnesses in Nevada this Monday January 8th (in connection with the Bunkerville Standoff case).   Marcus Mumford also brought up personal and financial issues in his filing with the judge.”

Mumford’s hearing is scheduled Monday morning January 8th at 10am.

Now, contrast that with Bundy Ranch Standoff prosecutor Steven Myhre.

Myhre engaged, and has a history of engaging, in multiple Brady violations to rig the case in his favor, which could have led to wrong convictions in the first trial, intimidation that led to plea bargains in the first two trials and definitely led to a mistrial in the last one.

And what happened to Mr. Myhre?

Well, first, he was not arrested and charged with a crime, which he should have been.

Second, he was then allowed to actually file to retry the Bundys and Ryan Payne after his “willful” violation of federal law and the rights of the defendants.

Third, following a look into the matter by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Myhre was not fired and brought up on charges.  He was simply demoted and another man took his place.

Does anyone see the glaring injustice here?

One attorney merely argues for his client’s release which is not criminal and another attorney willfully violates federal law.

One had charges against him but were dropped when his accusers were called on it.  The other has had no charges against him.

One is facing disbarment.  The other continues to have a job in Nevada where he can continue to violate the law and the rights of the citizens.

This is not equal protection under the law, friends, nor is it justice.

This is how tyranny works.


Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.


SHARE: