DOES IT ALL MAKE SENSE NOW?
DID YOU KNOW THAT Clinton Campaign HQ is Just Two Floors Below Loretta Lynch
NO SHIT!!
DOJ's Peter Kadzik from that office is exposed Colluding With Clinton Campaign
KNOW THIS...
Loretta Lynch is protecting Hillary because Obama is involved in this money scheme and if Hillary is Indicted she will squeal
like the fat PIG about Obama.
So Loretta is covering both of them.
Obama will be arrested and tried for corruption if Hillary is BUSTED! Obama will be arrested and put on trial for corruption. THATS THE BIG SECRET!
Now.. DOJ Officials are using private email accounts to tip Hillary of coming investigations too.
Hillary Clinton knows when you're seeking to avoid indictment by the nation's top law enforcement officer, nothing is more important than location...
That's why when the Clinton campaign headquarters needed a permanent location, they chose to set up shop here, at 1 Pierrepont Plaza in Brooklyn, a lovely modern building that also houses the New York offices of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
This was first brought to our attention over the weekend in a tweet from Wikileaks.
In 2015 Hillary Clinton's campaign HQ moved to 1 Pierrepoint Plazza just a few floors under DoJ head Lorreta Lynch. pic.twitter.com/ffCGQLGsVV
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 13, 2016
Hillary Knows Avoiding Indictment Is All About Location...
JUSTICE IS NOT IMPARTIAL AT LORETTA LYNCH'S DOJ. THE WHOLE FUCKING SYSTEM IS CORRUPT AND MUST BE TORN DOWN!
President Bill Clinton Appointed Loretta Lynch In 1999...
Hillary Clinton has received nearly $75,000 in political contributions from employees at the Department of Justice, the agency that will decide whether or not to act if the FBI recommends charges against Clinton or her aides following its investigation into her private email server.
THE WHOLE WORM BALL OF CROOKS NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED
NOW MORE ABOUT DOJ's Peter Kadzik WHO IS Exposed Colluding With Clinton Campaign
Peter Kadzik
was the DOJ representative chosen to head up a "thorough" review of the
new Huma Abedin emails as revealed by a letter he wrote to Congress.
Given Kadzik's personal relationship with Podesta, it seemed like a
"convenient" choice for the Clinton campaign.
In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will
continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all
necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as
possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.
"Ironically", that is the same Peter Kadzik who has proven his
"impartiality" in multiple WikiLeaks emails including this newly
released bombshell in which Kadzik provides a very helpful "heads up" about Hillary's email server investigation. This is what Kadzik emailed to John Podesta (via gmail) on May 19, 2015:
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil
Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department
emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in
this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State
Department posts the emails.
As we also reported previously (see below), prior to joining the DOJ,
Kadzik was the attorney of Marc Rich, whose records the FBI released
yesterday, as well as Podesta; in facat, the Clinton campaign chairman
infamously wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.” And since we have no reason to doubt his "fantastic" legal skills,
perhaps Mr. Kadzik can explain to our readers - and the American public
- why this particular message was delivered via his private, gmail account rather than his official DOJ email account? Sure, who needs an independent investigator, this guy will do just fine. * * * And for readers who missed our original report on the
long-running relationship between John Podesta and his close friend
Peter Kadzik, here is an excerpt from our most recent article on the topic:
In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to
work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources
and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.
So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be
in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically
influenced Department of Justice and the FBI. And yet, something felt odd about this. Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name? Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony? It was Peter Kadzik. In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton's
Campaign chair, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could
potentially sink Hillary Clinton. For those who missed it, this is what we reported previously:
The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select
Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign
chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends,
including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US
Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative
Affairs.
The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik,
superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures.
The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the
Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti,
a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony
Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a
Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening,
just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi
Committee.
Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.
As the Daily Caller noted,
the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent
conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency
charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email
practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges
are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with
the Obama Justice Department. The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent
contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were
classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to
celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son
emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign. “The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in
the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I
don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the
private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of
the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog
group. “It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is
that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of
relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of
Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the
revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill
Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ
investigating Hillary Clinton. Kadzik's role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly
notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who
was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president. It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one
person in the DOJ who is John Podesta's, and thus the Clinton
Foundation's inside man, it is Peter Kadjik. Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And
in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied
Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton
controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is
cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta,
who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote
that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.” Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As
deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United
Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky.
In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a
White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton
separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so
that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with
Clinton. Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it. Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation.
But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely
relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was
inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton
in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by
the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges
related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the
fiasco. Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal. Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who
was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill.
The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with
nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17
years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta
heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A
House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that
“Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a
long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.” The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times
regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying
effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library. Kadzik's current role In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs,
Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that
role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton
investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career
investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no
charges filed against Clinton. But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with
Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers
to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation. In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron
DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be
appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an
investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a
potential conflict of interest.” DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill
Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a
conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees
— a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially
execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that
may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for
the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.” It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions. Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a
Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman
Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ
was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that
Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he
declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were
required to cooperate with congressional probes. Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last
month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files
of the Clinton email investigation. Finally, it is also worth noting that Kadzik's wife, Amy Weiss,
currently at Weiss Public Affairs worked on the 1992 Clinton/Gore
Campaign as a Press Secretary, and Communications Director for the
Democratic National Committee, and a White House Deputy Assistant to the
President/Deputy Press Secretary to President Bill Clinton. * * * And now it seems that Kadzik will be in charge of the DOJ's "probe"
into Huma Abedin's emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the
DOJ will find "anything" of note. Amy Weiss, Peter Kadzik, with lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.
AND TONY PODESA IN THIS PICTURE ?? John's Brother?? gets 140,000 a months from the SAUDI GOVERNMENT AS THE INSIDER TO CLINTON THROUGH JOHN.
Brother of Hillary’s Campaign Chief John Podesta Gets $140K Per Month to Lobby for Saudis
Getty
TEL
AVIV — The Saudi government has contracted the communications and
strategy firm of Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta, paying the group $140,000
per month to work for Saudi interests in the U.S.
The Saudi government and its affiliates have spent
millions of dollars on U.S. law, lobby and public relations firms to
raise the country’s visibility in the United States and before the
United Nations at a crucial time. And some of Washington’s premier law and lobby firms — including Podesta Group,
BGR Government Affairs, DLA Piper and Pillsbury Winthrop — have been
tasked with the job, according to a review of Justice Department
filings.
The Post added some specifics about the Saudi contract with
the Podesta Group but failed to report the significant detail that the
firm’s owner, who is personally working on the Saudi account, is John
Podesta’s brother. The Post only identified Tony Podesta as “a top Democratic lobbyist and major contributor to Hillary Clinton.” Tony Podesta is a financial bundler for the Democratic Party, including Clinton’s campaigns. The newspaper reported:
The lobby firm Podesta Group has an ongoing contract with
the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court, a
government entity, for $140,000 monthly. Barring any changes to the fee
schedule, the year-long work would earn the firm $1.68 million by the
end of 2016. The firm’s founder Tony Podesta, a top Democratic lobbyist
and major contributor to Hillary Clinton, is working personally on the
matter, according to a March filing. Podesta president Kim Fritts, a
longtime Republican consultant and adviser to Jeb Bush, is listed on the
contract, which the firm would not elaborate on.
John Podesta, meanwhile, is the founder of the Center for American
Progress, the highly influential progressive think-tank. Prior to
heading Clinton’s 2016 campaign, he served as counselor to the Obama
White House. This reporter previously documented that some of the CAP’s major
corporate donors have also been listed as clients to Tony Podesta’s
firm. In 2013, I reported:
SourceWatch documents that Tony Podesta’s website previously listed the firm’s clients, which reportedly included Google. Google is also a corporate donor to John Podesta’s PAC, it has been revealed. Besides corporate clients, Tony Podesta has represented foreign governments, including Iraq and Egypt. The Huffington Post reported that
another CAP donor is the Livingston Group. Livingston is not currently
listed on CAP’s donor page, but the Huffington Post said it was provided
the donor list by CAP itself. A cached version of the CAP donor page finds Livingston on the list. Livingston provided a statement to the Hill saying it was the
“interlocutor” of the donation, which was actually made by a mining
company, Anglo American, a Livingston client. “We didn’t make the contribution. The contribution was made by a
client of ours. We were the interlocutor. That’s all. It was an honest
mistake,” said the Livingston Group spokeswoman.
