The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin

20 10 2017

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

A massive national security crisis has been exposed involving the payment of approximately $145 million to Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their foundation, in exchange for the sale of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.[2]

Americans ask: How could something so stupid and treasonous have happened?  It defies imagination.  After all, Putin is our enemy, and the enemy of free people everywhere.  He began as a KGB agent in East Germany, or the DDR—as it was known before the collapse of Erich Honecker’s government, which was one of the most repressive regimes in the Soviet Union’s orbit, or the Evil Empire.

Following the USSR’s implosion, Putin and his thugs and cronies hijacked Russia’s incipient democracy; and they have been exploiting it ever since.  He has killed and killed again, and he is ruthless.  He must be viewed in this context, not as some Westernized Russian democrat, which he is not.[3]

Those Americans involved in this pay-to-play “Uranium One” scandal of epic proportions—possibly dwarfing Watergate—include Barack Obama, the Clintons, former Attorney General Eric Holder, Robert Mueller, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein of the FBI and the Department of “Injustice.”[4]  Each of them has been shielded by America’s corrupt Leftist media, which is complicit.

Anyone who has followed the careers of Barack Obama and the Clintons realizes fully that they are some of the most corrupt politicians who have ever risen to the top of our great nation.  They are a disgrace, and un-American.[5]

Obama is black racist through and through.  If anyone doubts this conclusion, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father.”  It is all there, in his own words and beliefs, which undergirded eight years of his failed presidency that tore apart race relations in America.[6]

The Clintons are corrupt beyond belief.  Among other things, Bill Clinton has raped and defiled women, who in turn have been attacked by Hillary Clinton.  He is America’s sexual predator personified, just as the disgraced Harvey Weinstein symbolizes Hollywood’s multi-decade depravity.[7]

The full extent of the “Uranium One” scandal is just unfolding.  It is likely to get far worse, and explosive.

© 2017, Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton


[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at

[2]  See, e.g., (“Clinton Was Bribed TWICE In Uranium Deal”) and (“Investigate Mueller, Comey, Holder & Rosenstein In Uranium Deal: The Gang Of 4”) and (Peter Schweizer: “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”) and (“Peter Schweizer”) and ( “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”) and (“Uranium”) and (“FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow”) and (“Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision”) and (“Trump blasts ‘Fake Media’ for ignoring Russia uranium deal sealed ‘with Clinton help'”)

[3]  See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

[4]  See (“The United States Department of Injustice”); see also (“TERMINATE THE VERMIN MUELLER!”)

Also, Andrew Weissmann who is a member of Mueller’s staff.

See also

[5]  But see (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

[6]  See (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?“)




28 responses

21 10 2017

The comparison/juxtaposition ought to have been with Chinagate, but otherwise it’s an outstanding overview. .


Liked by 1 person

21 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, for your kind words and your reference.

For those Americans who have forgotten about the controversy, it is summarized in the following article.

See (“1996 United States campaign finance controversy”)

Another major coverup involving the Clintons and our national security.


21 10 2017

This is jail in an honest country, evidently not here.

Liked by 1 person

21 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, SmilinJack.

It may happen yet. Time will tell.


25 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Also, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, said two days ago on Fox’s Sean Hannity show that the “Uranium One”/Putin-Clinton-Obama scandal may be “the greatest scandal in American history.”

I agree with that conclusion.

Vladimir Putin and Hillary Clinton

See also (“Trump says Clinton, Democrats were ‘disgrace’ to pay for dossier”)


26 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

What is wonderful and so refreshing—in reading through the comments and responses at the Wall Street Journal‘s Web site, relating to this scandal—is that Americans get it.

They understand that trading 20 percent of our great nation’s Uranium assets for $145 million was lunacy and treasonous, especially when the principal beneficiary was and is Russia’s killer Putin.

I have believed for a very long time that there is enormous collective wisdom in the American people—of all colors and religions, and all economic and social backgrounds.

God bless each of them. They have made my day!

See also (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”)

. . .

It is not beyond the pale of reason to believe that Barack Obama and Moochie will kick the Clintons “under the bus,” in a vain attempt to avoid being engulfed by the “Uranium One” scandal.

Down deep, there has never been any love between them.


28 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Ban Robert Mueller

Todd Beamon of Newsmax has reported:

A federal grand jury in Washington Friday approved the first indictments in the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, CNN reported.

The network cited “sources briefed on the matter,” noting that the charges remained sealed by a federal judge’s order.

The nature of the charges remained unclear.

“Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday,” CNN reported.

A Mueller spokesman declined to comment, but the network reported that top lawyers on the counsel’s team—including longtime prosecutor Andrew Weissmann — were seen entering a federal courtroom in Washington where the grand jury meets.

Mueller was named by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May to oversee the agency’s investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election.

Rosenstein has oversight over the Russia investigation — and Mueller’s team is required to inform him of any charges before pursing grand jury indictments, according to the report.

Mueller, who was appointed after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, was authorized by Rosenstein to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Mueller also is a former FBI director, from 2001 to 2013.

President Trump has slammed the probe as a “witch hunt” and took to Twitter earlier Friday to attack it as “costly” and that it has proved “no collusion between Russia and Trump.”

He also said that collusion had occurred between the Kremlin and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Russia also has denied any role in the election.

Among the issues Mueller’s team is investigating are the circumstances surrounding Trump’s firing of Comey and whether the president was trying to derail the agency’s Moscow probe.

In recent weeks, Mueller’s team has interviewed several former members of Trump campaign or White House staff, including former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and former Communications Director Sean Spicer.

Priebus is said to have argued against Comey’s termination, according to news reports, though he was not considered a focus of the investigation.

In addition, Mueller’s team has also examined foreign lobbying efforts by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

In July, the FBI seized documents from Manafort’s home in Virginia in a pre-dawn raid armed with search warrant that had been obtained by Mueller’s investigators.

Under Comey’s leadership last year, his team obtained approval from the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to wiretap Manafort’s communications — as well as those of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Jason Maloni, Manafort’s attorney, last month slammed the Mueller probe as “entirely politically motivated” and said that his client would no longer cooperate with the investigation.

Page told the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month that he would not testify in its Russia probe, even though he had asked House investigators months earlier for an open session to publicly present his case.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is also probing Moscow’s role in last year’s election.

See (“CNN: Mueller Files First Charges in Russia Investigation“) (emphasis added); see also (“TERMINATE THE VERMIN MUELLER!“) and (“Mueller facing new Republican pressure to resign in Russia probe”—”This week’s bombshell that a controversial anti-Trump dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign has Republicans asking to what extent the FBI – which received some of the findings and briefly agreed to pay the same researcher to gather intelligence on Trump and Russia – used the politically connected material. Hill investigators also are looking into a Russian firm’s uranium deal that was approved by the Obama administration in 2010 despite reports that the FBI – then led by Mueller – had evidence of bribery involving a subsidiary of that firm. Critics question whether Mueller’s own ties to the bureau as well as fired FBI director James Comey now render him compromised as he investigates allegations of Russian meddling and collusion with Trump officials in the 2016 race”—”[T]he Wall Street Journal editorial board cited the dossier development in calling for Mueller’s resignation on Thursday, saying the ‘troubling question is whether the FBI played a role’ in aiding a ‘Russian disinformation campaign.’ ‘Two pertinent questions: Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?’ the editorial board wrote”—”Another potential issue is Mueller’s supervision of a bribery probe involving a subsidiary of Russia’s Rosatom, which eventually got approval from the U.S. to buy a Canadian mining company that controlled a swath of American uranium reserves. At the time of the probe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as special counsel, was a U.S. attorney and Mueller was FBI director. Republicans want to know how that deal was approved despite the evidence gathered in the bribery probe” )

First, Mueller is acting, and leaking it to CNN, out of panic and desperation because dark clouds are gathering around him. At the very least, his office’s budget must be slashed to ZERO; his staff must be fired; and he must be investigated, indicted, convicted and imprisoned.

As discussed in the article above and the footnotes beneath it, a massive national security crisis has been exposed involving the payment of approximately $145 million to Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their foundation, in exchange for the sale of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.

Those Americans involved in this pay-to-play “Uranium One” scandal of epic proportions—possibly dwarfing Watergate—include Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann; Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller; Barack Obama; the Clintons; former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch; James Comey and others at the FBI and the Department of Justice. Each of them has been shielded by America’s corrupt Leftist media, which is complicit.

Second, each of these individuals must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison, inter alia, for treasonous conduct. Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, said earlier this week that the “Uranium One”/Putin-Clinton-Obama scandal may be “the greatest scandal in American history.” His conclusion is prescient.

Third, while Mueller may use and abuse grand juries in the District of Columbia—as the FBI and DOJ have done for decades—the fact is that the American people get it. They understand that trading 20 percent of our great nation’s Uranium assets for $145 million was lunacy and treasonous, especially when the principal beneficiary was and is Russia’s killer Putin.

In the final analysis, we can only hope that justice is done and that Mueller and the others go to prison. Only then will justice be served. If the Uranium One scandal were to get “whitewashed,” there would be no future for our great country. What American would trust any facet of our government ever again? I wouldn’t, and I saw plenty of wrongdoing on Capitol Hill when I worked there, which equaled that of Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood/LA where I grew up.


The “face” of Mueller’s supporters today consists of the demented Nancy Pelosi; Chuck Schumer; Elizabeth Warren; the despicable black racists Maxine Waters, Frederica Wilson, Elijah Cummings and Al Sharpton; Rachel Maddow and others of her ilk; and the Leftist “mainstream” media (e.g., CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC).

They are the reasons why lots of us left the Democrats years ago—like Ronald Reagan did—and will never go back.


28 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Tangled Treasonous Web That Hillary Clinton And Her Democrats Have Spun!


Andrew C. McCarthy has written in the National Review:

Have you noticed that we are no longer talking merely about “the Trump Dossier”? Ever since the Washington Post’s startling revelation this week that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, there’s been a subtle tweak in the coverage. Now, reports allude to the research that led to the Trump dossier.

Why the shift in emphasis? Because the Democrats and their media accomplices are doing what they do best: controlling the terms of the public discussion in order to obfuscate.

Democrats now own the dossier. That is a problem. The dossier was supposed to be seen as a roadmap of Trump collusion with Russia. But now, the dossier is emerging as a campaign dirty trick that was itself compiled through collusion between the Democrats’ contractor and Russian sources. Hence, focus on the dossier has become counterproductive. Better to refer to the research that led to the dossier, which widens the lens to capture some Republican involvement in an initial anti-Trump research project.

In reality, only after this project was taken over by Democrats were new operatives hired and the dossier created. Still, Dems and their media allies figure the facts are vague enough that the early research can be conflated with the eventual dossier, thus implicating Republicans — and obscuring the Democrats’ singular culpability.

Clever, but it’s not going to work. After a year of Democrats pounding the Trump-Russia drum, it won’t help them to tee up the dossier (and, of course, the research!) as a bipartisan undertaking. Not when it turns out that collusion itself is a bipartisan undertaking.

On the dossier, let’s get this straight: There would be no dossier were it not for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. My own previous reluctance to finger the Clinton campaign has been proven wrong by the Post’s reporting. (And in a correction to its original story, the Post itself has noted that left-leaning Mother Jones reported in October 2016 that the compendium now known as the dossier was a Democrat-funded research effort.)

On Friday evening, after we thought this column was put to bed, it was revealed that the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, funded the original Fusion GPS project. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, the Free Beacon retained Fusion GPS to do research on several Republican candidates, not Donald Trump alone. The project had nothing to do with Russia or Christopher Steele. It ran from fall 2015 until Spring 2016, with the Free Beacon dropping it once Trump had the nomination sewn up.

That is when the law firm of Perkins Coie, counsel for the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS. Only then did Fusion hire former British spy Christopher Steele. It was not until two months later that Steele completed his first “Company Intelligence Report,” dated June 21. That began what became the so-called dossier — 35 pages of Steele’s sensational investigative summaries.

Some reporting (for example, by Business Insider’s Natasha Bertrand) suggests that parts of the dossier have been verified. But, Byron York notes, former FBI director James Comey has dismissively described it as “salacious and unverified.” Much of its significant content has been vigorously disputed. Whatever its quality, though, the dossier is a Democratic-party campaign and political-opposition screed, through and through.

The Clinton campaign and the Democrats never wanted this to be known. That’s why they took such pains to insulate themselves: The Perkins Coie law firm and Steele were their layers of deniability. That’s not just a theory. Two well-regarded New York Times reporters, Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel, have told their Twitter followers that people complicit in funding the dossier vigorously denied any involvement.

And how’s this for Clintonian flair: During Senate Intelligence Committee testimony last month, Clinton campaign manager John Podesta insisted that he was unaware of any funding connection between the campaign, Fusion GPS, and the dossier. At that moment, sitting in silence next to Podesta was his lawyer, Marc Elias. If that name rings a bell, it is because Elias just happens to be the Perkins Coie lawyer who got the dossier rolling by hiring Fusion GPS in April 2016.

I’m sure we can all understand why Elias and Podesta didn’t fess up. After all, when Elias retained Fusion, it was in his role as counsel for the Clinton campaign that Podesta was running, whereas at the Senate hearing, he was in his very different role as counsel for Podesta regarding his running of the Clinton campaign. Surely the committee’s discerning members must appreciate so obvious a distinction, no?

In any event, you can see the problem here for Democrats who, for a year, have chanted the “Trump campaign collusion with Russia” mantra. Strip away the buffers (i.e., Steele and Perkins Coie) and the dossier is an exercise in Clinton-campaign collusion with Kremlin-connected sources to produce information that would cripple the Trump campaign and, failing that, undermine the Trump presidency.

Those of us who were convinced long before November 8, 2016, that Russia was a hostile power can only shrug our shoulders at the Democrats’ folly. On the stage, they’ve spent the months since Trump’s election depicting a villainous Russia indistinguishable from its Soviet forbears. Behind the scenes, they’ve been cozying up to Putin. So now, at every turn, they get tangled in their own “collusion” web.

With no solid collusion evidence against Trump himself (who was repeatedly told he was not a suspect by former FBI director Comey), Robert Mueller’s special-counsel investigation has focused intently on the troubling Russian business ties of Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman for four months. But if that is the grist for a collusion case, then — again — what about Clinton campaign manager John Podesta? As Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff explains, Podesta joined the board of an energy company, Joule Unlimited, on which sat two Putin chums, Anatoly Chubais and Ruben Vardanyan. Shortly after Podesta joined, an investment fund founded by Putin poured $35 million into Joule. (In yet another Clintonian flourish, Podesta told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo that, well yes, “the Russian company had a small investment” in Joule.)

This was in 2011, shortly after an Obama-administration committee on which then–Secretary of State Clinton sat green-lighted the acquisition of Uranium One (and its 20 percent of total U.S. uranium reserves) by Russia’s government-controlled energy conglomerate, Rosatom. The Clinton Foundation obtained tens of millions of dollars in “donations” from players in the Uranium One deal; Bill Clinton was paid a tidy $500,000 by a Kremlin-connected bank for a single speech while the transfer to Rosatom was under consideration. We now know that, at that very time, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI had a prosecutable racketeering and extortion case against Rosatom’s American subsidiary, but chose not to bring charges. (As I have outlined, indictments were delayed until 2014, after the Obama/Clinton “Russian Reset” policy imploded with Putin’s annexation of Crimea.)

Wittingly or not, then, top Democrats facilitated Russia’s muscling into the U.S. energy sector — the Putin initiative behind the racketeering scheme, the purchase of Uranium One, and “the small investment” (ahem) in Joule.
Meanwhile, Podesta’s brother, the prominent Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta, appears to have been joined at the hip with Manafort in a public-relations campaign for the Kremlin-backed party that ruled Ukraine until being ousted in 2014. After payments were reported by the media, Tony Podesta’s firm, like Manafort’s firm, amended its government filings to more accurately reflect its work as a foreign agent. For colluding in Manafort’s collusion, Podesta is now reportedly a subject of Mueller’s collusion investigation.

Critical to that investigation is the intelligence community’s conclusion that DNC computers were hacked by Putin-regime operatives. This finding may be right, but it is not compelling. In part, this owes to the intelligence agencies’ refusal to explain their investigation elaborately for fear of compromising methods and sources. That is understandable, but as we’ve previously observed, an intelligence community that was notoriously politicized throughout Obama’s tenure cannot expect the public to be moved when it says “trust us” — particularly when this hacking is foundational to the Democrats’ political narrative about collusion.

In addition, there is an even more significant proof problem: The DNC never permitted the FBI to conduct a physical examination of the servers that were hacked. Instead, its trusty Perkins Coie lawyers hired a private cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, to do the forensic testing. Rather than follow the standard investigative template in which the government acquires possession of critical physical evidence (whether by request, subpoena, or search warrant), the Obama Justice Department indulged the administration’s friends at the DNC. Thus, the hacking investigation is built on the work of CrowdStrike, not of the FBI. Which is to say: To accept the conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC, we must trust a DNC contractor.

It is no slight against CrowdStrike, which seems to have a good reputation, to complain that this is tough to swallow. Put it this way: What would the media and the Democrats say if the Republican National Committee declined to surrender vital physical evidence in a case with major political implications? What if, rather than simply issuing a subpoena, the Trump Justice Department agreed to rely on an RNC contractor?

To come full circle, the dossier-based claims of Trump collusion with Russia present the same situation. On the dossier, as we’ve seen, the DNC contractor is Fusion GPS. Funny thing about that: As the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel points out, the Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the Democrats’ Perkins Coie lawyers are not the only outfits for which Fusion GPS works. Its clients also include . . . wait for it . . . Russia!

I have previously related the Justice Department’s largely failed attempt — under the Magnitsky Act — to seize assets from Prevezon, a Russian holding company controlled by the son of Pyotr Katsyv, a Putin crony and top Russian railway official. The case involved the Putin regime’s detention, torture, and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian investigator who uncovered a regime-orchestrated $230 million fraud scheme. To help mount their defense, Katsyv’s lawyers — like Clinton’s lawyers — hired Fusion GPS. In this capacity, Fusion GPS worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Natalia Veselnitskaya. You may remember her as the Russian lawyer who famously met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort at Trump Tower in June 2016.

So get this: Apart from working against a Magnitsky Act case, Veselnitskaya was supposed to be transmitting opposition research about Hillary Clinton from Kremlin-connected sources to the Trump campaign . . . just like her Fusion GPS friends, apart from working against a Magnitsky Act case, were transmitting opposition research about Donald Trump from Kremlin-connected sources to the Clinton campaign.

It’s not clear that there was Trump collusion with Russia, but Trump won, so we’re still hearing about it. Had Hillary won, there would still be collusion with Russia, but we’d be hearing that line that Clinton-administration scandals made an eight-year refrain: Everybody does it!

See (“A Bipartisan Dossier of Collusion“) (emphasis added)

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats—as Ronald Reagan did—but it is unlikely that we will ever vote for one again.

McCarthy’s article is a fine one. The central issue remains, however, that a massive national security crisis exists involving the payment of approximately $145 million to Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their foundation, in exchange for the sale of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.

This was and is T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S!


30 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Ban Robert Mueller

As discussed above, a massive national security crisis exists involving the payment of approximately $145 million to Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their foundation, in exchange for the sale of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.

This was and is treasonous, and Robert Mueller is right in the middle of the scandal, as our great nation’s former FBI Director. He and Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller to his present post, Barack Obama, the Clintons, former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, James Comey and others at the FBI and the Department of Justice must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison, inter alia, for their treasonous and otherwise criminal conduct.

See (“MUELLER ACTS!“) and (“The Tangled Treasonous Web That Hillary Clinton And Her Democrats Have Spun!“); see also (“Tony Podesta Resigns from Podesta Group as Mueller Probe Heats Up”—”Podesta’s brother, John Podesta, served as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign”—”The Podesta Group has also lobbied for Uranium One, the Canadian-based energy company that has come under scrutiny as well. In 2010, the Obama administration allowed Uranium One to be sold to Russian energy company Rosatom, giving the company control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, despite an ongoing FBI investigation into a Rosatom subsidiary involved in a racketeering scheme. The Podesta Group received $180,000 from Uranium One over several years between 2012 and 2015. . .”) and (“Podesta Group Plays Key Role In Manafort Indictment“)

As a diversionary tactic, and because he and his staff will have budgetary issues soon and may be panicking, Mueller has obtained indictments against Paul Manafort and others, which may not hold up.


The only thing working in their favor is that the District Judge is one of the worst in the federal system, who should be removed from the bench.

See, e.g., (“Despicable Benghazi Deaths’ Judge Must Be Targeted For Removal“)

Also, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the worst in the federal system, and vies with the Ninth Circuit for being the very worst. Among other things, the Senate Republicans blocked its Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland from being elevated to the United States Supreme Court. He may conclude that “turnabout is fair play,” and decide against anyone connected with the GOP.

Interestingly, retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz—who is a Democrat, but surprisingly has been defending Trump for months—believes that Mueller and his staff will squeeze Manafort for anything and everything that he knows.

See (“Dershowitz: Manafort ‘Knows Where the Bodies are Buried'”); see also (“Alan Dershowitz“) and (“[Former federal prosecutor] Andy McCarthy: Indictment ‘Boon for Trump'”—”[T]he indictment against Paul Manafort is ‘much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze’ the former Trump campaign manager”) and (“The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump“) and (“A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?“)

It is doubtful that Mueller will resign, which he would do if he had an ounce of integrity. He is much like Comey and Rosenstein: they can’t see—or avoid—the train that is coming straight at them.

Once Mueller goes, the special counsel’s investigation vis-a-vis Donald Trump and his presidency may be shut down completely.

A follow-on or simultaneous investigation must commence with respect to the “Uranium One” scandal, which is engulfing Barack Obama, the Clintons, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein among many others.

Next, it has been suggested that the Clinton campaign actually orchestrated the meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, and that the entire Trump-Russia “collusion narrative” was the result of a Clinton set-up.

See (“Was the Trump Camp’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer All a Clinton Set-Up?“)

Also, Mueller is using one or more grand juries in the District of Columbia, pulled from the population there that voted 90.5 percent for Hillary Clinton, the highest in the nation. It is like the O.J. Simpson murder trial in Los Angeles, in reverse, with the result being skewed against our president and those affiliated with him.

See,_2016 (“United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016“)

Aside from stating that the “Uranium One”/Putin-Clinton-Obama scandal may be “the greatest scandal in American history,” former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich added that the U.S. Department of Justice is a corrupt organization. Americans need to understand this, and that it has been true for decades.

See, e.g., (“The United States Department of Injustice“)

Lastly, the question has been asked: “Is this what our great nation’s Founders intended; namely, that the highest levels of our government would be twisted and subverted, and a special counsel would be appointed to protect the perpetrators and insulate them from justice?”

The answer is precise: did our founders envision the “Uranium One” scandal in which 20 percent of our critical Uranium assets were sold to Stalin’s heir for $145 million, which went into the coffers of the Clintons and their foundation?

Did our founders envision such treachery and deceit and treason, with two presidents (Obama and Bill Clinton) being parties to it, along with a Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton), and two Attorneys General (Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch) and two FBI Directors (Mueller and Comey), and others who held sacred governmental trusts (Rosenstein)?

No, and again Newt Gingrich is correct and prescient: the Uranium One scandal may be “the greatest scandal in American history.”

EACH of its participants must be indicted, convicted, and imprisoned for the rest of his or her life, to teach others in our nation going forward that this must never happen again. The severest punishments must be meted out to each of them . . . and some have even suggested death for their treason, which is not unimaginable or incomprehensible.


31 10 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Mueller At A Time For Truth [UPDATED]

Ban Robert Mueller

Conrad Black—the Canadian-born, British former newspaper publisher, author and life peer—has written in the New York Sun:

The pretense of the Democrats to derive some pleasure from the Manafort and Gates indictments and the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos is one of the more challenging attempts at moralistic theatrics Senator Schumer has attempted in the last year.

It doesn’t quite measure up to bursting into tears on the Senate floor over a slightly restricted right of people from a few terrorism-afflicted or -sponsoring countries to visit America. But he did chin himself on the almost impeachable significance of the fact that someone has been charged with financial offenses and false sworn statements who, years after the actions objected to, was, for three months, the director of the Trump presidential campaign.

Dream on, Senator, and be comforted by the Trump-hating press’s portentous references to “walls” that “are closing in” (the Washington Post, quoting an anonymous Republican) and to the “darkest day” (C[linton]NN). Mr. Manafort’s lawyer declared on the courthouse steps that President Trump was correct — that there was absolutely no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — and went on to debunk the thought that his client had laundered money and evaded taxes by collecting it for patriation to the United States.

The fact that, on the same day as the Manafort and Gates indictments, Tony Podesta — who was intimately connected with the Uranium One dealings that were contemporaneous with extraordinarily large pledges to the Clinton Foundation and the celebrated $500,000 speech-making payment to the former president, Bill Clinton — retired as head of the firm that bears his name — may indicate that Special Counsel Mueller is shifting gears with the evidence and broadening his attack, conducted by his largely Clintonian lawyer group. Mr. Gates had so little notice of what was coming that he had not even hired a criminal lawyer; he had a public defender enter his plea.

I presume Mr. Mueller raced out with the Manafort-Gates charges in the hope that, if there were anything Mr. Manafort could say that would be damaging to Trump, an indictment such as this — the usual U.S. prosecutorial technique of throwing all the spaghetti at the wall (“conspiracy against the United States” is one of the more extreme charges) — will bring him to the standard plea bargain: giving extorted and false but incriminating testimony against the big target (Mr. Trump), in exchange for a reduced sentence with an immunity for perjured testimony. Mr. Mueller and his protégé, James Comey, are superstars in the firmament of this profoundly rotten system, but Mr. Manafort’s lawyer gave them clear notice that it won’t work.

At the same time, to shake Mr. Podesta out of his own company, and incite rumors in the Democratic press that the Podestas are being investigated (Tony Podesta’s brother, John Podesta, was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), means that Mr. Mueller is already much closer to lifting the rock all the way on the Clintons and President Obama than he is to finding anything vulnerable around President Trump or his campaign.

Mr. Mueller is at the bifurcation of the road. After more than a year, there is not much more to try to find about the Trump campaign and Russia, since nothing happened and Russia’s contribution was to release a number of emails it had illegally hacked, which embarrassed but did not convict any Democrat, and to contribute $6,500 in Facebook advertisements decrying chaos in the country without supporting a candidate, in an election where the two main candidates spent $1,850,000,000 between them.

Comey said in his appearance before the House Intelligence Committee that he had assured President Trump three times, starting on January 27, that Trump was not a target or suspect in the investigation of Russian collusion. This was three months after the FBI had taken over the so-called Steele dossier, which is now declared by the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to be the only remaining element of the Trump-collusion argument that could furnish proof of Trump-Kremlin collusion.

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet backed by distinguished Republican financier Paul Singer, engaged Fusion GPS, the normally left-wing special-services firm that assisted Democrats in political campaigns with destructive and questionable research, to investigate Mr. Trump’s financial background and other controversial matters. The Free Beacon had abandoned Fusion as a researcher when Mr. Trump clinched the Republican nomination.

The account was shopped to and taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee: Christopher Steele, a retired British spy, was engaged only when the Clinton campaign and the DNC were paymasters (they paid Fusion over $9 million). Mr. Steele was paid to engage others to solicit and pay for nasty reports about Trump from Kremlin officials, who, completely unaccountable, were incentivized to produce scandalous allegations.

This is the lowest-quality intelligence, the sleaziest political sandbag job, and Mr. Comey took over the file for the FBI after the election. We do not know whether the FBI paid any more for the salacious gossip of Kremlin low-lives recruited and paid by Steele, but this dodgy information from unidentified Kremlin-gremlins is the cornerstone of the entire mighty smear job against the elected president of the United States, and it has been under FBI ownership for almost a year.

