Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

President Trump: “Total Declassification” of Any/All Documents Related To Russia Investigation

Handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan prove that the Trump/Russia connection appears to have been approved first by the Hillary Clinton campaign and dreamed up by an advisor Jake Sullivan, who is now a major Biden advisor.

********

Learn about our new media platform project, ISE Media: https://ISE.Media

Learn how to invest in our project: https://wefunder.com/ise.media

NEW: Avoid big tech censorship and receive reports from me sent to your mobile device. Send a text to: 1-404-467-5809

Truth In Media with Ben Swann, Episode 32- Trump Administration: Syria’s Assad “Does Not” Have To Go

The Trump Administration’s stance on Syria and Bashar al-Assad goes against President Obama’s and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s policy since 2011. In this episode, Ben takes a look at how this new policy is contrary to the media narrative about Syria over the past decade.

********

Support Truth in Media by visiting our sponsors: 

 

Pulse Cellular: Use code “TRUTH” for 10% off every plan for life. 

https://truthinmedia.com/phone 

 

Pure VPN: Military grade VPN protection.

https://truthinmedia.com/vpn 

 

Brave Browser: Open source and built by a team of privacy-focused, performance-oriented pioneers of the web.

https://truthinmedia.com/brave

Ex-FBI Asst. Director: “High-Ranking” Officials Conspired to Protect Clinton

Washington, D.C.— Former FBI assistant director James Kallstrom said that he believes there was an internal plot among “high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI,” to exonerate Hillary Clinton for political purposes during the 2016 presidential election.

While appearing on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo, Kallstrom, a 27-year veteran of the FBI, was asked: “Do you think somebody was directing them or do you think they just came to the conclusion on their own, this leadership at the FBI and the Department of Justice, that they wanted to change the outcome of the election?”

“I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted,” Kallstrom responded.

“I think it goes right to the top,” Kallstrom continued. “And it involves that whole strategy – they were gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven’t heard anything about that yet. Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens.”

Kallstrom claimed the Trump-Russia story was essentially a “back-up plan.”

“They had a backup plan to basically frame Donald Trump and that’s what’s been going,” Kallstrom said.

[RELATED: Reality Check: GOP Memo and FISA Problems]

Kallstrom discussed other “high-ranking” individuals he believed to be involved in a conspiracy to insulate Hillary Clinton and damage Donald Trump.

“Jim Comey is not a stupid individual. I think he’s naive and has an ego the size of the Empire State Building, and he has a lot of other faults, that got him into this trouble,” said Kallstrom. “But I could be wrong, they could have been in lockstep. But there is no question that he, and McCabe others in the FBI, and we’ll find out the State Dept., and the National Security Advisors to the president, and John Brennan. Did you see John Brennan’s remarks?”

In a December appearance on Fox Business, Kallstrom said that a “cabal” of individuals, including top FBI officials, had conducted a politicized witch hunt meant to undermine Trump’s legitimacy.

“People tweet each other and they send text messages, but they don’t plan. The FBI is not in the business of planning to destroy a President of the United States,” Kallstrom added, referring to the infamous “insurance policy” texts. “I think they were way above their capability. This guy thinks he’s the lone ranger, this Peter Strzok.”

 

Reality Check: Obama/Clinton to Blame for Slave Markets in Libya?

It’s been three months since the media outcry over the open market slave trading in Libya and yet, the problem persists.

And the root cause of how these slave markets were created, thanks to U.S. foreign policy, has been ignored.

Do you want to end the slave trade in Libya?

We’ll tell you the biggest step toward making that happen… in a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

The video shocked the world. CNN posted the images: men who appeared to be sold at auction in Libya for $400. The grainy undercover video appears to show smugglers selling off a dozen men outside of the capital city Tripoli.

So how did we get here? Most media will tell you that Libya is the main transit point for refugees and migrants trying to reach Europe by sea.

According to Time, “In each of the last three years, 150,000 people have made the dangerous crossing across the Mediterranean Sea from Libya. For four years in a row, 3,000 refugees have died while attempting the journey, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the U.N.’s migration agency.”

What’s more, according to a September report by the United Nations Human Rights Agency, there are estimates that “400,000 to almost one million people” are now bottled up Libya. “Detention centers are overrun and there are mounting reports of robbery, rape, and murder among migrants.”

Read just about any mainstream report on what is happening in Libya, and what you will not hear is who is responsible for the utter failure of Libya.

The policies that have created some of the most horrific conditions in the world fall squarely on the shoulders of former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Keep in mind, in 2003, under the Bush administration, the long time leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, had entered into an agreement where Gaddafi would give up any weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. would leave Gaddafi and Libya alone.

But under Obama and Clinton, the U.S. broke that agreement. In 2012 the U.S. insisted that there was an “Arab Spring” uprising taking place in Libya. There was not. As I reported at the time, the fighters attempting to overthrow Gaddafi were al Qaeda fighters.

Under Obama and Clinton, on March 21st of that year, a no fly zone was imposed over Libya. And then, seven months later, with the U.S. tracking a Gaddafi convoy, the Libyan leader was caught and killed in the streets.

Was Muammar Gaddafi a dictator? Yes. No question.

But was Libya under Gaddafi a relatively peaceful place? Yes.

Gaddafi actually promoted a Pan-Africanism, spoke out against anti-black Arab racism and was pushing for unified African currency.