Until 2012, Livingston represented the Egyptian government with Tony Podesta’s firm. The Washington Free Beacon reported
in 2012 that Tony Podesta’s firm was among a group of 50 companies that
toured Egypt under the rule of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi
to open business ties with the new government. Numerous firms
represented by Tony Podesta visited Egypt. The Free Beacon reported:
Ten of the 50 companies present on the tour have been
clients of lobbying firms separately run by Podesta’s brother and
sister-in-law, leaving some observers wondering what role the Democratic
insider may have played in determining which companies earned slots on
the potentially lucrative junket. One of the firms, The Podesta Group, is operated by Tony Podesta, who
is John’s brother. The other, Heather Podesta + Partners, is run by
John’s sister-in-law. During the several-day jaunt, business leaders from the finance,
defense, and aerospace sectors, among others, were exposed to investment
opportunities in Egypt’s burgeoning public and private sectors.
Also on that Egypt trip was John Podesta, the Free Beacon reported.
Recall that in a March 2015 interview with CBS, just after the NYT
reported of Hillary's use of a private email server, president Obama
told the American public he had only learned about Hillary's "unusual"
arrangement from the press. As we further reminded readers one month ago, CBS
News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when
he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance
in Selma, Alabama. "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante. "The
policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why
my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are
available and archived," Mr. Obama said. "I'm glad that Hillary's instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed."
They lied, and the "transparency" of the Obama administration was severely tarnished in late September,
when in the FBI's interview notes with Huma Abedin released by the FBI
it was first revealed that Obama had used a pseudonymous email account:
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used
by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the
report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use
of a pseudonym ( FAKE NAME OBAMA WAS USING TO COVER HIS TRACKS) and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
To be sure, this was not definitive evidence that Obama was aware of
Hillary's email server, nor that there may have been collusion between
the president and the Clinton campaign. That changed today, however, when in the latest Podesta dump we learn that in an email from Cheryl Mills to John Podesta, the Clinton aide upon learning what Obama had just said...
we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov
That, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that the president not only
lied, but did so with the clear intention of protecting the Clinton
campaign. As a further reminder, Politico previously reported that the State Department had refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers
cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of
executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom
of Information Act. It is therefore unknown what the president's
"alternative" email account was, or who hosted it. This also explains why in a prior Wikileak, Podesta told Mills in an email titled "Special Category" that she thinks "we
should hold emails to and from Potus? That's the heart of his exec
privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but
I(t) seems like they will." Mills did not respond by email. The Clinton-Obama emails were turned over to the State Department, which later announced it would not release them. * * * So just how did Mills and Podesta "clean up" the fact that Obama lied
to the American people, a tactic some could allege is evidence of an
attempt to cover up a presidential lie to protect Hillary Clinton. What we do know, and we assume this is completely unrelated, between
March 25-31, just a couple of weeks after Mills said "we need to clean
this up," Bleachbit was used to wipe Hillary's private server clean. But
of course, that is purely a coincidence. Since we are confident others will also demand an answer, in light of
the latest revelation hinting at a collusive cover up extending to the
very top of US government, or as Cheryl Mills dubbed it a "clean up",
perhaps it is time for the State Department to unveil just what was said
between the president and the Clinton campaign?
Hillary State Department Official Tried to BRIBE the FBI. OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT KNOWS THIS BUT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY!
THIS IS THE CROOKED STATE DEPARTMENT LACKEY OF HILLARY CLINTON..
PATRICK KENNEDY
Thanks to the whistleblowers at WikiLeaks and fighters in the
Republican Congress, we’re beginning to know the true extent of Hillary
Clinton’s corruption.
The media can ignore the revelations and try to protect Hillary, but
Americans are learning the truth: Undersecretary of State Patrick
Kennedy made a series of attempts to bribe the FBI in an effort to
protect Hillary Clinton. Kennedy offered a ‘quid pro quo’ to an FBI agent, in which he promised to
open up overseas slots for FBI agents in exchange for the FBI
retroactively declassifying an email marked SECRET that was found on
Clinton’s unsecured illegal private email server. This revelation comes from summaries of FBI interviews, called 302s, from their criminal investigation of Clinton.
In an exchange that included redacted names, the
interview notes state that “[REDACTED] received a call from [REDACTED]
of the International Operations Division (IOD) of the FBI, who
‘pressured’ him to change the classified email to unclassified.
[REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY,
Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the
email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’”
Attempted bribery of a government official is a felony punishable by
up to 15 years in prison. But as we’ve seen over and over again in the
corrupt Obama administration, they will use their power to commit crimes
and then protect themselves from any responsibility. The State Department’s official response has been: “Pat
Kennedy is going to stay at his job, and he has the full confidence of
the Secretary of State.” The FBI has denied the existence of a quid pro
quo. The State Department admits no wrongdoing. But we have the evidence! What can we do about it? Right now citizens are petitioning
Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Kennedy. We
already know that if enough people make their voice heard, the
politicians are forced to listen. The Republican Congress should absolutely investigate Obama’s State Department for criminal wrongdoing. Donald Trump
called Kennedy’s duplicity “one of the great miscarriages of justice in
the history of our country.” Newt Gingrich and Marco Rubio have both
called for Kennedy to be suspended and investigated. Republican Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Devin Nunes have called on President Obama to suspend Kennedy and convene an investigation. America needs real leadership. We can no longer sit silently while the political establishment breaks any law they feel like! Congress MUST appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this bribery claim? He is also the same State Department Lackey who headed the Benghazi Investigation..
Patrick Kennedy has been linked to Benghazi and Hillary
Clinton’s private email server. Here's how he survived years of GOP and
FBI investigations.
From Justice Jeanine Pierro "This is the same Patrick Kennedy that Hillary put in charge of her
blue ribbon accountability review board for lessons learned from Benghazi. By the way, already learned from the Khobar towers review
board, lessons never implemented by Hillary.
The same Patrick Kennedy who appointed the Clinton pals who then chose not to question Hillary the secretary of state. Kennedy
knows the urgency of destroying this particular email as opposed to
thousands of others, so he engages in what some say is an attempt to
bribe and others say is a quid pro quo discussion offering the fbi long
sought positions overseas in exchange for getting rid of top secret
emails. Curious that our ambassador personally and his staff
requested security more than 600 times to protect their lives ..yet Kennedy can come up with positions to cover Hillary's¦ career. Fbi
agents summaries known as 302's say Kennedy actually offered a quid pro
quo. FBI positions to declassify and then mark with code 9, which would
archive the email in the basement of the department of state-never to
be seen again. The agent -- although he felt pressured-- refused the
offer. Kennedy then makes the same offer to the FBI head of counter
intelligence. And when this offer is refused, Kennedy knowing the
criminal investigation is already underway asks- will the FBI make a
public statement about this? When told they will not, he knows the
coast is clear. They'll deal with the FBI and the DOJ later,but for now Hillary can publicly lie to all of us. So now Kennedy - one of
the darkest characters in the Clinton playbook - and that's saying
something folks-skates. But then the 302's are released. Congress
says wait a minute-that sounds like bribery, obstruction of justice,
contempt of congress. Is it? The state department-the one that
wouldn't allow the inspector general oversight and had no Hillary Clinton information available to the press -suggests that the FBI is
lying. Really? Both agents lying? - maybe they misunderstood. By
the way, since the state department is willing to say that the FBI got
it wrong, do the whole mounty. How about the FBI director got it wrong
when he said she shouldn't be charged? Others say quid pro quo's,
horse trading is what they do in Washington. We're just not used to
watching them make sausage. Come on. But not declassifying and
destroying top-secret information on benghazi which is under federal subpoena to be retained and preserved of a pathological liar who is
running to be commander in chief. Others say this is just what they do in dc : no crime Since
when in the history of American criminal justice does one have to
announce: 'here ye here ye it is my intent to now commit this crime'
before he can be held to account. And if there was no intent to
prevent congress from knowing, answer this: why did no one tell
congress? Of at least the attempt to bribe federal officials or quid pro
quo. The FBI didn't (which makes me think they knew there would be no
charges before they even started¦) Kennedy sure as hell didn't. And I
spoke with one: Trey Gowdy, the chair of the select committee on
benghazi who told me no one reached out to tell him that there was an
attempt to prevent him and congress from getting the information he had subpoenaed."
WHAT PATRICK KENNEDY DID WAS A FELONY AND IT WAS DONE ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTONS.. BECAUSE HUSSEIN OBAMA IS INVOLVED. HE USED A FAKE NAME ON AN UNSECURE SERVER TO COMMUNICATE WITH HILLARY ABOUT SHARING SOME OF THE LOOT IN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION SCAM.