Not only is there almost certainly nothing there; the dossier has been floating around in the public domain for almost all of this year, and no respectable news organization would touch it until BuzzFeed (so partisan it won’t accept Republican advertisements) ran it and CNN took up the hue and cry. There is nothing in the Steele dossier that any reasonable person would take seriously, and it was generated by Mrs. Clinton and her closest collaborators, all of whom have unctuously lied that they knew nothing about it.

Now the authors of this outrage, which is a desecration of the entire American political process, are trying to pretend that there is still something to investigate in the Republican campaign. The congressman from the immense political pustule of HollyWeinsteinwood, Adam Schiff, says it doesn’t matter who paid for the Steele dossier; we have to chase down its allegations.

The FBI has done so; there’s nothing there. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, who you know is not telling it straight when he stammers and smiles compulsively like Katie Couric but with larger teeth, warns that there will be bipartisan challenges if the president pardons his supporters. This must be the last rhetorical refuge of a prosecutor with no case.

With the disclosures that the Clintons and Democrats paid Kremlin scoundrels for a file of malicious and defamatory bile about Donald Trump, and lied about it for many months; that the FBI took it over and has used it as the basis for continued investigation; that the Obama White House might have used it for the unmasking of individuals in the Trump campaign after improper surveillance in the Trump Tower; and that this is all Mr. Comey had and Mr. Mueller now has on Trump-Kremlin collusion, we have finally come to the time for truth.

Mr. Mueller must soon acknowledge that he has no evidence of Trump-Kremlin collusion and move on with his mandate to investigate the Russian attempt to influence the election in more promising areas (e.g., the Democrats; he might be doing this with the Podestas), and he must, with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, show cause why they should be allowed to continue at all, given their role in prosecution of part of the Uranium One affair.

If they do not do that, the president should avoid the opprobrium and controversy of firing the attorney general, Jeff Sessions — who has been unspeakably ineffectual in this most important matter after recusing himself when he had misinformed Congress about speaking with Russians, but has his moments otherwise — and nominate him instead to replace General Kelly as secretary of homeland security, and name Rudolph Giuliani or someone of approximately his stature as attorney general.

The new attorney general should require that Messrs. Mueller and Rosenstein give adequate assurance of their reliable non-partisanship. They, or their replacements, must certainly see whether there were any inappropriate contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, almost inconceivable though that now is. But the murky depths of the Clinton pay-to-play casino, Fusion-Steele campaign dirty tricks, and Obama surveillance and smearing of Trump must be plumbed.

If all are found guiltless, all should rejoice. If American public life was dangerously abased and undermined by all this possible skullduggery for no valid reason, the nation must know it, and its lawmakers must take enhanced preventive measures, even as the courts punish those who would so brazenly undermine the republic.

See (“Mueller at a Time for Truth: Focus of Russia Probe Needs To Be on Clintons”) (emphasis added); see also (“MUELLER’S INDICTMENTS“)

I respectfully disagree with Black in part—except as he discusses America’s “profoundly rotten [legal] system,” and as he states:

[T]he murky depths of the Clinton pay-to-play casino, Fusion-Steele campaign dirty tricks, and Obama surveillance and smearing of Trump must be plumbed.

See, e.g., (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix“) and (“The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A Travesty, And Should Be Abolished“) and (“Despicable Benghazi Deaths’ Judge Must Be Targeted For Removal“)

Indeed, Mueller must be fired, indicted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of his life—for his role as America’s former FBI Director (and otherwise) in the cover-up and perpetuation of what former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (and historian) Newt Gingrich has described as “the greatest scandal in American history” . . . namely, the massive national security crisis involving the payment of approximately $145 million to Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and their foundation, in exchange for the sale of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.

Comrade Putin

Lastly, the anti-Trumpers were delusional in believing that he could not win. He did.

They inhaled what the so-called “mainstream media” (MSM) and far-Left “progressives” were blowing their way about Trump “collusion” with the Russians.

They were blind to the fact that Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein and others had to change the narrative to keep the lid on the “Uranium One” scandal or it would blow sky high and destroy all of them.

Hillary Clinton has been imploding since she lost the election, and she rivals the demented Nancy Pelosi and the black racist Maxine Waters as the far-Left’s consummate “fruitcake.”

Because the Democrats have no one who can beat President Trump in 2020, their only hope is destroy him between now and then, using every dirty, immoral, treasonous “trick” known to mankind.

The cover-up of the Unanium One scandal must continue, or their house of cards will come crashing down, and the treasonous wrongdoers will go to prison.

Therein lies the rub. They lost the presidency, the Congress, and elections across the country. And now their leaders are on the cusp of living in prison cells for the rest of their lives.

How sweet it is! 🙂


1 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Far-Left CREW Attacks President Trump


CREW Board Chair Norman Eisen, CREW’s Executive Director Noah Bookbinder, and attorney Barry Berke have written in the New York Times:

Just hours after the revelation of federal indictments against President Trump’s former campaign chairman and chief strategist, Paul Manafort, and his former campaign deputy, Rick Gates, the administration’s first response came in the form, of course, of a tweet from the president: “Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????”

Expect to hear this line repeatedly from the president and his defenders: The indictments, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, are a vindication of President Trump because he was not charged and because of the absence of allegations about campaign collusion with Russia. But they’re wrong — the president should be very worried.

For one thing, it is now clear that President Trump closely relied upon Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates while they were engaged in alleged criminal activity. That is a damning indictment of the president’s judgment. Their prosecution will hang over him and his administration for the foreseeable future, since these proceedings will continue for many months, and perhaps years. And these are unlikely to be the last of the charges pursued by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, who is also reported to be looking at other actors, including the president himself.

The idea that Mr. Manafort’s indictment vindicates Mr. Trump also ignores how complex criminal investigations typically proceed, and the attendant peril Mr. Trump now faces. In our half century of collective experience prosecuting and defending criminal cases, we have watched repeatedly as prosecutors charged lower-level individuals with readily provable offenses that are distinct from the core conduct and targets that are the primary focus of the prosecutor’s investigation.

It’s also significant that Mr. Mueller threw the book at Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates. Because the federal sentencing guidelines recommend a significant prison sentence for money-laundering offenses and are largely driven by the dollar amounts involved in the crime, this indictment, which involves millions of dollars, puts tremendous pressure on them to make a cooperation deal with the special counsel’s office to try to reduce the lengthy prison sentences each could face.

The power of this “squeeze play” approach is demonstrated by the other filing released today, reflecting a guilty plea by George Papadopoulos, a former Trump foreign policy adviser who admits to communications with foreign individuals during the campaign, including at least one about the Russians’ possessing “dirt” concerning Hillary Clinton “in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’ ” Mr. Papadopoulos lied about these engagements when questioned, and was caught doing so. When confronted with the prospect of jail time, he decided to cooperate. His statements constitute yet another troubling quantum of evidence that the Trump campaign may have known about and encouraged the Russian intrusion on our elections — so-called collusion.

The Papadopoulos plea was finalized this month, and it’s no coincidence that Mr. Mueller held off announcing it until today. It’s a clear signal to Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates about how they should proceed — and how much the special counsel wants them to. Mr. Manafort was privy to the inner workings of the Trump campaign, and he attended the now-famous June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner and apparent Russian emissaries. Should Mr. Manafort cooperate, he would be an important witness as to what those in attendance said about the event before, during and after — and whether Mr. Trump himself was briefed on it.

Mr. Gates, though less well known, was also intertwined with Mr. Trump, including during the administration itself. If Mr. Mueller can secure his cooperation through a plea or immunity, he too can offer a wealth of information, including what he did, who he met with and what he discussed in his White House visits. To take another example, Mr. Gates’ colleagues in a pro-Trump outside group he worked with in the first months of the administration included Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign’s digital director. Mr. Mueller would surely be interested in knowing whether Mr. Parscale ever offered any indication that he was aware of or cooperated with Russian cyber-intrusions during the campaign.

Finally, what do today’s developments tell us about the largest questions of all: whether Mr. Mueller is going to bring charges against Mr. Trump himself relating to campaign collusion with Russia, or obstruction? We can’t answer those questions yet, but the seriousness and speed of today’s indictments suggests that if there is a case to be made on either of those grounds, Mr. Mueller will make it. We believe the greatest risk to Mr. Trump remains the possibility that he obstructed justice by firing the former F.B.I. director James Comey. The fact that Mr. Mueller has found enough evidence to bring credible charges in just five months suggests that he is moving forward with determination and skill. For anyone in the path of his investigation who has committed an offense, that cannot be welcome news.

See (“Manafort Indictment Is Bad News for Trump“) (emphasis added); see also (“Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, or CREW, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 22, two days after Trump took office. ‘We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office,’ CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. ‘He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action.’ A spokeswoman for the organization told The Daily Signal she would try to set up an interview with board Chairman Norman Eisen. However, Eisen didn’t respond as of publication deadline”—”Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics In Washington, or ‘CREW,’ is a totally-Leftist group that has no credibility at all”)

As discussed in my article above and the comments beneath it, what the CREW lackeys have written is pure folderol; and why the New York Times would have given them a forum for such nonsense is baffling.

Lots of us were Democrats years ago; however, like Ronald Reagan before us, we left that party and will never go back. The totally-despicable CREW is effectively an organ of the Democrats, masquerading as some non-partisan “seeker of truth and justice,” which could not be farther from the truth.

Where is CREW today, and where has it been, in exposing the “Uranium One” scandal, which former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (and historian) Newt Gingrich has described as “the greatest scandal in American history”? Silent and “missing in action” (MIA), as always.