Bragging about her so-called accomplishments after the fact, Hillary Clinton famously said… “We came, we saw, he died.” The problem is, so many others are dying now as a result.

In an interview after the leaving the White House, former President Obama called the overthrow of Gaddafi his greatest single mistake in office. While that is difficult to argue, what is truly stunning about that statement? The policy to overthrow Gaddafi was attempted again for the next four years by the Obama administration as they attempted to overthrow the Assad regime, even as Libya continued to slip deeper into chaos.

And that’s what you need to know. Because Obama is no longer president, Clinton is no longer secretary of state and Gaddafi is no longer alive.

The answer to how Libyans should fix what is happening in Libya is beyond me. But the answer as to what the U.S. should do about Libya is not.

If we want to prevent these chaotic failed states around the world, the U.S. must stop intervening and thereby creating them through the toppling of governments in the Middle East and Africa.

That’s Reality Check. Let’s talk about that, right now, on Twitter and Facebook.

Reality Check: No Sarin Gas Used by Assad in Syria?

It was a stunning announcement, stunning because of what was said and maybe equally as stunning because it was honest.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis says there is no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on the its own people.

It is a narrative we have been pushing back on for years. So what does this mean for U.S. policy in Syria? And will President Trump continue to push for war in Syria, or will he return to the positions of candidate Trump who said the U.S. should stay out of it?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

The statement is getting very little media coverage but it is a very big deal.

According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin gas on its own people.

Here is exactly what Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon:

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.”

“We do not have evidence of it.”

“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions.”

Mattis insists that he wasn’t refuting the claims. But in a sense, he did.

According to Newsweek, in 2017 a White House memorandum was quickly produced and then declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.

The justification used was that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people. Then President Trump himself insisted that there was no doubt that Syrian President Assad had killed his own people with banned chemical weapons.

But Mattis also didn’t qualify the statement to just the Syrian airbase strike. That means that the 2013 gas attack in Ghouta also was not proven to be Assad.

At that time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were demanding congress approve use of force against Assad. Obama said this from the rose garden as he said American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles were on standby in the Mediterranean Sea.

“I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Congress did not approve that use of force, but then applauded Trump for his use.

For his part, in this latest statement, Mattis says that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence of the Syrian government using sarin.

But as I have extensively reported over the past few years, there is much evidence that the so called Syrian freedom fighters are actually ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters. And there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons.

Other problems with the claims of Assad using sarin: in the 2013 Ghouta event, the sarin came from home-made rockets, which were favored by insurgents.

Also, according to Newsweek:

“In the 2013 event, the White House memorandum seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian white helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.

“Carla del Ponte was unable to fulfill her U.N. joint investigative mechanism mandate in Syria and withdrew in protest over the United States refusing to fully investigate allegations of chemical weapons use by ‘rebels’ who are actually jihadis, allied with the American effort to oust President Assad (including the use of sarin by anti-Assad rebels).”

According to the Times of London:

“Carla del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas – a deadly nerve agent.

“‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.

‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”

It was the involvement of those jihadis posing as Syrian rebels that made then-candidate Trump state emphatically that he wouldn’t intervene and help oust Assad as Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

Candidate Trump pushed back heavily against intervention. He warned that ISIS was likely to take over Syria if Assad were ousted, just as they have in Iraq and Libya.

And yet the U.S. is only escalating fighting.

Four Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens more, were killed in fighting between pro-government forces in eastern Syria and members of the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according to Russian and Syrian officials—that according to the New York Times.

Russia says that no members of the Russian armed forces were killed and that any Russians fighting alongside the Syrians were mercenaries.

So what you need to know is that candidate Trump was clear when he pointed to the bush policy in Iraq and the Obama/Clinton policies in Libya and Syria that have only strengthened the creation and spread of ISIS and jihadism.

Candidate Trump rightly pointed out that these policies had failed and that it was insanity to keep pursuing those policies and expecting a different outcome.

So why is President Trump now embracing those insane policies that if continued will undoubtedly leave another power vacuum in the Middle East which will be filled with jihadis?

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it tonight on Twitter and Facebook.

Award-Winning Journalist Tackles Root of 2016’s “Fake News” Dilemma

Las Vegas, NV— A recent Tedx talk given by Emmy-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson at the University of Nevada examined the “fake news” narrative that took the U.S. by storm during and following the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

While Attkisson acknowledged that fake news has long existed in various forms, she said that noticed something different taking root within U.S. mainstream media in 2016. Suspecting that the origins of this growing “fake news” narrative were less than organic, Attkisson began researching and said that she connected the origins of this phenomena to a non-profit organization called “First Draft,” which, she notes, “appears to be the about the first to use ‘fake news’ in its modern context.”

“On September 13, 2016, First Draft announced a partnership to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports,” Attkisson said. “The goal was supposedly to separate wheat from chaff, to prevent unproven conspiracy talk from figuring prominently in internet searches. To relegate today’s version of the alien baby story to a special internet oblivion.”

First Draft was assembled back in June 2015, according to a report from Fortune. The coalition included Facebook, Twitter and 30 other news and tech companies.

Just a month later, then-President Barack Obama proclaimed “fake news” to be a threat.

“He insisted in a speech that he too thought somebody needed to step in and curate information of this wild, wild West media environment,” she said, pointing out that “nobody in the public had been clamoring for any such thing.”