FELONY UNDER... 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1)
the term “public official”
means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either
before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee
or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any
department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the
District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of
any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2)
the term “person who has
been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been
nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially
informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3)
the term “official act”
means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit,
proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which
may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s
official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1)
directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of
value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a
public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person
who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value
to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A)
to influence any official act; or
(B)
to influence such
public official or person who has been selected to be a public official
to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or
make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;
or
(C)
to induce such public
official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to
do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such
official or person;
(2)
being a public official or person selected to be a public official,
directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or
agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any
other person or entity, in return for:
(A)
being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)
being influenced to
commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or
make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;
or
(C)
being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3)
directly or indirectly,
corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or
offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other
person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or
affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial,
hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either
House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer
authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take
testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself
therefrom;
(4)
directly or indirectly,
corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or
accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in
return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a
witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return
for absenting himself therefrom;shall be fined under this title or
not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value,
whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or
both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A)
directly or indirectly
gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official,
former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for
or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such
public official, former public official, or person selected to be a
public official; or
(B)
being a public
official, former public official, or person selected to be a public
official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of
official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts,
or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or
because of any official act performed or to be performed by such
official or person;
(2)
directly or indirectly,
gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or
because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given
by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding,
before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of
Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws
of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or
because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3)
directly or indirectly,
demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath
or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any
such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such
person’s absence therefrom;shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d)
Paragraphs (3) and (4) of
subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be
construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided
by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is
called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and
subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance
at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert
witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such
opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e)
The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
PLEASE SHARE ON PAGES WHERE YOU HAVE CATHOLIC WOMEN..
Can A Catholic Vote For Clinton/Kaine? Attention Catholics: A vote for Clinton/Kaine (with full knowledge and
approval of their declared pro-abortion platform) is a grave mortal sin
and would in-effect be an action of self-excommunication. This is a very serious matter for Catholics and may even require direct confession and absolution from a Bishop.
A Catholic cannot vote for, and in effect participate in, intrinsic
evil. The Clinton/Kaine position and documented policy on ABORTION is
intrinsic evil. Voting for Clinton/Kaine is approval of these heinous
acts. Just to set the record straight: Kaine is confused on the
Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Capital Punishment. Kaine has
professed that the Death Penalty is the equivalent of Abortion. This is
FALSE! Roman Catholic teaching and doctrine on ABORTION is the
equivalent to the murder in the highest degree – the murder of a
helpless innocent child. The Church teaching on the Death Penalty is eloquently explained here in the writings of Saint John Paul the Great:
“It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the
nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and
decided upon, and [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing
the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when
it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as
a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal
system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. —Pope
John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56, emphasis in the original.” Mr. Kaine is confused and creating scandal by espousing an intrinsically evil philosophy and policy. Sen. Kaine’s claim that while he is personally against ABORTION, he must bow to the law of the land.
What if we applied Kaine’s argument to NAZI Germany? Could we condone
the actions or inactions of NAZI officials who were personally opposed
to the Death Camps and Gas Chambers but participated in the genocide
because it was at the direction of der Führer – Adolph Hitler? It was the law of the land – yes? The Church considers ABORTION as the most serious of murders very much on the level of the Holocaust.
Roman Catholics must give this the most serious consideration before
voting for the Clinton/Kaine ticket. It could very well be their ticket
to Hell.
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN’S ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTRY
“[The Emails Illustrate] The Open Anti-Catholic Bigotry Of Her Senior
Advisers, Who Attack The Deeply Held Beliefs And Theology Of Catholics.”
– Joseph Cella, Founder Of The National Catholic Prayer Breakfast
WSJ Opinion: “It’s no secret that progressive elites despise religion,
but it’s still striking to see their contempt expressed so bluntly as in
the leaked email chains that include Clinton campaign chairman John
Podesta.” (WSJ, 10/13/16)
Angela Flood: “It is an attempt to undermine the faith.” (FOX News, 10/13/16)
Raymond Arroyo: “For someone to come and say, ‘I have a political
organization to change your church to complete my political agenda or
advance my agenda,’ I don’t know how anybody could embrace that.” (WaPo,
10/12/16)
Joseph Cella: The emails illustrate “the open
anti-Catholic bigotry of her senior advisers, who attack the deeply held
beliefs and theology of Catholics,” (Catholic News, 10/13/16)
Matt Schlapp: “Hillary likes to say she ‘goes high’ but she and her
campaign are as low as a snake’s belly.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)
Mercedes Schlapp: “the comments are incredibly offensive.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)
Former Ambassador Jim Nicholson: “said the emails left him gasping. ‘I
was greatly offended and disappointed when I read these comments made by
senior members of Hillary Clinton’s staff.’”He said Clinton “absolutely
ought to apologize. No religion should suffer this kind of
denigration.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)
Rep. Mike Kelly
(R-Pa.): “’This attack is not limited to just Catholics.’ He implored on
the public to “call on your bishops, call on your faith-based leaders”
to condemn the remarks.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)
Newt
Gingrich: “’Calista and I both feel this is an assault on Catholics.’ He
referred to Clinton’s “bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic staff.”
(Talk Media News, 10/12/16)
Calista Gingrich: “extremely offensive.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)
Speaker Paul Ryan: “If anything, these statements reveal the Clinton
campaign’s hostile attitude toward people of faith in general. … All
Americans of faith should take a long, hard look at this and decide if
these are the values we want to be represented in our next president.”
(Fortune, 10/13/16)
CNN: “Dozens of religious leaders who
signed the statement expressed their ‘outrage at the demeaning and
troubling rhetoric used by those within Secretary Clinton’s campaign.’”
(CNN, 10/14/16)
Bill Donohue: “Yesterday, I stopped short of
asking Hillary Clinton to fire John Podesta, her campaign chairman. In
light of the latest Wikileaks revelations, she has no choice but to cut
all ties with this man. The man is hell bent on creating mutiny in the
Catholic Church and must therefore be fired.” (Newsmax, 10/13/16)
Washington Times: Clinton campaign mocks Catholics, Southerners, ‘needy
Latinos’ in emails “Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of
Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and
liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other
groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window
into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before
Election Day.” (Washington Times, 10/12/16)
Kellyanne Conway:
“For 30 years Hillary Clinton has been openly hostile to practicing
Catholics,” she said, citing Clinton’s support of partial birth abortion
and the ObamaCare contraception mandate. “Now her staff is caught
calling Catholics ‘backwards’ in emails seething with disdain.” (FOX
News, 10/13/16)
SO...BE HONEST...WHAT DO YOUR INSTINCTS TELL YOU ?? IS HILLARY CLINTON A CROOK AND A LIAR?
WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS A FIRE. "The phrase 'where there's smoke there's fire' means that if something
looks wrong then it probably is wrong -- just like if you see smoke
there probably is a fire somewhere. ... When the signs of trouble are
there, then that means that trouble is probably there as well."
Clear enough? The Clintons have been lighting and trying to put out
"fires" started by the combustible material of their shifting ethics and
morals long before Bill was governor of Arkansas. Earliest memory
recalls Hillary making a killing in the cattle futures market.
Clinton has lied so many times on so many subjects that she makes
husband Bill (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”) look
like an honest man. Hillary Clinton has a proven track record of
scandalous dealings, both past and present. IT JUST CANNOT BE A SIMPLE
CASE OF being in the wrong place, at the wrong time;
FACT IS THERE more to Hillary’s past… SHE IS A CROOK.. YES WORSE THAN HER HUSBAND IN MANY WAYS.
These scandals make Hillary unfit for the role of Commander in Chief!
Check out Hillary’s some of the most notorious scandals, and decide for yourself. WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS A FIRE.
1. Email Server Scandal
Hillary has always had email issues. Not that she’s not good with a
keyboard but more to do with “privacy.” During her time as Secretary of
State, she send some emails via a private server when she worked from
her New York residence. As such, her aides were able to decide which
emails to turn over to the State Department, when requested, and which
emails they did not. Due to the secretive and often sensitive nature of
some of those emails, this is one of many of Hillary’s scandals.
2. Paula Jones Scandal
Paula Jones was a government worker in Arkansas, who alleged she was
sexually harassed by Bill Clinton when he was a governor there. She
filed a suit in 1994 looking for just under a million dollars in
damages, although the case was settles out of court. Many years later,
in 2015, the same Paula Jones told reporters that she believed that
Hillary Clinton knew all about the sexual harassment yet did nothing and
simply supported her husband.
3. FBI Background Scandal
After the Clinton administration was found to have more than 700 FBI
background reports on their rivals, the Republicans, all sorts of
questions were raised. One big question was that of the director of the
Office of Personnel Security, Craig Livingstone, and how he came to have
that high-profile job. As the story goes it was Hillary who pushed for
him to get the job as she was close buddies with his mother.