. . .

David Horowitz, author of the New York Times’ bestseller, “Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America,” has written:

In a democracy, resistance to a duly elected government that has broken no laws is not an option; it is a sedition.

The resistance of the Democrats and their proxies in the media and the Office of the Special Prosecutor is a threat to our democracy – easily the greatest threat since the election of Abraham Lincoln and the sedition of the Confederacy that followed.

See (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“)

Lincoln and Trump


2 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

PBS’ “Frontline: Putin’s Revenge” Is A Travesty [UPDATED]

Comrade Putin

See; see also (“On Oct. 25 & Nov. 1, FRONTLINE Tells the Epic, Inside Story of ‘Putin’s Revenge’“) [As if to underscore PBS’ anti-Trump biases, a statement appears at the bottom of the second linked page, which says: “This discussion has been closed.” Yet, no comments appear]

This Leftist two-part film underscores how totally incompetent those in Barack Obama’s failed presidency were and remain, including but not limited to former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan. They come off looking like the bumbling “Keystone Cops,” and no match for Russia’s despotic killer, Vladimir Putin.

Put this together with the “Uranium One” scandal—which is never mentioned, yet may prove to be “the greatest scandal in American history”—and all of them should go to prison for the rest of their lives, based on incompetency alone if not treason.

See (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“)

Also, as if to underscore their far-Left political biases, the PBS film makes light of indisputable photographic and other evidence of Hillary Clinton’s “unstable” physical and mental condition.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue”) and (“Who Or What Hit Hillary?“) and (“HILLARY: THIS VERY SICK CRIMINAL MAY HAVE INFECTED OTHERS“)

Make no mistake about it, Putin is a ruthless killer, and Stalin’s heir. But all federal funding of PBS must cease immediately; and no taxpayer monies should be used to support this or other biased Leftist programming by PBS or its sister radio network NPR.

See (“Defund The Left’s PBS And NPR“); see also (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”) and (“Russia’s Putin Is A Killer”) and (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust”)


3 11 2017

I want to see Hillary, Bill and Obama suffer public humiliation, and prison.. Their treachery is beyond reason..

Liked by 1 person

3 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Well said, Rick. I agree completely.


8 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Demented And Treasonous Hillary Clinton’s Never-Ending Crusade Against Our President


Ed Klein—one of America’s most celebrated journalists, and a New York Times best-selling author—has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

Hillary Clinton is in secret negotiations with Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous Russian dossier, to purchase a second report that allegedly contains salacious new charges against President Trump, according to several sources with personal knowledge of the transaction.

The talks with Steele, a former British spy, are being carried out by Hillary’s former campaign aides, who do not hide their bitterness over the shocking loss of the White House to Donald Trump, these sources say.

‘Hillary’s people have been secretly in touch with Steele and are close to making a deal with him on opposition research that he claims has newly surfaced from his Russian sources,’ says a longtime Clinton adviser.

‘Steele didn’t release this information before now because it wasn’t available to him when he put together his first dossier,’ the adviser continued.

As I reported in my new book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, the first 35-page Steele dossier ‘contained sensational charges that the Russian Federal Security Service had ‘kompromat,’ or compromising information, on Trump that could be used to blackmail him.

According to that now discredited dossier, Trump had sex with Russian prostitutes when he visited Moscow.’

I included a long excerpt from the first dossier in All Out War.

All the publicity generated by the release of the first dossier and the dubious claims of a $12 million payment have reportedly brought shady characters in Russia out of the woodwork. They are said to be looking for a big pay day.

‘There are many wealthy people in the anti-Trump ‘resistance’ who are more than willing to put up whatever money is necessary to get this new information,’ said a member of Hillary’s inner circle.

Hillary has informed Bill Clinton that once she acquires the second dossier, she intends to release it to friendly members of the media.

‘She’s convinced that Trump made business deals with Russians with ties to the Kremlin in return for a promise to offer the Russians favorable trade conditions,’ according to a source who was privy to her conversation with her husband.

‘There are also claims in this second dossier that Trump had romantic involvements with Russian women over the years who are connected to the Kremlin’s spy apparatus,’ this source went on.

‘Hillary has said that she’ll do whatever it takes to make sure Trump’s ‘illegitimate presidency’, as she constantly refers to it among friends and campaign associates, ends in ashes.

‘She says that there are many additional pages of intelligence on Trump and his ties with the Russians. As soon as the negotiations with Steele are complete and she gets the [second] dossier, she’s going to double down and release all the new material.’

Hillary personally authorized her campaign chairman, John Podesta, to launch the first controversial Russian dossier, according to a senior Clinton campaign strategist who worked for Hillary in both her 2008 and 2016 presidential bids.

Hillary approved Podesta’s decision to pay for the dossier by funneling campaign funds through Marc Elias, the Perkins Coie attorney who represented both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

‘She is completely unrepentant about financing the first Russian dossier, despite it’s being widely discredited,’ said the campaign strategist.

According to multiple sources in the Clinton political orbit, Hillary still believes that the most outlandish charges in the original dossier are true, including that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin.

‘This second deal with Christopher Steele isn’t going through Marc Elias and Perkins Coie,’ said a Clinton source. ‘Perkins Coie got badly burned with the first dossier, and they don’t want any part of the second one,’ the source added.

A close legal adviser to Bill Clinton adds: ‘Bill is horrified about all this. He thinks this will blow up in Hillary’s face once the charges in the second dossier are proven to be as false as the charges in the first dossier. He’s also worried that she may be called to testify under oath before a congressional committee how she got the new dossier.

‘But Hillary is adamant,’ the adviser continued, ‘and her aides, including Huma Abedin, are egging her on. They tell her that whatever it takes to undo the Trump agenda is justified, and Hillary subscribes to that theory.’

See (“Hillary Clinton is in ‘secret negotiations’ with ex-British spy Christopher Steele to buy SECOND ‘dirty dossier’ on Trump’s romantic englements with Russian women, claims Clinton author“) (emphasis added)

Klein is the former editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine and the author of numerous bestsellers including his fourth book on the “Clintons, Guilty as Sin,” in 2016. His latest book is “All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump” was released on October 30, 2017.

As discussed in my article above and the comments beneath it, Hillary Clinton is a treasonous criminal who must spend the rest of her life in prison, at the very least.

Also, worrisome for the Clintons should be Bill’s recent trips to the Virgin Islands—aboard the “Lolita Express,” without his Secret Service detail—where underage women were “raped” . . . and the endless stream of the Clintons’ other criminal actions.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue”)

All Out War


20 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


The despicable Clintons

Jonathan Martin has written a “puff piece” about the criminal Clintons and their sycophants for the New York Times:

It was billed as a celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Clintons’ ascension to the White House, held in some of the same haunts of the Arkansas capital where it all began.

Yet the election that Bill and Hillary Clinton were most eager to revisit here was not Mr. Clinton’s triumph of a quarter-century ago. It was the one that Mrs. Clinton lost last year — one that the former first couple and many of their supporters have clearly not gotten over.

For the first part of a 90-minute conversation with the Clintons on Saturday moderated by James Carville, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton made all manner of references, both direct and indirect, to the man who denied their bid to reclaim the White House, Donald J. Trump.

However, it was not until Mr. Clinton invoked his wife’s losing campaign — “I’m proud of her for getting caught trying to put people first,” he said — that her admirers rose to their feet in what was an obvious emotional release.

That was the cue to Mr. Carville, the 1992 campaign maestro who now makes a living delivering speeches and can read an audience, that the attendees hungered for more than Clinton-Gore nostalgia. And Mrs. Clinton gave it to them.

“Apparently, my former opponent is obsessed with my speaking out,” she said, noting that Mr. Trump had just trained his Twitter fire on her earlier in the day. “Honestly, between tweeting and golfing, how does he get anything done?”

Explaining how she had tried to cope with what she called a “very painful” loss, she said she had taken to mystery novels “because the bad guy always got it in the end.”

The weekend gathering was supposed to be a reunion of the first Clinton for President campaign, an exercise in escapism from the recent unpleasantness, set to the familiar chords of Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop,” which opened and closed the event. But thinking about tomorrow is all the harder when you are locked in a nasty feud that continues unabated a year after Election Day.

Hours before the discussion, Mr. Trump lobbed his latest insult at Mrs. Clinton. “Crooked Hillary Clinton is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time,” he wrote on Twitter. “She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!”

Mrs. Clinton, though, went well beyond ridicule in her election lament on Saturday.

She inveighed against the rise of “phony news,” recalling how when lifelong friends of hers went canvassing, they were informed by voters that Mrs. Clinton was behind all manner of criminality, including running a “child trafficking ring in the basement of a pizzeria.”

When her friends would push back, they would be told, “ ‘Oh yeah, I saw it on the internet,’ ” Mrs. Clinton recounted with dismay.

She savaged Russia for “weaponizing information, stealing information,” but her critique plunged far deeper than the events of last year. She said democracy itself was under duress because avenues of communication with the electorate had been compromised.

“A democracy depends upon an informed citizenry that has access to accurate information,” Mrs. Clinton said to applause, imploring leaders to stand up to what she described as “partisan advocacy” masquerading as news.

And she even appeared to recast her famous 1990s-era claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy working against Democrats. “Our body politic’s immune system has been impaired, because there has been a concerted effort, starting with the creation of the Fox network,” said Mrs. Clinton, pointing out that Fox News did not exist when Mr. Clinton ran in 1992.