Attkisson noted how quickly the topic of “fake news” came to dominate US mainstream media as if corporate media had received “marching orders.”

“Fake news, they insisted, was an imminent threat to American democracy,” Attkisson said, noting that “few themes arise in our environment organically.”

“What if the whole anti-fake news campaign was an effort on somebody’s part to keep us from seeing or believing certain websites and stories by controversializing them or labeling them as fake news?” Attkisson questioned.

Upon investigation, Attkisson discovered that one of the major financial backers of First Draft’s anti-fake news coalition was none other than Google, whose parent company, Alphabet, was chaired by major Clinton supporter Eric Schmidt until Dec. 2017. Schmidt “offered himself up as a campaign adviser and became a top multi-million donor to it. His company funded First Draft around the start of the election cycle,” Attkisson said. “Not surprisingly, Hillary was soon to jump aboard the anti-fake news train and her surrogate, David Brock of Media Matters, privately told donors he was the one who convinced Facebook to join the effort.”

Attkisson noted that “the whole thing smacked of the roll-out of a propaganda campaign.” The award-winning journalist then explained that Trump accomplished a “hostile takeover” of the term. “Something happened that nobody expected. The anti-fake news campaign backfired. Each time advocates cried fake news, Donald Trump called them ‘fake news’ until he’d co-opted the term so completely that even those who [were] originally promoting it started running from it, including the Washington Post.”

Attkisson advised that “powerful interests might be trying to manipulate” perceptions of society. “When interests are working this hard to shape your opinion, their true goal might just be to add another layer between you and the truth,” Attkisson said.

h/t PJ Media

Kim Dotcom: DNC Hack Was Leak From an “Insider With a Memory Stick”

Washington, D.C.— Following a tweet by President Trump on February 18th, Kim Dotcom responded by adding further details to previous statements which implied that the DNC hack during the 2016 US presidential election was actually a leak, and specifically claimed that the information was leaked by an “insider with a memory stick.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965202556204003328

“Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn’t even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why,” Dotcom tweeted, alleging that “Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds!” The 360 pounds is clearly a retort to Trump’s “400 pound genius” comment.

Dotcom’s claims of attempting to provide evidence to Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who has allegedly failed to respond to Dotcom’s lawyers, may raise questions about the impartiality and veracity of the Mueller investigation.

[RELATED: Kim Dotcom Lawyers Appealing Extradition Decision]

The assertion that the DNC data was not hacked, but leaked from an insider with a memory stick, is reportedly supported by an analysis from a researcher going by the alias of the Forensicator, who determined that the 22.6 MB/s copy speed of the DNC files was “virtually impossible” to attain from overseas, but a typical speed for a transfer to a thumb drive. These results were supported in a July 2017 memo to President Trump from a group of intelligence veterans that includes former NSA intelligence official William Binney.

The local transfer theory, if proven, would lend credibility to the notion that the DNC data was not hacked, but instead, was leaked. Dotcom’s claims could also explain why the DNC refused to allow the FBI to inspect its servers, and instead, relied on the analysis of a private company, CrowdStrike.

Crowdstrike’s CTO and co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, in 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton their Distinguished International Leadership Award, and in 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted an event with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014.

On May 18, 2017, Dotcom tweeted that if the case of Seth Rich would be included in the Congressional probe of Russian collusion/election meddling, he would provide written testimony to Congress, including evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks’ source of the DNC emails.

Then, two days later, Dotcom tweeted, “I knew Seth Rich. I know he was WikiLeaks’ source. I was involved.”

A few days later, Dotcom released a statement, saying “I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK,” adding:

I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment.

Fmr. Fed Prosecutor Claims Democratic Memo Blocked Due to Internal “Criminal Investigation” of FBI and DOJ

Washington, D.C.— Former Federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova, who was previously appointed as a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Teamsters, claimed during a radio interview with station WMAL that the reason the Democratic memo was blocked on the recommendation of the DOJ and FBI is that both agencies are conducting active internal investigations into politically motivated actions, carried out by certain individuals which the release of the memo without redactions could compromise.

During the radio interview with WMAL, featured below, DiGenova stated:

We’re going to see the [Democrat memo]. It will be heavily edited by the FBI and the Department of Justice and the CIA. The most important part of this story is that on Friday, February the 9th, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray wrote a letter to the White House counsel Don McGahn that they could not agree to the publication of the Schiff memo because it contained national security and law enforcement concerns. It was actually the FBI and the Department of Justice says no [to releasing the memo]. The most important part of that letter is when it says… law enforcement concerns. What does that mean? It means, that there is a criminal investigation underway and release of some of the information in the memo by Mr. Schiff will affect that criminal investigation. I wonder who they are investigating? And the answer is pretty clear. They are investigating the people at the FBI and the DOJ who provided false information to the FISA court over a number of years, including, involving Carter Page.

Last month during an interview with The Daily Caller, DiGenova alleged that the Obama Administration engaged in a “brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton,” and that the attempt to “frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy” was unraveling.

“The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about – a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony. It’s about finding out why – as the Inspector General is doing at the department of justice – why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That’s not an investigation, that’s a Potemkin village. It’s a farce.”

In the interview, the former federal prosecutor condemned the FBI’s close relationship with Fusion GPS, which he described as “a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Donald Trump.” DiGenova went on lay out the breadth of the conspiracy against Trump, saying that the FBI, without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason “created false facts so that they could get surveillance warrants.”