4. Norman Hsu Scandal
For those of you who don’t know, Norman Hsu was a big contributor and
fundraiser for the Democrat party during Hillary Clinton’s Presidential
campaign of 2008. He was the man who collected contributions to the
party, from a variety of “sources” and went a long way to promoting
Hillary. However, Clinton was left with egg on her face when it turned
out that HSU was a criminal, and more than that a fugitive, who had been
scamming people and businesses for many long years.
5. Vince Foster Scandal
This chap, a well-known Arkansas lawyer, was a childhood friend of Bill
Clinton and also worked closely with Hillary at Rose Law Firm during
the 1970s. When Bill became President he joined the administration as
the deputy White House counsel. Foster was known to suffer from
depression and in the July of 1993 he allegedly committed suicide in his
Virginia Park home with a single gunshot. Most said it was suicide,
while many claimed it had something to do with Hillary and Bill and some
“foul play.”
6. Jorge Cabrera Scandal Jorge Cabrera was a
supported of the Democrats in the mid-90s and even wrote them a
personal check of $20,000. During that time he was even seen in
pictures, taken by the press along with the then-First Lady. However,
just a few short months later and Cabrera was arrested in a drug bust in
Miami and was given 19 years behind bars.
7. Sniper Fire Scandal
When she was First Lady as her husband sat in the Oval Office at the
White House, Hillary went on an official visit to Bosnia and met with
American troops stationed there. On her return she told the press that
she had herself come under sniper fire and could have been killed at the
airport when she arrived. Just one week later and Hillary took back
those comments claiming she had “made a mistake” in the recounting of
what actually happened.
8. Personal Email Scandal When she
was Secretary of State, Hillary also used a personal email address but
used it to conduct official business. She allegedly used her personal
email to conduct all of her official business. She claimed she never
used her personal email to send or receive “classified” information but
no one is sure of the real truth about this scandal.
9. Travelgate Scandal
Just a few months after Bill Clinton entered the White House the
well-known Travelgate scandal ensued. It started in the spring of 1993
when seven White House employees were fired for questionable accounting
practices. Apparently Hillary knew all about the sudden firings way
before they actually happened and may well have had a part in them.
10. Monica Lewinsky Scandal
Everyone remembers this one, as the relationship between Bill and
Monica, who worked closely with him at the White House came out. She was
only an intern at the time, and apparently had sexual relations with
Bill, even though he was married. Hillary totally denied that her
husband did anything untoward and said on the record that the whole
thing had been a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
11. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Scandal
When the Clinton administration handed over the keys of the White House
to the incoming Bush administration, allegations of “damage, theft,
vandalism and pranks” were in abundance. When the Clinton’s moved from
the White House to their New York home they allegedly took items from
the White House which they shouldn’t have, totaling a shocking $190,000.
The couple ultimately returned the items, but the scandal lived on.
12. Whitewater Scandal
Whitewater is the generic term for a bunch of scandals attributed to
the Clintons. For example, they purchased a few hundred acres of land
with their personal friends Jim and Susan McDougal along the White River
in the Ozarks. That deal failed and many shady business dealings came
out. This scandal led on to the Lewinsky scandal and was seen as “the
first domino” that plagued the Clintons for years to come.
13. Clinton Foundation Scandal
Many people have heard of the Clinton Foundation, which was set up by
Bill after he left the White House. The foundation was meant to be a
nonprofit operation and was set to deal with issues like global warming
and climate change. Many alleged at the time that the Clintons used the
foundation to forward their own personal agendas. It culminated in
allegations of back handers and dodgy dealings which prevail to this
day.
14. Benghazi Scandal This is one of the most famous
scandals that Hillary Clinton found herself embroiled in. Back in 2012,
four Americans were killed during attacks on a US diplomatic compound in
Benghazi, including the then-Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Hillary
Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State was bought into question due to
her various email accounts and the way she used them.
15. Cattle Money Scandal
This scandal dates back to the 1970s when Hillary Clinton made a tidy
profit of $100,000 trading on the cattle futures market. She was in
cahoots with a personal friend at the time who worked for Tyson Foods
Inc. Apparently, according to a New York Times article from 1994, Tyson
Foods received $9 million in government loans, deeming the whole sage
very unsavory and questionable.
16. Clinton Speeches Scandal
It’s not just Bill who made a packet for giving 45 minute speeches at
various institutions, but also daughter Chelsea, and of course, wife
Hillary Clinton. While Chelsea’s standard fee in 2014 was around the
$65,000 mark, Hillary reported a personal income of a staggering $11
million for a total of 51 speeches she gave in just a year. If that’s
not scandalous nothing is!
THE POLLS ARE WRONG... THE POLLSTERS KNOW IT.. History is on our side and AMERICA knows what it needs to do in the end.
OCTOBER 23rd 2016...
New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"
SO are even #billoreilly and #Chriswallace just too stupid to do the research?
BREAKING FROM WIKILEAKS: CLINTON CAMPAIGN BRIBES #LEFTYMEDIA TO RIG THE POLLS.
Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls
are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked
earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to
"manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for
recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what
we get out of our media polling." I also
want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling
before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this
all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we
get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following
poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics
and Native Americans is highly recommended: Research, microtargeting & polling projects - Over-sample Hispanics - Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets) - Over-sample the Native American population.
Earlier we wrote posted the obvious
sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a
12-point national advantage for Hillary. Like many of the recent polls
from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.
"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and
cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a
random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of
sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan
divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."
Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage
of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this
latest poll. Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference
across demographics one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one
group vs. another. As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that
Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters.
Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points.
Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of
their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the
bias...convenient. Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email,
leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly
how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a
request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."
I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects - Over-sample Hispanics - Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets) - Over-sample the Native American population
For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters."
Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently
more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas
in those cities first.
- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state. - On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."
- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions - Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed - Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed
DO NOT FRET.. JUST KEEP SPREADING THE WORD IN SOCIAL MEDIA.
TRUMP WILL WIN.. UNLESS GEORGE SORROS AND THE DEMOCRATS RIG THE VOTING MACHINES IN SWING STATES.
FOR DETAILS ON HOW THE POLLING IS A FRAUD CLICK ON MY BLOG HERE http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2016/10/polling-your-leg-whole-polling-scam-by.html This years elections are different from the 1980 elections in that the Media were not blatantly for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump. So the polls reflect that 100%. The Mood on the Ground is totally different. AMERICANS KNOW WHAT TO DO. Keep Spreading the truth.
The Media does not have the exponential power of our joint network of Americans.
Confidence in the press is low compared to most other institutions. Only Politicians fare worse than the Media.
YOU CAN SEE WHY.. THEY ARE ALL CROOKS
Confidence in the press is low compared to most other institutions
A great deal of confidence
Only some confidence
Hardly any confidence
Military
48%
45%
6%
Scientific community
35%
53%
10%
Supreme Court
26%
59%
14%
Organized religion
20%
56%
24%
Banks and financial institutions
17%
59%
24%
Press
6%
52%
41%
Congress
4%
46%
50%
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE MEDIA REPORTING HAS NEXT TO ZERO VALUE .. ONLY THE MONKEYS WHO WANT HILLARY BELIEVE THEIR BIASED BULLSHIT.
In a Gallup poll on October 26th in 1980, two weeks before the election,
Gallup had it Jimmy Carter 47, Ronald Reagan 39. That election two
weeks later ended up in a landslide that was so big that Carter conceded
before California closed. United States presidential election, 1980
Incumbent President Jimmy Carter initially had a huge lead in the
polls, due to the rally-around-the flag effect of the Iranian hostage
crisis and the perceived extremism of Reagan. The continuing hostage
crisis and the poor economy hurt Carter, and the prospect John B. Anderson
running as an independent appealed to around 20% of Americans who saw
Carter as a lesser evil to Reagan. As a result, Anderson took a third of
Carter's support in the spring, but did not seem to hurt Reagan,
despite Anderson being a Republican. Carter would never recover this
loss of support, while Reagan would end up peeling around two-thirds of
initial Anderson voters. This race remained close until near the end,
when Reagan asked Americans if they were better off than they were four
years ago. Afterwards Reagan managed to win a huge landslide victory in
the general election.[15] SO I SAY TO ALL OF YOU ..
Joshua 1:9
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”
Published on Oct 17, 2016. THIS MUST BE SHARED WITH WOMEN WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR HILLARY.. SHAME ON THEM !
Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
In
this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic
dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the
DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies
that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process
called birddogging.
A shady coordinated communications chain
between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC
(Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton
operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’
legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
Website: http://projectveritasaction.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVerit...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/@Pveritas_Action
SHARE WITH ALL MAJOR NEWS MEDIA. ON THEIR FACEBOOK PAGES, ON THEIR TWITTER FEED. ON THEO COMMENTS SECTION OF THE WEBSITES!
These Fuckers have been at it for 20 years. Many of you are just waking up to the facts!