“It was one of the reasons why he probably survived,” she said.

The talk had turned to last year’s election after Mr. Carville, an hour into the discussion, acknowledged that “there’s an elephant in the room.” But there was another one, too: the reappraisal of Mr. Clinton’s treatment of women.

Mrs. Clinton’s reference to her husband’s political survival in 1992, along with his recalling how his poll numbers had been plummeting shortly before the New Hampshire primary that year, was as close as either got to the issue.

The flood of women who have emerged to accuse prominent men in politics, entertainment and the news media of sexual predation has left some Democrats uncomfortable defending Mr. Clinton, who admitted to an extramarital affair with a young White House intern but has denied charges from other women who claim sexual misconduct.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a longtime Clinton ally in their adopted state, even said last week that she thought Mr. Clinton should have resigned over his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.

Questions here in Little Rock about Mr. Clinton’s behavior brought evident discomfort. But it was clear that there is something of a generation gap in how he is viewed.

A pair of Arkansas women in their 20s who were sitting along President Clinton Avenue, a renamed thoroughfare rejuvenated by the completion of Mr. Clinton’s nearby presidential library, clutched copies of Mrs. Clinton’s new book, which they had just gotten signed at an event on Saturday.

The women, Autumn Dixon, a special-education teacher, and Caitlin Watt, a behavioral therapist, made little attempt to defend the former president, noting that they separated Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, and resented efforts to pin his misdeeds on her.

“I wasn’t voting for Bill Clinton; I was voting for Hillary,” Ms. Dixon said.

“I was not a part of that election,” added Ms. Watt, referring to Mr. Clinton’s first White House victory. “I was born in 1991.”

But another group of women, veterans of Mr. Clinton’s White House who also attended the book signing, responded with a ferocious and unqualified defense when asked about the former president’s sexual behavior. Such questions, they said, are little more than a way to distract from what they called Mr. Trump’s far more serious sexual transgressions.

“I think it’s baloney,” said Jean Carter Wilson, a Tennessean who worked in presidential personnel for Mr. Clinton. “I think he has done more for women and minorities and equality in this country than anybody in my lifetime.”

When lightly pressed, she walked away in anger.

Her friend and fellow former Clinton aide, Denise Ryan, was more willing to engage, but no less dismissive of the claims against Mr. Clinton.

“It’s good that we’re having this conversation, but I don’t think it’s fair to relitigate this on President Clinton again,” said Ms. Ryan, who is now a lobbyist in Washington for the Girl Scouts. “Enough of that; we did it.”

As for Ms. Gillibrand, the Clinton loyalists seemed satisfied to let the jeremiad of Philippe Reines, Mrs. Clinton’s former press secretary, stand. Mr. Reines tweeted that Ms. Gillibrand was a “hypocrite” for speaking out now after taking “the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat.”

“Can’t improve on perfection,” Mr. Carville said.

Mr. Clinton’s accusers had their say at the time, added Paul Begala, another top official in the 1992 campaign, “and the country decided they loved Bill Clinton.” He added that the current dialogue was about “empowering people who never had a chance to speak out.”

As they sipped drinks and munched on the famous candied pecans in the bar at the Capital Hotel or put away porterhouses and tamales up the street at Doe’s Eat Place, though, the Clinton alumni were far more transfixed by what one called “the alternate universe” of the Trump era and how to get out of it.

Yet this conversation was nearly as difficult, because their own party seems to be drifting away from Clinton-style moderation and toward a more undiluted liberalism.

In Mr. Clinton’s own state, where Democrats still dominated as recently as a decade ago, Republicans now hold every congressional seat and every statewide office.

Asked if his party could mount a comeback here, former Senator Mark Pryor, who was held below 40 percent in his re-election bid three years ago, said only, “I hope so.”

There is but one solution to the Democratic woes, added Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, a member of the 1992 campaign: to start thinking about tomorrow by recalling the success of yesterday.

“His politics in my view is still the only way to win,” Mr. Emanuel said of Mr. Clinton.

See (“Celebrating a 25-Year-Old Clinton Win, but Still Stung by a More Recent Defeat“) (emphasis added)

Their sycophants mirror those of the Kennedys, who were equally despicable.

Compare (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article) with (“Clinton Fatigue”)

As my article above and my comments beneath it testify, there are a myriad of reasons why both Clintons and others must end up in prison, where true justice will be meted out by their fellow inmates.

Otherwise, they are irrelevant, as Kirsten Gillibrand has emphasized.


22 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Fox News’ Shepard Smith Contributes To Clintons’ Treasonous Cover-Up

Shepard Smith

In a new video, political pundit and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris has described the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal in considerable detail. Also, he has discussed Fox News’ Gay newscaster Shep Smith’s role in the cover-up.

The video is worth watching.

See (“Uranium One Scandal: Massive Russian Bribery May Even Involve Treason“); see also (“‘The deception is mind-boggling’: Fox News anchor Shep Smith in blistering attack on Donald Jr and the Trump administration’s ‘lies’ about Russia”—”Smith and [his Fox News network colleague Chris Wallace] are both Democrats, masquerading as fair and balanced at Fox. Both are FAKE NEWS”)

The Murdochs, who own and run Fox, should fire Smith summarily.

Also, as discussed in my article above and the comments beneath it, there should not be doubts in anyone’s mind that the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal involves T-R-E-A-S-O-N.

As noted above, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, believes that the scandal may be “the greatest scandal in American history.” I concur with that conclusion.


1 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Michael Flynn

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Donald Trump’s lawyer insisted Friday that Michael Flynn’s guilty plea hasn’t implicated the president in any wrongdoing, despite a report that the former National Security Advisor plans to testify that Trump himself directed him to reach out to Russians before Inauguration Day.

‘Today, Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor at the White House for 25 days during the Trump Administration, and a former Obama administration official, entered a guilty plea to a single count of making a false statement to the FBI,’ Ty Cobb said.

‘The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year.’

‘Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn,’ Cobb continued.

‘The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.’

The White House itself remained mum on Friday, clamping down on communications after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Flynn agreed to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with Russians when he was a presidential candidate, according to ABC News.

That revelation cast a pall over the West Wing as senior aides geared up for an annual Christmas reception that could be less than merry.

Fox News Channel reports that the federal government said in court Friday that it was a ‘senior member’ of the Trump transition team – not an aide during the campaign itself – who directed Flynn to contact nations including Russia about a United Nations vote.

Trump is expected to deliver holiday remarks at the afternoon party. The room will be full of reporters, but the White House insists it’s strictly ‘off the record.’

Cobb represents Trump in the ongoing saga over whether his campaign colluded with Russians to swing the 2016 election.

Neither did White House press secretary Sarah Sanders and her deputy Raj Shah.

The White House has typically referred questions about Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe to Trump’s personal lawyers.

Those attorneys have insisted in the past that the president himself is not under investigation.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One last month during his trip to Asia that ‘everybody knows there was no collusion’ between his campaign and the Kremlin.

‘There is no collusion. There’s nothing,’ he said.

Flynn spoke with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak after the 2016 election concerning a raft of sanctions the Obama administration had just imposed on Moscow.

Intelligence intercepts established what he talked about, but he hid the truth from the FBI.

Flynn reportedly asked Kislyak to delay reaction to the Obama sanctions until after Trump took office, a hint that the incoming president might reverse them.

A law called the Logan Act established that only the incumbent administration can negotiate with foreign powers. At the time of Flynn’s contact with Kislyak, Trump had won the election but was not yet sworn in.

ABC News reported Friday morning that Flynn is cooperating with the Mueller probe, and is prepared to testify that Trump ‘directed him to make contact with the Russians’ – back when he was still a candidate.

But a Fox Business Network report portrays Trump as confident that he is still not a target of the investigation.

‘I spoke to one person who spoke to the president directly,’ an FBN reporter said on-air.

‘The president has been telling associates of his – I would say associates as friends and people that talk to the president regularly – that he believes, based on his conversations with his lawyer Ty Cobb, that he believes that he will be cleared in the Russian probe,’ he said.

‘The president is saying on the Russian matter, he believes it is done for him and he is going to be able to announce that soon.’

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said last week on the Fox news Channel that the investigation would stop short of implicating his former boss.

‘That’s where it stops,’ he predicted, ‘and there has been never any indication that the President of the United States, or anyone else within that circle of the President of the United States, has done anything wrong.’

The FBI interviewed Flynn just a few days after Trump’s inauguration. The president fired him in February after White House officials learned that he had lied to the vice president about whether he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak.

‘My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the special counsel’s office reflect a decision I made in the best interest of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions,’ Flynn said in a statement on Friday.

He pleaded guilty to making ‘false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements’ – an offense which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.



‘Today, Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor at the White House for 25 days during the Trump Administration, and a former Obama administration official, entered a guilty plea to a single count of making a false statement to the FBI.

The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year.

‘Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.

The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.’

– Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer

See (“Trump’s lawyer attacks Mike Flynn as a liar and says guilty plea does NOT implicate the president in attack on credibility of Mueller’s star witness“) (emphasis added)

First, there is nothing wrong with having established contacts with Russia, to foster a smooth transition between outgoing and incoming presidential administrations. Indeed, it serves the best interests of the United States and the American people.

America’s disgraced, despicable, treasonous Left argues that violations of the Logan Act have occurred—which details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

However, what they fail to point out is that no person has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the Act, and that Congress has questioned its constitutionality.