“Those are all crimes,” said DiGenova, noting that using official FISA-702 “queries” and surveillance was done “to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president.”

FBI Informant: Russia Directed Millions to US to Ensure “Affirmative Decisions” on Uranium One

Washington, D.C. — According to a written statement to three congressional committees, an FBI informant associated with the Uranium One deal alleged that the Russian government sent millions of dollars to the United States with the expectation the funds would bolster former president Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative, and that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would oversee a “reset” in the relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

The Hill reports that FBI informant Douglas Campbell told the committees that he had been informed by Russian nuclear executives that Russia had hired US lobbying firm APCO Worldwide due to their “position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton.”

Campbell said in the statement, which was obtained by The Hill, that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative.”

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”

An APCO official denied that there was any connection between its work for Russia and the Clinton Global Initiative, claiming that any assertions of misconduct were “false and unfounded.”

“APCO Worldwide’s activities involving client work on behalf of Tenex and The Clinton Global Initiative were totally separate and unconnected in any way,” APCO told The Hill in a statement. “All actions on these two unconnected activities were appropriate, publicly documented from the outset and consistent with regulations and the law. Any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”

[RELATED: Senate Memo Claims Clinton Allies Were “Feeding” Info to State Dept., Christopher Steele]

Democrats have turned Campbell’s testimony into a partisan affair, calling the FBI informant’s credibility into question, despite the bureau paying him $50,000 for his work with the agency.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, dismissed Campbell’s testimony as a distraction from the special prosecutor’s “Russian collusion” investigation, which some have claimed began as a strategy formed by the Clinton campaign staff to explain Clinton’s stunning election loss to Trump.

“Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that, a charade. Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own President’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses,” Merrill said.

A Clinton campaign post-election tell-all, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaignclaimed that Clinton blamed Russian interference for her election loss to Donald Trump “within twenty-four hours of her concession speech”:

“That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Despite attempts from Democrats to call Campbell’s credibility into question, Republicans are now looking at expanding the investigation into Russian corruption, in relation to the Obama administration and the Uranium One deal, based partially on Campbell’s testimony.

“My FBI handlers praised my work. They told me on various occasions that details from the undercover probe had been briefed directly to FBI top officials. On two occasions my handlers were particularly excited, claiming that my undercover work had been briefed to President Obama as part of his daily presidential briefing,” Campbell wrote.

According to reporting from The Hill:

“Campbell, whose work as an informant was first disclosed in a series of stories published last fall by The Hill, helped the FBI gather evidence as early as 2009 that the Russian nuclear industry was engaged in a kickback, bribery and racketeering scheme on U.S. soil. The criminal scheme, among other things, compromised the U.S. trucking firm that had the sensitive job of transporting uranium around America, Campbell testified.

Campbell says he provided the FBI the evidence of wrongdoing months before the Obama administration approved a series of favorable decisions that enriched Rosatom, including the CFIUS decision. 

The Hill’s stories last fall prompted the Justice Department to take the rare step of freeing Campbell from his nondisclosure agreement as an intelligence asset so he could testify to Congress about what he witnessed inside Russia’s nuclear industry.

Campbell gave the congressional committees documents he said he provided to his FBI handlers in 2010 showing that the Russian and American executives implicated in the Tenex bribery scheme specifically asked him to try to help get the Uranium One deal approved by the Obama administration.”

Campbell’s testimony is of interest to congressional Republicans focused on potential indiscretion in the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal. The agreement gave Russian mining giant Rosatom control of nearly 20 percent of America’s uranium mining capacity, despite the fact that the United States imports more than 90 percent of the uranium used in its nuclear reactors, according to U.S. government figures from 2016.

Newly Released FBI ‘Lovers’ Text Message Implies Obama Oversight in Clinton Email Investigation

Washington, D.C. — Despite claims of maintaining a hands-off policy regarding pending investigations, newly revealed text messages between alleged lovers— FBI agent Peter Strzok (of “insurance policy” text infamy) and FBI attorney Lisa Page— contain a message from Page denoting the preparation of talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to brief President Barack Obama.

The newly released text from Page specifically notes that “potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” and comes on the heels of newly released Senate report that raises questions about Obama’s involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

This message from Page, if accurate, seemingly obscures a public statement made by then-President Obama, who on April 10, 2016, said:

“I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to the FBI directors about pending investigations.”

An interim report titled “The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI’s Investigation of It” from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee stated:

“Although sometimes cryptic and disjointed due to their nature, these text messages raise several questions about the FBI and its investigation of classified information on Secretary Clinton’s private email server. Strzok and Page discussed serving to ‘protect the country from the menace’ of Trump ‘enablers,’ and the possibility of an ‘insurance policy’ against the ‘risk’ of a Trump presidency.

The two discussed then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch knowing that Secretary Clinton would not face charges—before the FBI had interviewed Secretary Clinton and before her announcement that she would accept Director Comey’s prosecution decision.

They wrote about drafting talking points for then-Director Comey because President Obama ‘wants to know everything we’re doing.’

Strzok and Page also exchanged views about the investigation on possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign—calling it ‘unfinished business’ and ‘an investigation leading to impeachment,’ drawing parallels to Watergate, and expressing Strzok’s ‘gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.’

The text messages raise several important questions that deserve further examination:

• Whether, and the extent to which, any personal animus and/or political bias influenced the FBI’s investigation;
• Whether, and the extent to which, the Obama Department of Justice or White House influenced the FBI’s investigation; and
• Whether, and the extent to which, any personal animus and/or political bias influenced the FBI’s actions with respect to President Trump.”

The newly released texts call into question the timeline of events surrounding the discovery of “hundreds of thousands” of emails on the computer of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Weiner is the husband Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, who was vice-chair of Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Of specific note, on Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok texted Page:

“Got called up to Andy’s [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review… this will never end.”

A month later, Comey told Congress that it was reopening the Clinton email investigation “due to recent developments.”

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday…” Comey told members of Congress on Oct. 28, 2016.

The aforementioned text raises questions about when Comey became aware that emails relevant to the Clinton email investigation had been found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, according to the Senate memo.

Wednesday, during an appearance on “Fox and Friends,” Rep. Louis Gohmert questioned the recently released text message implying Obama’s involvement in the Clinton email investigation, and noted the need for an investigation to determine Obama’s involvement.

“It is extraordinary. Clearly the FBI [and Justice Department] covered for Hillary Clinton,” Gohmert told Fox.

Gohmert said that he believes transcripts of the FISA application, used to attain a warrant to surveille Trump advisor Carter Page, should be released, noting that the FISA court was presented “lies” in the FBI’s warrant application, as alleged in the House Intelligence Committee memo.

“Either the judge was duped with false information into signing a warrant or the judge is so worthless and was part of all this and didn’t care if he didn’t have the facts,” said Gohmert.

“If a fraud is presented to the court, you don’t have to have a hearing, you can just order them in contempt for six months in jail. These people should be in jail for what they did.”

GOP Rep. Calls for Prosecution of FBI, DOJ Officials; Calls Actions in FISA Memo “Treason”

Washington, D.C. — In the wake of the release of the declassified FISA memo, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) published a letter Friday, announcing that he will pursue a criminal prosecution of officials in both the Justice Department and FBI for “treason.”

The highly charged allegation of treason follows the contentious FISA memo released Friday by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which alleged misconduct through the abuse of FISA warrants to target political adversaries.

The FISA memo was composed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republican lawmakers, and alleged that FBI and DOJ officials utilized unverified opposition research from a dossier, compiled by self-professed anti-Trump former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which was then used to initially acquire and subsequently renew a warrant to place a former Trump campaign official under surveillance— without informing the FISA court that the dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign.

“House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Memorandum on the FBI abuse of FISA warrants wasn’t just evidence of incompetence but clear and convincing evidence of treason,” wrote Gosar.

[RELATED: WATCH: Senator Rand Paul Calls Out Government Surveillance Power on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert]

“The FBI knowingly took false information from the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign and then used it to smear Donald Trump in order to hurt his campaign,” Gosar continued.

“The full-throated adoption of this illegal misconduct and abuse of FISA by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein is not just criminal but constitutes treason,” Gosar explained.

The Congressman labeled the behavior by FBI and Justice Department officials as “third word politics where official government agencies are used as campaign attack dogs.”

Here is Rep. Gosar’s full statement on the declassified memo:

Gosar went on to write that he will be spearheading a “letter to the Attorney General seeking criminal prosecution against these traitors to our nation.”

Under the United States Constitution, if convicted of treason, FBI or Justice Department officials could be potentially be sentenced to death.

Green Party’s Stein Seeks Collaboration with Sanders, Calls Clinton ‘Warmonger’

Physician and 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein said that her party has been trying unsuccessfully to make inroads with Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.

Many of my supporters are also his supporters. I’m asked all the time if there could be a Bernie Sanders collaboration and my answer to that has always been yes. The Green Party has long sought to establish a collaboration with Bernie Sanders,” she said.

However, she told NBC News in an interview published Saturday, “That phone call has not been returned, and I don’t expect that this will happen.

[RELATED: Green Party’s Stein Predicts DNC Will Sabotage Sanders, Try to Reabsorb Supporters]

Speaking on the Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunner, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Stein said, “I think we’re polar opposites. Hillary talks the talk, but in my view she is as big a corporatist, as big a warmonger, as big an imperialist as any of the Republican presidential candidates. Her rhetoric is less offensive.

In a mid-March interview with The Huffington Post, Stein expressed worries that Sen. Sanders’ campaign would ultimately end in his supporters being co-opted by Hillary Clinton.

[RELATED: Judge Opens the Door for Third Party Candidates in Georgia]

There are many things about Sanders that are great. We agree on a lot domestically. But to allow yourself to be lulled into compliance with the Democratic Party means you’re allowing yourself to be reined in from establishing a real progressive message,” she said.

Sanders has taken the right domestic positions in the wrong party. They will seek to destroy his campaign if he gets close to securing the nomination. … The DNC installed a kill switch to prevent a true progressive nominee after McGovern got the nomination in 1972,” added Stein.

Stein claimed that the Democratic primary “is over” and that “the party machinery is behind [Clinton].

Stein said that she entered politics as a Green Party candidate “when the Democratic Party killed campaign finance reform in my state.

The Democrats won’t do it for us. We have to establish a political vehicle [for progressives],” added Stein.

She acknowledged that her presidential candidacy is a long shot, but suggested that a Green Party victory is within the realm of possibility.

We have far more recognition than we did four years ago. And we are in the age of unpredictable events, this presidential election being one of them,” she argued.

Commenting on the unexpected political rise of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, Stein said, “People have been savaged by a predatory economic and political system, and some are turning to Trump. Unfortunately, Trump is just more of the same.

For more election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Ash Carter Used Private Email for Months After Clinton’s Email Scandal Was Revealed

Defense Secretary Ash Carter reportedly used his own personal email to conduct government business, even after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of private email was revealed.

Clinton’s email use was revealed in March 2015, and it eventually resulted in an FBI investigation into whether Clinton compromised national security by sending and receiving classified information on an unsecured network.

After filing a Freedom of Information Act request, CNN reported that it received 1,336 pages of emails sent and received from Carter’s personal address through Sept. 2015, and that “many of the emails had redacted information.”

The New York Times first revealed Carter’s use of private email for government business in December, noting that the extent of his use was not known, and that at the time it was believed that he continued it only two months after Clinton’s email use was revealed.

[SCANDAL: Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Fired Ambassador for Using Private Email]

While the reality was that Carter continued to use his personal email account for at least six months after the revelations regarding Clinton’s email were publicly scrutinized, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook insisted that Carter’s emails “show that he did not email anything classified and all of his work-related emails are preserved within the federal records system.”

“In December, when this issue first came up, the secretary took responsibility for his actions and publicly acknowledged that his previous use of personal email for work-related business was a mistake,” Cook said in a statement. “As a result, he stopped such use of his personal email and further limited his use of email altogether.”

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sent a letter to the Department of Defense on Friday questioning why the DoD has yet to respond to his committee’s inquiries, and threatening to subpoena Carter for answers.

[pull_quote_center]Now, three months after my initial request, it is difficult to understand why the department has not been willing to provide detailed answers, and the department has not asserted a valid reason to withhold that information from the committee. Please provide the information I requested as soon as possible, but no later than March 25, 2016 Otherwise, the committee may use compulsory process to obtain documents and communications that will answer the questions that were initially raised on December 18, 2015.[/pull_quote_center]

Follow Rachel Blevins on Facebook and Twitter.

Clinton Email Shows US Sought Syria Regime Change for Israel’s Sake

by Jason Ditz

It is rare for a succinct foreign policy platform paper to so fully encapsulate a candidate’s thinking process. A State Department email of Hillary Clinton, available on WikiLeaks, lays out the Democratic front-runner’s strategy as an architect of US intervention in Syria, shows the flawed reasoning that beget the scheme. Perhaps most importantly, the document shows utter blindness to the huge problems that the war ultimately led to.

As with so many US wars in the Middle East, it all starts with Israel, and then-Secretary of State Clinton saw the US imposing regime change in Syria as primarily about benefiting Israel and spiting Iran, a position that closely mirrors that of several Israeli officials.

The Clinton ideal was that the US would impose regime change by supplying arms, but without US troops, and that Russia wouldn’t dare oppose America (noting Russia did nothing during Kosovo), that the new US-backed Syrian government would abandon ties with Iran, turn against Hezbollah, and potentially negotiate a peace settlement with Israel, while the rest of the Arab world cheers America “as fighting for their people.”

There are myriad flaws in this reasoning, and in hindsight very few of Clinton’s predictions came to pass, from her declaration that the Iran nuclear talks wouldn’t lead to a deal, that Russia wouldn’t defend the Assad government from US-backed rebels, that US pledges of arms would lead to more defections from the Syrian military, etc.

Perhaps the most glaring mistakes was the failure to acknowledge even to the prospect of Islamist groups getting involved. Five years into the civil war, US-backed rebels are still comparatively ineffectual, despite huge weapons shipments, and ISIS and other Islamist groups control more than half of the country.

Clinton’s position seems to be wrong at nearly every turn, with her one correct analysis being the fairly trite observation that Israel wants to retain a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, without offering any plausible reason for why the US should commit forces to supporting of this objective

While the paper reveals Clinton’s interventionist leanings, it may also be elucidative regarding interventionist mentality in general, showing how quickly the notion of a “low cost” war becomes official policy, and that policymakers are ultimately blind not just to the reality on the ground, but also to the bigger risks of their schemes.

IVN: How Many People Actually Voted for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Not Many

We’ve heard media pundits call it, “democracy in action.” Millions of voters have cast a ballot in the first round of the presidential election with many Republican and Democratic contests still to come. The media has talked about record-breaking numbers showing up to polling locations in droves, but what does that actually mean?

IVN independent author Gabriel Saint Cyr reported recently that both Republicans and Democrats have seen primary/caucus turnout that rivals the 2008 presidential election. The Democrats’ turnout of 11.7 percent of eligible voters nationally is the second highest turnout in nearly a quarter of a century. The Republicans are seeing their biggest turnout in modern U.S. history — a whopping 17.3 percent of the eligible voting population.

Media pundits call this democracy in action, yet this means that the number of voters (percent) in many states who are deciding which two major party candidates are guaranteed a spot on the general election ballot in all 50 states is in the single digits. The electability of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich are being decided by only a handful of voters.

The data below was compiled from various secretary of state and board of elections websites and shows the stark reality of what winning a presidential primary or caucus actually means. The calculations, drawn from election results and voter registration statistics, show how big victories were won by less than 10 percent of the registered voting population in many states — a number that would be even smaller when looking at the entire voting age population.

It is information not often shared in the mass media, but readers can decide for themselves, is this really democracy in action?

This article, written by Athena Gavranian, was republished with permission from IVN.

Clinton Emails: Google Aided State Dept. in Attempt to Overthrow Assad

The latest batch of emails released from the private server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show Google officials working with the State Department to promote “defections” in Syria at a time when the United States was looking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The message, which was highlighted by Wikileaks, was sent by Jared Cohen, the head of Google Ideas, to Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, senior Clinton adviser Alec Ross and Clinton’s deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan.

[pull_quote_center]Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from. Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.[/pull_quote_center]

Cohen went on to say that once the tool was created, Google planned to give it to Middle Eastern media outlets such as Al-Jazeera to “track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria.”

[pull_quote_center]Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria. I’ve attached a few visuals that show what the tool will look like. Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything [else] you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact.[/pull_quote_center]

Cohen sent the email on July 25, 2012, and Sullivan forwarded it to Clinton, calling the tool “a pretty cool idea.”

The Washington Examiner reported that before he was hired to lead Google Ideas in 2010, Cohen “worked as a low-level staffer at the State Department” and was “tied to the use of social media to incite social uprisings,” which included asking Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to “hold off of conducting system maintenance that officials believed could have impeded a brief 2009 uprising in Iran.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria]

In a Reality Check segment in Nov. 2015, Ben Swann discussed a leaked 2012 document from the Department of Defense, which revealed that the countries opposing Assad’s leadership, including the U.S., wanted a “fundamental Islamic group to take over eastern Syria in order to isolate and overthrow the Syrian President Assad’s regime.

Reality Check: Proof The U.S. Government Wanted ISIS to Emerge…

A newly released Pentagon document proves that the U.S., Saudis, Qatar and other Gulf states wanted a radical, Islamist, fundamentalist group to emerge in Syria. So why would we trust them to now get rid of ISIS?Learn more: http://bit.ly/1QxhmjG

Posted by Ben Swann on Friday, November 20, 2015

Follow Rachel Blevins on Facebook and Twitter.

Clinton on If She Would Drop Out If Indicted: ‘I’m Not Even Answering That Question’

At Wednesday’s presidential debate presented by CNN and Univision, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attempted to downplay the seriousness of an ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into what the FBI called “matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server” when she served as Secretary of State.

Debate moderator Jorge Ramos asked Clinton who gave her permission to use private email servers to send 104 emails “that the government now says contain classified information according to The Washington Post analysis,” noting that Clinton had sent a memo to State Department employees requiring them to use official email due to security concerns.

It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed. And as I have said and as now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing and many other people in the government. But here’s the cut to the chase facts. I did not send or receive any emails marked classified at the time. What you are talking about is retroactive classification. And the reason that happens is when somebody asks or when you are asked to make information public, I asked all my emails to be made public. Then all the rest of the government gets to weigh in,” claimed Clinton in reply.

[Reality Check: Hillary Clinton Not Telling Truth About Her “Super-Predator” Claims]

She added, “And some other parts of the government, we’re not exactly sure who, has concluded that some of the emails should be now retroactively classified. They’ve just said the same thing to former Secretary Colin Powell. They have said, we’re going to retroactively classify emails you sent personally. … Now I think he was right when he said this is an absurdity. And I think that what we have got here is a case of overclassification. … There was no permission to be asked. It had been done by my predecessors. It was permitted.

Ramos then pressed Clinton to answer whether she would drop out if she is indicted over the scandal, prompting her to retort, “Oh, for goodness — that’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.

Meanwhile, Politico is reporting that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch criticized White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Wednesday for suggesting that Hillary Clinton is not likely to be indicted as a part of the FBI investigation.

Certainly, it’s my hope when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we would all stay silent. … It is true that neither I nor anyone in the department has briefed Mr. Earnest or anyone in the White House about this matter. I’m simply not aware of the source of his information,” said Lynch.

Earnest subsequently walked back his comments on whether Clinton might be indicted and said, “My comments from that briefing were rooted specifically and entirely on public comments as reported by all of you. … I was making a very specific statement based on what I had read in a wide variety of media accounts. And that is in no way predicated on any secret conversations that I’ve had with the Department of Justice, because I haven’t had any secret conversations with the Department of Justice.

Retired Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was appointed by and served under President Obama, urged Clinton to drop out of the race and told CNN, “If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail.

He added, “This over-classification excuse is not an excuse. If it’s classified, it’s classified.

[RELATED: DoJ Grants Immunity to Clinton Staffer Behind Private Email Setup]

Department of State staffer Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s private email server, was granted immunity last week in exchange for giving testimony on the matter.

CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos said, commenting on the implications of a Clinton subordinate being granted immunity, “The big question is whether there is a grand jury convened. The smart bet is yes. After all, the fact that there are immunity agreements logically means there’s a grand jury investigation in some district. The grand jury is typically the genesis of the government’s subpoena power. The next, bigger question, is whether anyone will be indicted.

He added, “The person who often has to worry the most during this process is the person who hasn’t been approached at all by the government. That’s a chilling indicator that you may be the target.

Hillary Clinton specifically said on Monday, according to The Hill, that it is true that neither she nor her lawyers have been told that she is the target of an FBI investigation.

Former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph E. diGenova told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that he believes that the FBI is also investigating the Clinton Foundation. “The Bureau has between 100 and 150 agents assigned to the case. They would not have that many people assigned to a classified information case. Based on reports that agents are asking questions about the foundation, it seems to me it is the subject of a second prong of the investigation,” he said.

For more election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Federal Reserve Governor’s Clinton Donation Raises Questions About Fed Independence

Federal Election Commission records indicate that Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard has contributed a total of $750 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign over three different donations, which took place between November of 2015 and January of 2016.

It is currently legal for Fed governors, who are appointed by the president and help steer the private central bank’s monetary policy decisions, to donate to political campaigns and causes. However, it is uncommon for them to do so, and Brainard’s donations have sparked questions as to whether her advocacy for Clinton undermines the Federal Reserve’s claim that it is politically independent.

Brookings Institution senior fellow Sarah Binder, who said that the contributions “could provide fuel for Republican narratives about the proximity of the Fed and the board to the Obama administration,” told Bloomberg Politics, “If there is an issue here, it is one of optics. It is a question of where governors want to draw their own lines and how they want to be perceived.

[RELATED: Bernie Sanders Calls for Full Independent Audit of Federal Reserve]

Brainard was appointed to her position as Fed governor by President Barack Obama and took office in 2014. Her husband, Kurt Campbell, once served under then Secretary of State Clinton as assistant secretary for east Asian and Pacific affairs.

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has vociferously opposed political efforts to launch a full audit of the Federal Reserve, claiming that doing so would weaken the bank’s independence from political whims. “Central bank independence in conducting monetary policy is considered a best practice for central banks around the world. Academic studies, I think, establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that independent central banks perform better,” she said last year according to The Hill.

The Daily Caller characterized the donation as “an unusual practice for an organization that strives to maintain political independence,” and Zero Hedge called it “proof that Fed members have a clear ideological bias.

[RELATED: Trump: Fed Chair Yellen Not Raising Rates ‘Because Obama Told Her Not To’]

While it is uncommon for a Fed governor to donate openly to political campaigns, so much so that Brainard is the only one to have done so thus far this presidential election cycle, it has happened before in the past according to Bloomberg Politics. Former Federal Reserve governor and vice-chair Alice Rivlin, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, donated $500 to the Democratic National Committee in 1998 at a time when she was actively serving as vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

The Hill notes that in November of 2015 U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised questions about the Fed’s level of political independence and called for an investigation into whether Federal Reserve funds are being used in “improper or illegal lobbying” of Congress.

For more election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Romney Says He Would ‘Write In a Name’ or Vote Third Party If Trump Wins GOP Nod

Following last Thursday’s speech in which former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican nominee for president Mitt Romney attempted to rally Republicans against Donald Trump’s candidacy for the party’s 2016 presidential nomination, Romney went even further and said that he would vote for a conservative alternative to Trump if the billionaire real estate mogul were to face off against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Romney told Bloomberg on Friday, “A person like Donald Trump, who has said what he’s said about Muslims, Mexicans, women, George Bush, John McCain, a person like that should not be the nominee of our party or be the president, and I will campaign for an alternative to Donald Trump until that avenue is no longer open.

[RELATED: Mitt Romney’s Full Speech on Donald Trump]

When asked how he would vote if the general election comes down to Trump versus Hillary, Romney said, “If those are my only two choices I’d vote for a conservative on the ballot — and if there weren’t one that I was comfortable with, I would write in a name.

I just know that Donald Trump isn’t the one I’d like to see lead our country and I don’t want to see Hillary Clinton lead our country, so I’m going to have the occasion to go to the voting booth and I’ll probably be writing in a name,” added Romney.

When reporter Mark Halperin suggested that millions of Americans might feel the same way, Romney replied, “I think there will be a lot of people who would be very troubled with those choices.

[RELATED: GOP Sen. Ben Sasse Says He Will Vote Third Party If Trump Wins Nomination]

On Sunday’s episode of Meet the Press on NBC, Romney doubled down on his opposition to a Trump candidacy, even if he is the Republican nominee. “I’m going to be voting [in the general election], but I’ll vote for someone on the ballot that I think is a real conservative and who will make us proud and I may write in a name if I can’t find such a person,” he said.

For more 2016 election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

DoJ Grants Immunity to Clinton Staffer Behind Private Email Setup

A Hillary Clinton staffer, who set up the private email account Clinton used for government business during her tenure as Secretary of State, has reportedly been granted immunity by the United States Department of Justice in exchange for his testimony.

Bryan Pagliano, a staff member of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who set up the private email server at Clinton’s home in New York in 2009, agreed to testify after months of reported negotiations with the FBI.

When asked to testify in front of the Benghazi committee, Pagliano initially said in September that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right due to the fact that what he said could incriminate him in the ongoing federal investigation into Clinton’s email setup.

Following the announcement about Pagliano’s testimony, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said the campaign is “pleased” Pagliano has agreed to testify before prosecutors.

[RELATED: Former House Majority Leader Claims FBI is ‘Ready to Indict’ Hillary Clinton]

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee that while he can’t provide specific details about the investigation, he can confirm that he is very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need.”

“As you know we don’t talk about our investigations,” Comey said. “What I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of it’s work: independently, competently and promptly.”

The Washington Post noted that there is “no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.”

[RELATED: FBI Formally Confirms Its ‘Ongoing’ Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Email Server]

It was not until February that the FBI acknowledged the fact that it was conducting a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email setup to determine if she compromised national security by sending and receiving classified information on an unsecured network.