See (“Logan Act“)

Second, President Trump has plenary pardon powers that he can use to insulate those who are ‘near and dear” to him—just as previous presidents have done.

Third, as discussed in my article above and the comments beneath it, the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal has the makings of being “the greatest scandal in American history,” which former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (and historian) Newt Gingrich has said.

Fourth, the U.S. Department of Justice is a corrupt organization. Americans need to understand this, which has been true for decades; and Rober Mueller, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein are shining examples of that corruption.

Lastly, some of us served proudly with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), before Flynn became the agency’s Director. For example, I was a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the DIA at the Pentagon, where I received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.

See, e.g.,

We are ashamed of the fact that Flynn has disgraced our great military, the DIA, and our country.


4 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Alan Dershowitz

Sandy Fitzgerald has reported for Newsmax:

If Congress charged President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice for firing former FBI Director James Comey, that would trigger a constitutional crisis, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued Monday.

“I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” program.

“You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate.”

His comments were in response to those made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who on Sunday told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” program “what we’re beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice.”

President Donald Trump was quick to weigh in on Dershowitz’ opinion, tweeting that the interview was a “must watch.”

Dershowitz further commented that presidents throughout the nation’s history have exercised their constitutional powers on investigations, said Dershowitz.

“We have precedents that clearly establish that,” he said. “When George Bush, the first, pardoned Caspar Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him, nobody suggested obstruction of justice.”

To bring such charges, there must be evidence of “clearly illegal acts,” Dershowitz continued.

“With [Richard] Nixon, hush money was paid,” he said, “[There was] telling people to lie, destroying evidence. Even with [Bill] Clinton they said that he tried to influence potential witnesses not to tell the truth. But there’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority.”

Dershowitz said that he hopes special counsel Robert Mueller, who is in charge of the probe into possible links between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign, does not press charges against the president.

“That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States, and I hope Mueller doesn’t do that,” said Dershowitz. “Sen. Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about, when she says it’s obstruction of justice, to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution.”

Trump also has the authority to speak to members of Congress, ask that the investigation be wrapped up, said Dershowitz, but Congress has the power to invoke the Constitution’s provision for separation of powers.

“You can’t have obstruction of justice by each party exercising their authority,” said Dershowitz. “The president could have pardoned [former national security adviser] Michael Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation.”

Had that happened, Flynn would not have cooperated with the prosecution, or had been indicted, said Dershowitz.

“I think the fact that the president hasn’t pardoned Flynn, even though he has the power to do so, is very good evidence there’s no obstruction of justice going on here,” he added.

See (“Dershowitz: Obstruction Charges on Trump Would Bring ‘Constitutional Crisis'”) (emphasis added)

Of course Dershowitz is correct.

What he does not address, at least in this article, is the fact that the Clintons, Mueller and others must be indicted, convicted and sent to prison for their roles in the “Uranium One”-Russian scandal.

See (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) (see also the comments beneath the article)


5 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Robert Mueller

Andrea Noble has written in the Washington Times:

Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation spent nearly $7 million during the first four months of his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including $1.7 million on salaries and benefits for employees, according to the first report issued on the costs.

A Justice Department report issued Tuesday on expenses associated with the special counsel’s probe includes a breakdown of direct and reimbursed expenses, such as salaries to detailed DOJ employees who would have been paid regardless of being detailed to Mr. Mueller’s team.

While the expenses associated with the special counsel’s personal team total $3.2 million, the report notes that an additional $3.5 million was spent during the course of the investigation on DOJ components that support the investigation. That figure “approximates expenditures the components would have incurred for the investigations irrespective of the existence of the SCO,” the report states.

The expenses detailed in the first report include a breakdown of costs between May 17 and Sept. 30.

According to the DOJ report, more than $362,000 was spent during that period on rent, communications and utilities.

Another $223,000 was spent on travel expenses, though much of that amount — approximately $220,000 — was spent on the cost of temporary relocation of DOJ employees who were detailed to the special counsel’s office. Only around $3,000 was spent on direct travel expenses.

Another $734,000 was spent on the acquisition of equipment that will remain the property of the federal government at the close of the Mueller investigation.

In addition to Mr. Mueller, the special counsel team includes 17 attorneys — five of whom were hired from outside the government. The special counsel’s office has declined to provide details on how many other people have been detailed from various agencies or divisions of the Justice Department to work on the team.

Tuesday’s disclosures provide the first opportunity to measure the cost-effectiveness of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, which has netted two guilty pleas and two indictments thus far.

The special counsel is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and any possible coordination with members of President’s Trump’s campaign.

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, as well as his longtime colleague Richard Gates, were indicted on a series of charges related to their past consulting work rather than their work related to the campaign. Both have pleaded not guilty.

But two others associated with the Trump campaign have both pleaded guilty to charges stemming from lies they told the FBI about their interactions with the Trump campaign. George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty under seal over the summer to making false statements to FBI agents as they questioned him about his attempts to arrange meetings between members of the campaign and the Russian government.

And just last week, former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn admitted that he lied to investigators when he said he didn’t ask Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. to limit Moscow’s reaction to U.S. sanctions during the presidential transition. Some past independent counsel investigations have come under fire for high price tags.

Kenneth W. Starr’s 1990s-era investigation into President Clinton ranks as the priciest independent counsel investigation on record, costing taxpayers about $73 million and involving the work of more than 170 employees and federal government detailees.

See (“Mueller spent nearly $7 million in four months on Trump-Russia probe“) (emphasis added)

The Wall Street Journal has added:

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti-Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this[,] Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.


Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive.

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.

Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

See (“Mueller’s Credibility Problem“) (emphasis added)

Robert Mueller is the face of unbridled evil, which must be terminated and his “witch hunt” shut down. He must be prosecuted for treason, relating to his role in the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal.

Nothing less will suffice.

Also, it was a mistake to appoint Christopher Wray as the new FBI Director, and he should be fired summarily. He runs a corrupt government agency, and his continued presence makes it even more corrupt.

See (“Robert Mueller’s Partisan Witch Hunt Must Be Shut Down, And Its Staff Fired“); see also (“A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?“) and (“FLYNN SINGS!“) and (“Mueller At A Time For Truth“) and (“MUELLER’S INDICTMENTS“) and (“MUELLER ACTS!“) and (“TERMINATE THE VERMIN MUELLER!“) and (“Another Despicable At The Department Of Injustice“)

Ban Robert Mueller


5 12 2017
🚨#Trump2020 #MAGA🚨 (@CNC_Dude)

It’s absolutely RIDICULOUS how the Left, and the likes of Corrupt Hillary Clinton remain above the law……..They seem to have a FREE PASS to do anything and everything they want, while never actually having real investigations done that’d result in major prosecution of a LOT of people, including all those who’ve taken part in the Clinton Body Bags!!

Liked by 1 person

5 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments. I agree completely.

As I have noted above, former Speaker of the House (and historian) Newt Gingrich has said that the “Uranium One”/Putin-Clinton-Obama scandal may be “the greatest scandal in American history.”

I agree with that conclusion.

Couple that scandal with everything else that the Clintons have done, including Bill’s actions as a sexual predator, and it is truly mind-boggling.

See, e.g., (“Clinton Fatigue”);


27 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Designated Target Of A TREASONOUS Elite FBI Cabal: The President Of The United States

Ban Robert Mueller

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple one: Did he do it?

Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump?

A year-and-a-half into the investigation, and, still, no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.

Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.

Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?

Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here:

That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate and bring him down.

Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18 months ago.

On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course he, Comey, was recommending.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton – to discuss golf and grandkids – seconded Comey’s decision.

And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?

First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.

Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence” – the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.

Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.

After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strzok told Page an “insurance policy” was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.

Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers present.

One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.

Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton campaign.

For there a Russian connection has been established.

Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his “dirty dossier” that was distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.

And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?

Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions through law firm Perkins Coie.

Let’s review the bidding.

The “dirty dossier,” a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy’s collusion with Kremlin agents.

In the Dec. 26 issue of the Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision “to open a counterintelligence investigation (of Trump).” And press reports “cite the document’s disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps.”

If this is true, a critical questions arises:

Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?

Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud. Mueller’s top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.

Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his “Get Hoffa Squad” to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King.

Is history repeating itself – with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the president of the United States?

See (“Did the FBI conspire to stop Trump?“); see also (“Jeff Sessions Must Resign As Attorney General Of The United States“)

As I have written previously:

Robert Mueller is the face of unbridled evil, which must be terminated and his “witch hunt” shut down. He must be prosecuted for treason, relating to his role in the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal.

Nothing less will suffice.



31 12 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Roseanne Barr Attacked For Being Pro-Trump

Roseanne Barr

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Roseanne Barr threatened to retire after a Twitter feud on Friday.

The comedienne – who is scheduled to return to ABC this March with her sitcom reboot – called it quits after a series of tweets involving varying political views.

‘i won’t be censored or silence chided or corrected and continue to work. I retire right now. I’ve had enough. bye!,’ read one of her tweets that have since been deleted according to USA Today.

She followed up with this tweet: ‘do not expect to hear anything more from me. Its a waste of time to oppose fascists here. bye!’

And lastly: ‘the only way to WIN is not to play the game and I will not play.’

These announcements came after a slew of responses Roseanne made to liberals who were opposed to her support of Donald Trump.

‘4 those who wonder-back in the day when I was called a “liberal” by journalists, I used to answer-“I’m not a Liberal, I’m a radical” & I still am-I voted Trump 2 shake up the status quo & the staid establishment,’ she tweeted on Wednesday.

She followed with the tweet: ‘Trump is fighting pedophiles and he likes Jews-that infuriates some people.’

And she tweeted that fans of Hilary Clinton have threatened her on Thursday: ‘have you been threatened by fans of HRC? Tell us about it-#MeToo’

Roseanne has been a critic of Democratic nominee Clinton for some time.

In her 2016 documentary Roseanne for President she stated ‘People in this country are not allowed to say anything except for that they love Hillary, or they’ll be harassed, especially on social media, until they leave or hang their head in shame.’

‘Because if you don’t endorse Hillary, then you’re anti-American, a racist, a sexist, or whatever names her robots throw around.’

Later she told The Hollywood Reporter ‘We should be so lucky if Trump won, because then it wouldn’t be Hillary.’

When the reboot was announced, Roseanne tweeted: ‘Of course I want to do a reboot of Roseanne-new political reality in our country will make for some great jokes!’

Meanwhile, ABC has revealed Roseanne will be back on screen on March 27 in an hour-long episode titled Twenty Years To Life.

A new picture of the entire cast was also released, with Roseanne and John Goodman as parents Roseanne and Dan Connor on set in the living room of their home surrounded by their extended family.

The snap includes their now grown children; Michael Fishman as D.J; Sara Gilbert as Darlene; Alicia Goranson as Beccy and Laurie Metcalfe as Roseanne’s sister Jackie.

Beccy was also played by Sarah Chalke and she was featured in the new image, although her role has yet to be revealed.

Johnny Galecki, 42, was not in the shot but he will reprise his role as Darlene’s boyfriend then husband David Healy for one episode after being loaned from his hit CBS show The Big Bang Theory.

The eight-episode revival poses something of a problem for the screenwriters.

John, 64, will reprise his starring role as father Dan, despite the fact that he died of a heart attack in the season nine finale.

The episode ending the original run was titled Into That Good Night and aired on May 20, 1997, wrapping the show that kicked off in 1988.

Earlier this week, ABC released a still showing Darlene and Roseanne sitting at the top of a bed while Dan knelt at the end facing them in an episode titled Dress To Impress.

Roseanne was lauded for tackling groundbreaking issues that had not been addressed previously on network television sitcoms.

The main protagonist was a working mother in a blue-collar family. It also featured gay characters coming out.

See (“‘I’ve had enough!’ Roseanne Barr threatens to retire after political Twitter feud stating she ‘won’t be censored or corrected!'”); see also (“Roseanne Barr threatens to retire in huff over Twitter feuding with liberals”)

Well said, Roseanne. Only when Hillary Clinton is in prison will justice be done.

Beneath the article, one Gay man from New Orleans wrote:

I completely agree with Roseanne. I’m actually one of the rare g a y men who is also a proud Republican. And many people in the g a y community have shunned me for not supporting Hillary. The overwhelming majority of g a y people supported her because they have been brainwashed to believe that Republicans h a t e them. Which is simply not true! Had they done their research they would have learned that Hillary has voted more against laws pertaining to g a y rights than for them. She also stated for 25 years that marriage is between one man and one woman. She only changed that opinion when she decided to run for President. But worst of all is that she and her foundation accept MILLIONS of dollars every year from countries that k i l l people for being g a y. Hillary is a l i a r and a disgusting human being who only cares about MONEY and herself. It’s sad that the g a y community refuses to open their eyes and see the truth…

A commenter from Australia added:

I absolutely agree with you. Right on! – A g a y woman

Roseanne Barr and cast


3 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Democrats are evil

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written:

What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the Trump presidency?

As James Comey’s FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove Donald Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting this investigation?

What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump’s team?

Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as Mueller’s men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.

Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap warrants of Trump’s team are said to have been issued on the basis of a “dirty dossier” that was floating around town in 2016 — but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could not validate its lurid allegations.

Who produced the dossier?

Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Writes the Washington Times, Steele “paid Kremlin sources with Democratic cash.”

Yet, if Steele’s dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier’s contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem.

Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his investigation discredited.

Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year’s Eve by a major revelation in The New York Times. Top headline on page one:

“Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry”

The story that followed correctly framed the crucial question:

“What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?”

The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for:

“It was not, as Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”

The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an “upscale London Bar” in the West End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton’s emails.

Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June, Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government, which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.

The Times’ story pounds home this version of events:

“The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired.”

This, the Times assures us, “answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year.”

Well, perhaps.

But if Papadopoulos’s drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017?

According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he had learned from the Russians.

And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.

If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him — as compared to Steele?

Yet another major question remains unanswered.

If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking “into Russian attempts to disrupt the elections,” why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?

If Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation?

Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign’s ties to Russian agents, than to Trumpian “collusion” that is yet unproven?

Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished:

They have kept alive a special counsel’s investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI’s reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government.

Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.

See (“The Times Rides to Mueller’s Rescue“) (emphasis added); see also (“Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI’s handling of Clinton email case“) and (“Dems See Impeachment, GOP Voters See Reelection in Trump’s Future“) and (“Trump ex-campaign chair Manafort sues Mueller, Rosenstein, and Department of Justice“) and (“Manafort sues Mueller in Russia probe“)

America’s Left and far-Left are evil, un-American and treasonous. And the corrupt DOJ and FBI, and the handmaiden of America’s left—the so-called “Mainstream Media” (MSN)—have aided and abetted this treasonous conduct.

Lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

As discussed in my article above—and in the extensive comments beneath it—it is time to purge America and its government of such traitors, and put each of them in prison, beginning with Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein and countless others.

Nothing less will suffice, to restore American greatness.

Bald Eagle and American flag


5 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Remove, Disbar, And Prosecute Robert Mueller! [UPDATED]

Freedom Watch

Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel of Freedom Watch has issued the following statement:

Fellow American —

As a former prosecutor of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch, and its current General Counsel and Chairman, I filed a complaint Monday before the Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General of the DOJ, demanding an investigation and the eventual removal and prosecution of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller and his conflicted staff — which are Democrat/Clinton political campaign donors and supporters in large part — have illegally leaked grand jury information to harm President Trump, his family and former and present colleagues.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Inspector General (IG) are charged with investigating and remedying unethical and illegal behavior by the special counsel, his office and other DOJ lawyers and staff.

Special Counsel Mueller derives his authority and powers from the DOJ, as he was appointed by Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Rod Rosenstein — not coincidentally a closet Democrat and President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein have failed and apparently refuse to properly police the illegal grand jury leaks and conflicts of interest of Mueller — putting their own personal, political and professional interests before all else — the job therefore fell upon Freedom Watch to file this complaint to represent the interests of the American people!

It’s time to address the sham investigation Mueller has been vindictively pursuing for his friend, a fellow former FBI Director himself, James Comey.

The regrettable back story here is that these two DOJ public servants are themselves under investigation by Mueller for their alleged involvement in the imagined collusion with Russia in the case of the AG and the firing of former FBI Director James Comey in the case of Rosenstein.

For this and other reasons, which sadly are the norm in our compromised Justice Department, which continues to be loyal to the former administration, not the Trump administration, these two “leaders” have failed so it’s time for US to act!

If the Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General of the Department of Justice fail to take action, you can rest assured that Freedom Watch will file a court complaint to try to force them to take appropriate and immediate action, as well as use other lawful measures, such as petitioning Chief Judge Beryl Howell in the D.C. federal court overseeing Mueller’s grand jury investigation to address these issues though an evidentiary hearing.

To sit back and watch Robert Mueller and his staff’s legal jihad unfold against President Trump and his team with impunity is a huge mistake, and that is why you, the American people, should also intervene and write and email these offices and demand action.

In particular, you should also express your extreme displeasure to Sessions and Rosenstein for their failure to police Special Counsel Mueller and the politically compromised Trump-loathing 16 and counting generally leftist prosecuting attorneys he hired at great taxpayer expense to do an unethical and illegal hit on and ultimately destroy our president.

Finally, the latest outrage to come out of Mueller’s grand jury investigations was disclosed this week when it was revealed — by leftist CNN, no less — that the special counsel had previously done legal work for a Gen. Michael Flynn company, Ironbridge.

Mueller and his equally conflicted staff have been tirelessly working to “burn” Flynn and, now we learn, his son as well at the legal stake.

If Ironbridge is one of the companies associated with Flynn or his son under investigation, this conflict of interest could result in Mueller’s ultimate disbarment and other severe penalties, if he had not recused himself from at least this aspect of the ongoing grand jury probe.

All of this needs to be investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General and Chief Judge Beryl Howell, who also needs to hold a mini-trial and put Mueller and his henchmen on the stand to explain and account for their actions.

The complaint I filed on behalf of Freedom Watch, the “People’s Justice Department,” speaks for itself.

Mueller must be removed, along with his conflicted and compromised staff, and then referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution, as they all have violated their oath of office and the sacrosanct Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as several provisions of professional codes of conduct for lawyers.

. . .

God Bless You and Your family!

Yours in Freedom,


Larry Klayman

See (emphasis added); see also (“New Scandal: Mueller Hid Russian Uranium Spies From Public View“)

Ban Robert Mueller


8 01 2018
Chris Long

That is a good analysis. I need to come back and read the other stuff when I have more time. Really good writing skills.

Liked by 1 person

8 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Chris, for your kind words. I appreciate them greatly.

To the best of my ability, I try to support all statements—which might be challenged—with one or more reputable sources.

Please come back when time permits. 🙂


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: