JOE BIDEN: CROOKED, SLEEPY, SLY, SLICK AND CREEPY

Joe Biden Corruption 

Biden's history of corruption

"A bank account that Hunter Biden drew a lot of money from and that a lot of foreign entities put a lot of money into," the author noted. "Just to give you an idea, over a 14-month period, from 2014 through early 2016, while Joe Biden is vice president of the United States, a Ukrainian company called Burisma — it's controlled by a very corrupt oligarch — sends three million dollars into this account."

"A Chinese government entity called Bohai Harvest — which is run by the Bank of China — sends $650,000 into this account," Schweizer added. "There's $1.2 million that comes from an LLC with a small boutique Swiss bank. We don't know who's behind the LLC. The bank itself has been charged in six countries for money laundering, so that makes it kind of sketchy."

How does this connect to Joe Biden? Not only was the elder Biden vice president at the time, but he was directly involved with the countries his son struck deals with.

"If you look at the trajectory of Joe Biden as vice president, he was essentially U.S. point person on Chinese policy, and he was widely criticized for going very soft on them as it related to the South China Sea," Schweizer said. "That’s at the same time his son is getting large checks from the Chinese government."

"Joe Biden is also point person on U.S. policy towards Ukraine, at the same time that his son is getting large checks from the Ukrainian government. And he’s accused of looking the other way at fraudulent behavior and corruption with the government of Ukraine," the author added.

As Biden and Kerry Went Soft on China, Sons Made Nuclear, Military Business Deals with Chinese Gov't

"Joe Biden, every year he’s vice president, he has to disclose his income. Assuming those disclosures are honest, he can’t have a big fat check from the Chinese government in that disclosure form. But this adult son, Hunter Biden? He doesn’t have to disclose anything."Schweizer's recent book is a must-read. The investigative journalist documented a great deal of corruption, but Joe Biden and Barack Obama came under the most scrutiny. Biden's son Hunter and John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz both profited from their father's soft policy towards China. Hunter Biden also reaped rewards from his father's blind eye to Ukraine corruption. Obama's policies enriched his best friend — and now head of the Obama Foundation.

 YES PEOPLE FOLLOW THE MONEY

Obama's Crooked Deals. Follow the Money Trail People!

OBAMA GETS KICK BACKS FOR ALL HIS DEALS

Obama Regulations on For-Profit Colleges, Finance, Railroads, and Airlines All Profited His Best Friend.

Barack Obama led regulatory attacks on numerous industries during his tenure at the White House. In many cases, his regulations — ostensibly to protect the public good — tanked the stock of various companies, enabling his close friends to swoop in and buy them for pennies on the dollar. Perhaps no figure best represents this "smash and grab" technique better than Marty Nesbitt, now head of the Obama Foundation.

Nesbitt first met Obama back in the 1980s, after playing basketball with Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson, at Princeton University. While at business school in Chicago, he met Obama playing basketball. When Obama ran for Congress in 2000, Nesbitt served as campaign chairman. He also fundraised for Obama's state Senate and U.S. Senate campaigns, and served as his campaign chairman in 2008.

Nesbitt's wife supposedly delivered Obama's two daughters although the rupors abound that Michelle did not birth them! His family frequently vacationed with the Obamas in Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard. Nesbitt became chairman of the Obama Foundation in 2014. The Chicago Tribune has branded Nesbitt "the First Friend."

Obama's policies enabled Nesbitt to swoop in and profit after companies felt the regulatory fire of the White House.

Nesbitt even formed a firm called Vistria, aimed to capitalize on "the nexus of the public and private sectors." He filed for the trademark shortly after Obama's reelection, and ten days before joining the Obamas for Christmas in Hawaii.

“Obama and his administration would attack industries with government power, which led to substantially lower valuations for these companies. Nesbitt and Vistria, or others close to Obama, could then acquire those assets for pennies on the dollar," Schweizer explains. Nesbitt followed this pattern in at least four industries targeted by Obama.

In 2013, President Obama turned his ire toward for-profit colleges. He declared that students were being "preyed upon very badly," and accused these schools of "making out like a bandit." For all their faults, for-profit schools have their defenders, and Nesbitt himself would later invest in America's largest one..

The Obama administration began the push in 2011, when the Department of Education (DOE) announced the so-called gainful employment rule, requiring for-profit schools to track job placements for graduates. DOE meetings to craft regulations included Deputy Education Secretary Tony Miller and Secretary Arne Duncan, both of whom would later join Vistria.

The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sounded the alarm about emails showing that senior DOE officials were communicating with hedge fund investors planning to "short" for-profit stocks based on these rules.

In his second term, Obama's administration pushed "a broader series of crackdowns on the industry by agencies including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)."

The regulatory onslaught hit Apollo Education Group, which operated America's largest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix, particularly hard. In July 2015, the FTC announced an investigation into Apollo, and in October, the Department of Defense (DOD) put the University of Phoenix on probation.

This DOD attack suspended the University of Phoenix at military bases across the country and cut off the school's $2-4 billion per year in taxpayer funds. The soldiers, sailors, and Marines attending the school lost their GI Bill benefits, leaving some bereft of housing payments — and some homeless -- as a result.

According to Schweizer, about 15 schools committed similar offenses to the University of Phoenix, but the Pentagon only suspended four of them, including this largest school.

Thanks to these attacks, Apollo's stock price dropped from $11.29 per share in October 2015 to $6.38 by January 2016. The January price represented a 90 percent drop from January 2009 when Obama took office.

The "smash" had been carried out, and it became time for the "grab." Obama-connected investors swooped in. The Wall Street firm Apollo Global Management (not previously affiliated with Apollo Education Group), another firm called Najafi Companies, and ... Marty Nesbitt's Vistria Group teamed up to buy the company. The purchase required DOE approval, but Vistria's Paul Miller used to be a senior official there.

Vistria and its partners hired an attorney to lobby the Pentagon, and the suspension was lifted in January 2016.

In December 2016, the Obama administration approved the sale, but the DOE required a few conditions — most notably a signed letter of credit valued at 25 percent of the federal funding the University of Phoenix would receive from student loans and grants. Vistria and its co-investors objected. On December 20, just weeks before Obama left office, the requirement was dropped to 10 percent.

Apollo Global Management, Najafi, and Vistria bought the University of Phoenix for just $10 a share, at $1.14 billion. Before the Obama administration's regulatory onslaught, the company was worth almost nine times that price.

Tony Miller, who had been the number two official at the DOE, became the chairman of the board. Arne Duncan set up an office at Vistria's headquarters in Chicago.

"It's ironic that a former senior official at the Department of Education — an agency that has intentionally targeted and sought to dismantle the for-profit college industry—would now take the reins at the country's largest for-profit college," said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.). Diane Jones, a DOE official under former President George W. Bush, told Schweizer these changing terms were highly unusual.

President Obama's best friend Marty Nesbitt also jumped into the financial industry after Obama's regulations brought it to heel.

The president turned his ire against the cash advance industry, which provided short-term loans to individuals and businesses. Many abuses had taken place in the industry, but in 2011 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported that more than 33 million households were unbanked or underbanked. This industry plays a vital role in the economy.

Even so, under Obama, the DOJ teamed up with the CFPB in December 2012 to target what it deemed to be financial crimes. They formed a new agency, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF). The DOJ also launched Operation Choke Point in 2013, targeting banks and the business they do with payday lenders, payment processors, and other financial companies.

In response, banks terminated their accounts with payday lenders. Cash advance firms began to shrink. Regular banks stopped offering cash advances.

Amid this crackdown, however, ForwardLine Financial, a company founded in 2003 to extend alternative financing solutions to small businesses, adapted to the new rules. In October 2015, none other than Obama best friend Marty Nesbitt became FrontLine Financial's board chairman. Vistria associate Michael Castleforte also joined the board.

Early on, Vistria had hired Obama's former deputy assistant for legislative affairs, Jon Samuels. Samuels had worked on the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. Fortune magazine noted Samuels' hiring at the time, reporting that he "doesn't appear to have any experience working in the financial services industry. Rather, Samuels has made his career in politics."

As of June 2017, FrontLine boasted that it finances "98% of U.S. businesses that banks consider too small and too risky for a business loan." Its competitors had been effectively smashed, and it seems FrontLine had been grabbed by Obama's best friend.

The Obama administration also targeted the railway industry, which had been deregulated back in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. Roughly thirty years later, Obama sought to tax and regulate the industry.

In its 2012 report to the SEC, Norfolk Southern Railroad noted, "Efforts have been made over the past several years to re-subject the rail industry to increased federal economic regulation, and such efforts are expected to continue in 2013." The Surface Transportation Board (STB) became a wholly independent federal agency, with widespread control over railroads' environmental, safety, and security practices.

Mere weeks after President Obama was sworn in for his second term, Norfolk Southern announced that Obama best friend Marty Nesbitt was joining their corporate board. He had no background in railroads or transportation, but his 2015 compensation was $278,937.

Nesbitt took part in at least one other "smash and grab," Schweizer notes. Just as Obama's best friend joined the board of Norfolk Southern, American Airlines was facing bankruptcy, and announced a merger with US Airways. The Obama DOJ filed suit to stop the merger.

A whopping sixty-five Democratic congressmen and congresswomen signed a letter in support of American. While the Obama administration backed down from this attack, American Airlines struggled with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the administration launched a federal investigation into price gouging in July 2015.

American Airlines also lobbied the federal government to "shield us from competition and roll back consumer protections." On October 17, 2015, the merger between American Airlines and US Airways took place. Less than a month later, Obama's best friend Marty Nesbitt joined the board of directors.

As with Norfolk Southern, Nesbitt had no experience in the airline industry. In 2016, he took home $395,704 as a member of the board for American Airlines.

"Today, as chairman of the Obama Foundation, Marty Nesbitt is, as Politico puts it, 'the man building Barack Obama's future.' From an empire-building perspective, this payback makes sense, given that Obama has already helped Nesbitt build his legacy," Schweizer concludes.

Schweizer includes many stories of Obama's "smash and grab" technique. "A circle of investors including Vistria and others linked to Obama would consistently purchase companies in these sectors once their valuations dropped under the government onslaught," the author writes. Other investors besides Nesbitt cashed in on the financial crackdown, and many more made bank in the energy industry thanks to new regulations.

Nesbitt is far from alone, but as Obama's friend and the head of the Obama Foundation, his corruption proves particularly egregious. In his powerful book, Schweizer also reveals multiple scandals involving Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, leading congressmen,

 

THE FAILED ROBERT MUELLER REPORT.. READ ALL THE DISTORTION IN IT!

5 Intentional Discrepancies Expose the Evil Relentless effort to Discredit Trump.

It was a crooked Report set up to try and destroy the integrity of Donald Trump and remove him from office through impeachment because the other BULLSHIT did not work!

FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL
Click this link for Theory of "WHY"
https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2019/04/obama-directed-spying-of-trump-here-is.html

The Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by the lawyers working under former special counsel Robert Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.
Additionally, we now know that sections of the report were also selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report, and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.
Lastly, there are troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.
What makes these examples particularly notable is that access to the underlying material used in the Mueller report is extremely limited. In each of the instances where information is publicly available—documents released in the ongoing Flynn case, a rebuttal letter from lawyers for the individual mentioned in the Mueller report, and details surrounding the Papadopoulos case—they highlight inconsistencies, thereby raising concerns that Mueller’s report may be hiding many more such problems.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) highlighted the Dowd transcript in a May 31 tweet, saying, “This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…”

Selective Editing in President’s Lawyer’s Voicemail

Contained within the executive summary to Volume II of the report, which pertains to Mueller’s obstruction investigation, is a section dedicated to an interaction between Dowd and attorneys for Flynn.
As previously reported, “the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail from Trump’s lawyer to Flynn’s lawyer was prompted by Flynn’s withdrawal from a joint defense agreement with Trump, in order to enter a plea agreement with the special counsel. The Mueller report states that Flynn’s attorneys returned the call the next day.”

Flynn’s attorneys reportedly told the special counsel that “the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement” and also stated that Dowd told them that he interpreted what they said to him as “a reflection of Flynn’s hostility toward the president,” Flynn’s attorneys also reportedly said they “understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.”

Notably, Dowd was never interviewed by the special counsel, who cited attorney-client privilege issues as the reason in a footnote within the report. Dowd’s voicemail was edited in the presentation within the Mueller report to appear as follows:

“I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. … [I]t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with … the government. … [I]f … there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, … so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can …. [R]emember what we’ ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains …”

This somewhat menacing version leaves out important details and distorts the actual context of Dowd’s voicemail. Dowd’s full message was actually far more friendly and touched on two distinctly separate matters. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dowd specifically cautioned Flynn’s attorney that he wasn’t requesting any confidential information:

“Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I’m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that. .. implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.”

The Dowd discrepancies were first discovered by a researcher on the internet who goes under the Twitter name Rosie Memos.
Dowd himself also responded to a fellow attorney on Twitter with a short statement on the discrepancy in the report, noting “It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel – with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed.”
Dowd also issued a more formal statement, in which he noted that he had “provided to Flynn’s counsel, advice and encouragement to provide to the SC as part of his effort to cooperate with SC. SC never raised or questioned the President’s counsel about these allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so.”
In a recent interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Dowd noted, “Isn’t it ironic that this man who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes committed a false statement in his own report. By taking out half my words, they changed the tenor and the contents of that conversation with [Flynn lawyer] Robert Kelner.”

The Rtskhiladze Texts

Another example of selected editing exists in a short sequence detailing communications between former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who was born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and has been a US citizen since 2017.
The Mueller report, which incorrectly refers to Rtskhiladze as a “Russian businessman,” contains excerpts of some texts between the two men:
“On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know …. “
Rtskhiladze said ” tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump, rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia.

Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze.
Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”
In a strongly worded 10-page letter to Attorney General William Barr that includes attachments with photos of the actual texts, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze walked through each allegation and provided more lengthy rebuttals. The attorney noted that Rtskhiladze indicated to Cohen “that there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes, and that he did not believe there were any tapes, nor had he seen what was on the tapes, even if they existed.”
The Mueller report also removed the word “some” from the text transcript.  The original text exchange read “some tapes,” indicating Rtskhiladze did not know actual details about the tapes. Follow-on dialogue that provided context was also removed by the special counsel, but was highlighted by Rtskhiladze’s lawyer in the letter to Barr:
Rtskhiladze: Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so u know.
Cohen: Tapes of what?
Rtskhiladze: Not sure of content but person in Moscow bragging [that he] had tapes from Russia trip. Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware. I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people.
Cohen: You have no idea.
Rtskhiladze: I do trust me.
It seems clear from the actual texts that Rtskhiladze didn’t know what was on the tapes nor did he know exactly who said they had them. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer specifically noted that Rtskhiladze “does not know and cannot identify who allegedly made the statements about the tapes.”
Rtskhiladze’s lawyer noted that this information was specifically conveyed to the special counsel lawyers, and that both the FBI and the attorneys who authored the report are in possession of all the text messages between Rtskhiladze and Cohen. He closed his letter with a demand for a “full and immediate retraction of these gross misstatements.”

Papadopoulos’s Meeting With Downer

In the sequence of events surrounding George Papadopoulos’ meeting with Alexander Downer, there is a small discrepancy in dates. Papadopoulos was a low-level adviser to the Trump campaign during the 2016 elections. His meeting with Downer, who at the time was Australia’s top diplomat in the UK, has been credited as the reason why the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.
The Mueller report notes that “On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Joseph Mifsud is a Maltese academic who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt “in the form of thousands of Clinton emails.”
Publicly available information has always shown that Papadopoulos met with Downer on May 10th—and both Downer and the Australian government appear to stand by this date.

While it might appear that the difference in dates is small, it becomes more significant in the context of two different meetings that took place on or about May 6, ahead of the Downer meeting on May 10th.
On May 5 or 6, 2016, immediately following an interview with The Times of London—in which Papadopoulos said then-Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for calling Trump “divisive, stupid, and wrong”—two Americans from the U.S. embassy in the UK, Gregory Baker and Terrence Dudley, reached out to him and they met for dinner.

“They’re spending a lot of money on me, they’re probing me, they’re asking me about my ties in the Middle East. They’re asking me about what Trump wants to do with Russia,” Papadopoulos noted during a Nov. 2, 2018, interview with podcast host Dan Bongino. Papadopoulos said he was “just deflecting them” throughout the entire dinner.
Why did these men reach out to Papadopoulos and what U.S. agencies did they represent? And who instructed the two men to reach out to Papadopoulos in the first place?

The day following Papadopoulos’ meeting with the two Americans, he was contacted by Erika Thompson, who wrote to him: “Hi George, I would just like to let you know that Alexander Downer just wants to meet with you.” Thompson, who was previously introduced to Papadopoulos by her boyfriend, an Israeli diplomat named Christian Cantor, has been described by Papadopoulos as an Australian intelligence officer and an assistant to Downer. Sources have denied to Australian media that Thompson is an ASIS agent, but is instead a “mainstream DFAT officer.”
As Papadopoulos correctly noted in his interview with Bongino, Downer “isn’t a random low-level Australian diplomat. This man ran the equivalent of the CIA in Australia for 17 years. He was the foreign minister and he was their biggest diplomat in London.”
Interestingly, nowhere in the July 28, 2017, affidavit and the Oct. 5, 2017, Statement of the Offense from the Papadopoulos case is the meeting with Downer, Thompson, or Baker and Dudley mentioned.
The discrepancy in the dates, as well as the omission of the other key meetings in the Mueller report, point to either an intent to obscure and conflate certain events, or outright sloppiness on the part of the report’s authors.

Rosenstein, Sessions Discussed Need to Remove Comey

The firing of former FBI Director James Comey features prominently in Volume II of the Mueller report, as does the role of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but again several critical bits of information appear to have been left out. The Mueller report notes that former White House counsel Don McGahn sought out the views of both Sessions and Rosenstein during a May 8, 2017, meeting that also included Jody Hunt, who was Sessions’ chief of staff:
“Sessions, Rosenstein, and Hunt met with McGahn and White House Counsel’s Office attorney Uttam Dhillon at the White House. McGahn said that the President had decided to fire Comey and asked for Sessions’ and Rosenstein’s views. Sessions and Rosenstein criticized Comey and didn’t raise concerns about replacing him.
McGahn and Dhillon said the fact that neither Sessions nor Rosenstein objected to replacing Comey gave them peace of mind that the President’s decision to fire Comey was not an attempt to obstruct justice.”

The report also noted that “Hunt, who was in the room, recalled that Sessions responded that he had previously recommended that Comey be replaced. McGahn and Dhillon said Rosenstein described his concerns about Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.”

While the report does acknowledge that Hunt remembered Sessions saying he had previously recommended Comey be fired, no further details surrounding this recommendation are provided. And left out of the report was the fact that Rosenstein and Sessions had discussed the need to fire Comey as far back as Sessions’ nomination for Attorney General—and well before Rosenstein’s April 25, 2017, confirmation as DAG.
On May 19, 2017, Rosenstein testified before Congress, stating: “On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader.” As for the memo he wrote recommending Comey be fired, Rosenstein said: “I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it.”
Rosenstein then testified that he had discussed removing Comey with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions prior to Sessions’ confirmation as attorney general:
“In one of my first meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements, and eliminate leaks.”
Rosenstein and Sessions had both thought Comey needed to be removed as FBI director long before the president took action to fire him. Although their reasons for the need to fire Comey may have differed from the president, these opinions—likely voiced to the president directly—add additional context to Comey’s firing that is missing from the report.

Why Was Nader Allowed to Leave Country

Another issue that has arisen is the testimony of George Nader, who is mentioned more than 100 times in the Mueller report. Nader, who worked as an adviser for the United Arab Emirates, arranged a meeting between Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national who heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, and Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, during the transition period following the 2016 presidential election.
The Mueller report notes that “Nader provided information to the Office in multiple interviews, all but one of which were conducted under a proffer agreement.” Proffer or “queen for a day” letters are agreements under which individuals who are under criminal investigation can provide prosecutors with information with some assurances against prosecution.
Nader wasn’t the only individual to receive a proffer agreement—both Prince and former senior White House adviser Steve Bannon were also interviewed under similar terms. Neither Prince nor Bannon has been charged or referred for any crime by the special counsel.

George Nader, then-president of Middle East Insight, in a 1998 C-SPAN video. (C-SPAN via AP, File)

Although the media has frequently reported Nader as being tied solely to the Trump campaign, this description is inaccurate. The Mueller report notes that “Nader developed contacts with both U.S. presidential campaigns during the 2016 election” and ABC News reported that Nader “had frequent access to almost every White House — Democrat and Republican — since President Ronald Reagan was in office — except for the Obama White House — sources and records showed.”
Nader was arrested June 3 on charges of possessing child pornography on one of his cell phones. The sequence of events leading to his arrest is telling. On Jan. 17, 2018, Nader was interviewed by FBI agents on a matter unrelated to the current charges. At the conclusion of the interview, Nader was notified of a search warrant for his phones.

The FBI already had the serial numbers of all three phones, although one phone was mistakenly identified as an iPhone 6+, when it was actually an iPhone 7. Although not definitive, the fact that the FBI had the serial numbers of Nader’s three phones suggest there may have been some sort of surveillance prior to his January interview.
On Feb. 12, 2018, the phones were searched for evidence under the search warrant, which was unrelated to any matters of child pornography. It was at this point that the child pornography was discovered and referred to the charging agent.
On March 8, 2018, journalist Natasha Bertrand broke the story of 1985 child pornography allegations against Nader, as was recently pointed out by an internet researcher on Twitter. On March 15, 2018, the Associated Press reported that Nader had been convicted by Prague’s Municipal Court of 10 cases of sexually abusing minors and sentenced to a one-year prison term in May 2003. He was later expelled from the country.
On March 16, a search warrant was obtained by the FBI to allow for the search of Nader’s phone for child pornography; the same day, a Politico article detailed a 1991 conviction of Nader for child pornography. On April 19, 2018, a sealed complaint was filed against Nader for possession of child pornography, although Nader was no longer in the country. He didn’t return to the United States until June 3, when he was arrested. If convicted on the charges, Nader faces a minimum of 15 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years.
Representing him during what was reported as seven interviews with staff of the office of the special counsel was Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under Obama and had previously worked with Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on the Mueller team, on the Enron Task Force.
According to the Washington Post, following Nader’s initial FBI interview at Dulles Airport, “over the following weeks, Nader began to cooperate with authorities, providing grand jury testimony about his interactions with Trump supporters, according to people familiar with the matter.” Given that Nader’s cooperation with the special counsel appears to have occurred through at least February, Nader’s possession of child pornography was known to at least some within the FBI while Nader was providing testimony to Mueller’s team.
If accurate, this raises substantial questions as to why Nader was later allowed to leave the country, given the Feb. 12, 2018, discovery of the child pornography on his phone.
The larger question raised by these issues is the notable omission of critical details within the Mueller report—many of them taking place in Volume II, which deals with issues of obstruction.
If it’s this easy to uncover discrepancies with limited public information, one wonders what may exist in comparison to underlying source documents.

Expose the FRAUD OF THE CENTURY! It was soft coup to cover the tracks of the Cabal who stole from America for 8 years before the Landmark election of Donald Trump!

SOCIAL MEDIA AND CHINA WILL ATTEMPT TO STEAL THE 2020 ELECTIONS. They will cut us off from communicating with one another. Here is a list of ways to stay connected when the empowered Social Media Giants censor you. Its not an "If". Its a "when"!

How To Communicate with your conservative allies when the Silicon Valley Oligarchs and China Censor us completely in 2020. Yes they will Censor even those who think they are "safe" today! Watch out talking Heads!

 

I am warning you that the Democrats and the left are planning a massive election season heist in 2020. Do not get too cocky. Here is a list of ways to stay connected in the event access to media is Censored by the controlling Silicon Valley Oligarchs! They are preparing to stop us from winning in 2020.

  Scenario

Its 2020... Donald Trump is running away with the Reelections and The FAKE NEWS MEDIA JUMP INTO ACTION WITH FAKE STORIES AND THEY DO NOT WANT CONSERVATIVES TO BE ABLE TO REACT, COMMUNICATE AND AT WORSE TAKE UP ARMS TO FIGHT BACK. They have set up the fake voters, the newly dead, the bogus Id's, the voter rolls filled with illegal voters, the judges primed and ready to order illegal voting actions. Its coming. Make no mistake .. they misfired in 2016... they will not get it wrong in 2020. Its like the Islamist who got it wrong on the World Trade Center in 2008 and fixed and got it right the next time with disastrous consequences! The Democrats and the Chinese are working on a plan. Hell I don't know what its going to be.. but its coming!

Like Romeo said in the Play by Shakespeare...

 “I fear, too early: for my mind misgives Some consequence yet hanging in the stars Shall bitterly begin his fearful date With this night's revels and expire the term Of a despised life closed in my breast By some vile forfeit of untimely death.” (Shakespeare 1.4.106-111)

I could be talking about America! 

So People start with this...Communication is KEY RIGHT ?
Facebook and Twitter and Google are displeased with the communication going on in your location and pulls the plug on your internet access, most likely by telling the major ISPs to turn off service Or using algorithms to completely render your posts dead in the ether! Happened to me. Happened to many of you! It can happen to all of our politicians. It could happen to Donald Trump.

This is what happened in Egypt Jan. 25 prompted by citizen protests, with sources estimating that the Egyptian government cut off approximately 88 percent of the country’s internet access. What do you do without internet? Step 1: Stop crying in the corner. Then start taking steps to reconnect with your network. Here’s a list of things you can do to keep the communication flowing.
 PREVENTIVE MEASURES: MAKE YOUR NETWORK TANGIBLE Print out your contact list, so your phone numbers aren’t stuck in the cloud. Some mail services like Gmail allow you to export your online contact list in formats that are more conducive to paper, such as CSV or Vcard, and offer step-by-step guides on how to do this. Keep them off line and on hard copy!
 BROADCAST ON THE RADIO: CB Radio: Short for “Citizens Band” radio, these two-way radios allow communication over short distances on 40 channels. You can pick one up for about $20 to $50 at Radio Shack, and no license is required to operate it. GET ONE NOW !
Ham radio: To converse over these radios, also known as “amateur radios,” you have to obtain an operator’s license from the FCC. Luckily, other Wired How-To contributors have already explained exactly what you need to do to get one and use it like a pro. However, if the President declares a State of Emergency, use of the radio could be extremely restricted or prohibited. GMRS: The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is a licensed land-mobile FM UHF radio service in the United States available for short-distance two-way communication. It is intended for use by an adult individual who possesses a valid GMRS license, as well as his or her immediate family members… They are more expensive than the walkie talkies typically found in discount electronics stores, but are higher quality.

 Family Radio Service: The Family Radio Service (FRS) is an improved walkie talkie radio system authorized in the United States since 1996. This personal radio service uses channelized frequencies in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band. It does not suffer the interference effects found on citizens’ band (CB) at 27 MHz, or the 49 MHz band also used by cordless phones, toys, and baby monitors.

 Microbroadcasting: Microbroadcasting is the process of broadcasting a message to a relatively small audience. This is not to be confused with low-power broadcasting. In radio terms, it is the use of low-power transmitters to broadcast a radio signal over the space of a neighborhood or small town. Similarly to pirate radio, microbroadcasters generally operate without a license from the local regulation body, but sacrifice range in favor of using legal power limits.

 Packet Radio Back to the ’90s: There do exist shortwave packet-radio modems. These are also excruciatingly slow, but may get your e-mail out. Like ham radio above it requires a ham radio license because they operate on ham radio frequencies.
CELL PHONES & TELEPHONE: Set up a phone tree: According to the American Association of University Women, a phone tree is “a prearranged, pyramid-shaped system for activating a group of people by telephone” that can “spread a brief message quickly and efficiently to a large number of people.” Dig out that contact list you printed out to spread the message down your pyramid of contacts. Enable Twitter via SMS: Though the thought of unleashing the Twitter fire hose in your text message inbox may seem horrifying, it would be better than not being able to connect to the outside world at all. The Twitter website has full instructions on how to redirect tweets to your phone.
Join Alternative Social Media NOW and create a Network ASAP!
Join the biggest and fastest growing only because a United Conservative Front is more important than bickering on which one is better! Lets harp about that after 2020 and we have won the Elections!
FAX: If you need to quickly send and receive documents with lengthy or complex instructions, phone conversations may result in misunderstandings, and delivering the doc by foot would take forever. Brush the dust off that bulky old machine, establish a connection by phone first with the recipient to make sure his machine is hooked up, then fax away. You may not need a fax machine to send or receive faxes if your computer has a dial-up fax application.

 NON-VIRTUAL BULLETIN BOARD Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the virtual world that we forget about resources available in the real world. Physical bulletin boards have been used for centuries to disseminate information and don’t require electricity to function. If you are fortunate enough to be getting information from some other source why not share it with your friends and neighbors with your own bulletin board? Cork, magnetic and marker bulletin boards are as close as your nearest dime store and can be mounted just about anywhere. And if push comes to shove you can easily make your own with scrap wood lying around the house. Getting back online: While it might be relatively easy for a government to cut connections by leveraging the major ISPs, there are some places they wouldn’t get to so readily, like privately-owned networks and independent ISPs. FIND THE PRIVATELY RUN ISPs

 In densely populated areas, especially in central business districts and city suburbs there are multiple home WiFi networks overlapping each other, some secure, some not. If there is no internet, open up your WiFi by removing password protection: If enough people do this it’s feasible to create a totally private WiFi service outside government control covering the CBD, and you can use applications that run Bonjour (iChat on Mac for example) to communicate with others on the open network and send and receive documents. **needs more clarification If you are a private ISP, it’s your time to shine. Consider allowing open access to your Wi-Fi routers to facilitate communication of people around you until the grid is back online.

 RETURN TO DIAL-UP According to an article in the BBC about old tech’s role in the Egyptian protests, “Dial-up modems are one of the most popular routes for Egyptians to get back online. Long lists of international numbers that connect to dial-up modems are circulating in Egypt thanks to net activists We Re-Build, Telecomix and others.” Dial-up can be slow. Often, there is a lightweight mobile version of a site that you can load from your desktop browser quickly despite the limitations of dial-up.
AD-HOC NETWORKING Most wireless routers, PCs, laptops, and even some ultramobile devices like cellphones have the ability to become part of an “ad hoc” network, where different “nodes” (all of the devices on the network) share the responsibility of transmitting data with one another. These networks can become quite large, and are often very easy to set up. If used properly by a tech-savvy person, such networks can be used to host temporary websites and chat rooms. There are many internet tutorials on the internet for ad hoc networking, so feel free to google some. Apple computers tend to have very accessible ad hoc functionality built in, including a pre-installed chat client (iChat) that will automatically set up an ad hoc “Rendezvous” chatroom among anybody on the network, without the need for an external service like AIM or Skype. Ad hoc network-hosting functionality is built in to the Wi-Fi menu. Windows computers have several third-party ad hoc chat applications available (such as Trillian) and setting up an ad hoc Wi-Fi network is almost as simple as on a Mac. Linux operating systems, of course, have plenty of third-party apps available, and most distros have ad hoc network-creation support built in. BUILD LARGE BRIDGED WIRELESS NETWORK Using popular wireless access point devices like a Linksys WRT54G, you can create a huge wireless bridged network — effectively creating a Local Area Network (LAN), or a private Internet that can be utilized by all users within range using a Wi-Fi enabled device. You can also link multiple devices together wirelessly, extending the range of your network. Most access points will cover a 100 meter area and if your wireless device is built to support the 802.11n wireless standard, you will get almost a 500 meter coverage area for each access point. To build a wireless bridge, check out the dd-wrt wiki, and learn how to configure Linksys WRT54G as a wireless client using this Anandtech thread. NINTENDO DS A used DS family device can be purchased inexpensively. In addition to wi-fi, the DS supports its own wireless protocols. Using Pictochat, it is possible to chat with nearby DS users without having any DS games. Unfortunately, the range is quite short. Some games, such as the fourth generation Pokemon games, support mail items. Thus you can send your message under the guise of just playing a game. Mail items can be sent through the Internet if you can get on the net and you and your partner(s) have each other’s friend codes. The original DS and the DS Lite do support the Opera web browser, but finding the game card and memory pack may be very difficult. Starting with the DSi, Opera is downloadable. INTRANET Your computer has the ability to set up your own INTRANET. This was done BEFORE the internet was popularized in two ways: Your computer dialed up other computers and sent them the contents of a message board, or local people people dialed into your computer. A nationwide system can be set up this way with a central location sending to many cities then each city sending out the info locally. BECOME UNTRACEABLE. USE VPN's If you’re going to post government secrets on your work-around site, you may want to set up an untraceable account. Really, you only need a mail drop, an assumed name, a prepaid credit card you can get at many stores to set up service.
GET SATELLITE ACCESS You can have very, very slow internet if you have something similar to an Iridium phone, which would allow you to do dial up at 2400 baud, which at least gives you e-mail. This will also work when your government has shut down GSM and telephone access, and will work pretty much anywhere on the planet. If you’re in the right place, get yourself KA-SAT access which is satellite broadband and will not be routed through any internet exchange that certain local governments may monitor or block
BACK TO BASICS Make some noise: Have an air horn or other loud instrument handy. It may just come down to being able to alert people in your local geographic area, who would otherwise be unaware of an emergency. You may also want to learn a bit about Morse code and have a cheat sheet available. Stay up to date with the latest news:

START PAMPHLETEERING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
Be like Thomas Payne and bypass the digital portal altogether and use Copy Machines and Printers to create news Pamphlets and hand them out to your neighborhood.


The Time to do all this is now !!

ROBERT MUELLER HID EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO PROTECT HILLARY CLINTON

 

 

What Did Mueller Know? New Documents Show Clinton-Russia Scandal Dwarfs Anything on Trump’s Side

 

Contrary to the Left's favorite narrative, any Russia scandal has always been worse for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Recent revelations confirmed this Tuesday, and even implicated the special prosecutor at the center of the Trump-Russia investigation, former FBI director Robert Mueller.

In 2010, the Obama administration approved a controversial deal giving Russian company Rosatom partial control of Canadian mining company Uranium One (and with it 20 percent of U.S. uranium), just as Russians paid former president Bill Clinton for speeches and Hillary Clinton was secretary of State. To make matters worse, the FBI had already gathered evidence of Russian corruption in the U.S. but kept it secret just when it would have mattered most, The Hill reported Tuesday.

A confidential U.S. witness working in the Russian nuclear industry helped federal agents gather financial records, make secret recordings, and intercept email starting in 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised U.S. trucking company Transport Logistics International, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Officials also acquired documents and an eyewitness account corroborating earlier reports that Russian officials had routed million of dollars into the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation just as Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which endorsed the Uranium One deal.

This racketeering scheme was allegedly conducted "with the consent of higher level officials" in Russia who "shared the proceeds," The Hill reported.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not bring immediate charges upon learning of the corruption in 2010, but kept investigating the matter for nearly four more years, leaving the American public and Congress in the dark.

Knowledge of Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil would have been vital to preventing the disastrous 2010 Uranium One deal, but it also might have prevented a lesser known approval in 2011. That year, the Obama administration approved a request from Rosatom's subsidiary Tenex, allowing it to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants (in addition to reprocessed uranium from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons sold under the Megatons to Megawatts program).

The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns," a person who worked on the case told The Hill. "And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions."

Robert Mueller, the special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation, was at the helm of the FBI from 2001 until 2013, so it seems likely he was culpable in keeping this investigation secret — at the very time when it would have been most pivotal for U.S. national security.

A man who may be responsible for allowing tremendous Russian corruption on U.S. soil to continue — and even intensify — during the Obama administration is now leading the investigation into potential Russian connections involving the man who ran for president against Obama's legacy. Conflict of interest, much?

In 2015, conservative author Peter Schweitzer published a blistering story in The New York Times uncovering Clinton's connections to and benefits from the 2010 Uranium One purchase. The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their authorization of that purchase by insisting that there was no evidence any Russians or donors to the Clinton Foundation engaged in wrongdoing. They also argued that there was no national security reason to oppose the Uranium One deal

According to documents from the FBI, Energy Department, and court proceedings, however, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence before the committee's decision that Vadim Mikerin — the Russian overseer of Putin's U.S. nuclear expansion — was engaged in wrongdoing since 2009.

Mikerin directed Rosatom's Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, and he oversaw Rosatom's nuclear collaboration with the U.S. under the Megatons to Megawatts program. In 2010, he acquired a U.S. work visa to open Rosatom's new American arm, Tenam.

According to a November 2014 indictment, Mikerin "did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with other persons ... to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion" between 2009 and 2012.

His conduct was discovered with the help of a confidential witness who began making kickback payments at Mikerin's direction, with the permission of the FBI. The first recorded kickback payment was dated November 27, 2009.

Energy Department Agent David Gadren testified that, "as part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts."

The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. attorney (and currently President Trump's deputy attorney general) Rod Rosenstein, then-assistant FBI director (and now deputy FBI director) Andrew McCabe, and then-FBI director Robert Mueller. All three of these men play key roles in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The FBI investigation, kept secret from the American public just when the Obama administration made key international business decisions, also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin signed a contract giving American trucking firm Transport Logistics International the rights to transport Russia's uranium around the U.S. — in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from executives.

Uncovering and blocking such a massive Russian nuclear bribery scheme would seem like a pivotal success for the DOJ and FBI, but they took little credit for the investigation when Mikerin, the Russian financier, and the trucking firm executives were arrested in 2014.

A full year later, the DOJ put out a press release unveiling the defendants' plea deals. At that time, the case against Mikerin consisted of a single charge of money laundering for a scheme from 2004 to 2014. Although agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing since 2009, federal prosecutors only cited a handful of transactions in 2011 and 2012 in the plea agreement. These came well after the Uranium One deal.

The final court case also made no mention of the Russian attempts to peddle influence with the Clintons, which the FBI undercover informant witnessed, despite the documents showing millions of dollars sent from Russian nuclear businesses to an American entity connected to the Clinton Foundation.

Only in December 2015 did the Justice Department announce Mikerin's sentence of 48 months in prison and the forfeiture of more than $2.1 million. The release referred to him as "a former Russian official residing in Maryland."

Ronald Hosko, then-assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases, told The Hill he did not recall being briefed about Mikerin's case, despite the criminal charges. "I had no idea this case was being conducted," he said.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also told The Hill he had not been briefed about the Russian nuclear corruption case.

"Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators ... has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them," Rogers said.

In light of such a scandal, it seems particularly damning that members of the intelligence community have been shamelessly leaking allegations against Donald Trump involving potential Russian connections. Every story in this direction turns out to be a dead end.

Most recently, the Russian-backed Facebook ads turned out not only to support Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter, but to have a tiny impact on the election as a whole. In fact, Democrat senators like Richard Blumenthal made fools of themselves in a fruitless attempt to pin these ads on the Trump campaign.

Meanwhile, evidence continues to mount that the Obama administration wiretapped key leaders in the Trump campaign, most notably Paul Manafort, and may have spied on Trump himself in doing so.

The real Russia scandal has been a Clinton scandal, from 2010 onward — and now, in a darkly ironic twist of fate, it involves the very former FBI director responsible for investigating that elusive "collusion" between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It seems the Left's attempts to hide their own corruption by pinning it on Trump may be coming to an end.

 

The U.S. is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and Yes, It Matters. Keep it that way. Here's why!

The U.S. is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and Yes, It Matters.

THE DEMOCRAT LEFT IS TRYING TO CONVERT IT INTO A "DEMOCRACY" = "MOB RULE" .. THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY!

WE MUST FIGHT THEM WITH DEADLY FORCE TO KEEP IT A REPUBLIC!

THEN WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT PUNISHES ANY POLITICIAN OR GROUP THAT TRIES TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights, repeatedly emphasized that the United States is a “republic” and not a “democracy.” In stark contrast, Jonathan Bernstein, a Bloomberg columnist and former political science professor recently insisted:

• “One of this age’s great crank ideas, that the U.S. is a ‘republic’ and not a ‘democracy’, is gaining so much ground that people in Michigan are trying to rewrite textbooks to get rid of the term ‘democracy’.”
• “For all practical purposes, and in most contexts, ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ are synonyms.”
• When Madison said that the Constitution established a “republic” and not a “democracy,” he was using a “mild form of propaganda” and “none of this had to do with specific institutions or forms of government. Just word choice.”

Those statements, along with the bulk of Bernstein’s column, are misleading or patently false. In reality:

• People were not trying to remove the term “democracy” from Michigan textbooks. Instead, they proposed education standards that would teach students that the U.S. is a “unique form of democracy.”
• The proposed standards made clear that the U.S. is not merely a “democracy” or a “republic” but a “democratic” and “constitutional republic” that “limits the powers of the federal government.”
• In Madison’s day and now, there are crucial differences between democracies and republics that are vital to the issues of human rights and equal justice.

The Michigan Standards
In 2014, the Michigan Department of Education began to revise its social studies standards, releasing a draft of them in 2018. Soon thereafter, critics began attacking the planned changes as “far-right.” Beyond the issue of whether or not this generalization is cogent, some of the specific allegations used to support it are plainly false.
For example, a Change.org petition signed by more than 75,000 people claims that the standards “would eliminate references to climate change.” In fact, the older standards contain only one reference to climate change, while the newer standards contain two. Notably, these are social studies standards, not environmental science standards.
The article that started the uproar over this issue, which was published by a Michigan news outlet called Bridge, reports that the newer standards “limited” climate change “to an optional example sixth-grade teachers can use when discussing climate in different parts of the planet.” This is deceitful in three respects:

1. The newer standards also mention climate change in the context of contemporary global issues.
2. The older standards’ lone reference to climate change also appears only in the sixth-grade section of the standards.
3. The Michigan Department of Education’s comparison of the older and newer standards states 74 times that the newer standards “relocated” numerous subjects to an “examples column” that spans most of the document. This includes climate change and many other topics, like “Independence Day,” “respect for rule of law,” “taking care of oneself,” “Constitution Day,” and “respect for the rights of others.”

Contrary to what Bridge led its readers to believe, this is not a case of global warming being singled out and relegated to an optional example. This was a general layout change that involved numerous issues, including many conservative ones. Yet instead of correcting Bridge, other media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Detroit Free Press repeated these specious allegations.
Likewise, Bernstein’s claim that people were trying to purge the term “democracy” is untrue. The newer standards use the word “democracy” 34 times, including 21 times in the phrase “American Democracy.” In fact, the newer standards actually use the term “democracy” one more time than the older standards.
The newer standards also repeatedly state that the U.S. is a “unique form of democracy” called a “constitutional republic.” This differs from other republics like the People’s Republic of China or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It also clashes with the agenda of many people in the United States, including some of the nation’s most prominent politicians.
Why It Matters 
Bernstein leads his readers to believe that there is no practical difference between republics and democracies. He asserts that “when Madison said the U.S. was a republic and not a democracy, he meant (in today’s vocabulary) that it was a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Given that all modern democracies employ a ‘scheme of representation,’ that’s an unimportant distinction today.” Bernstein quotes a grand total of five words from one of Madison’s writings to make that case, but the full historical record shows otherwise.
Early during the convention at which the Constitution was written, Madison declared that the government it creates must provide “more effectually for the security of private rights and the steady dispensation of Justice.” He said that violations of these ideals “had more perhaps than any thing else, produced this convention.”
Madison then singled out “democracy” as the cause of those abuses and pointed out that all societies are “divided into different Sects, Factions, and interests,” and “where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger.” He stressed that:

• this is “verified by the histories of every country, ancient and modern.”
• this is the cause of slavery, “the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”
• it is the duty of the convention to “frame a republican system” of government that will better protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

Other delegates to the Constitutional Convention concurred with Madison. Edmund Randolph of Virginia observed “that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U.S. labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy….” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts stated: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.”
For the purpose of curbing such evils, Madison and the other framers of the Constitution developed a system of checks and balances on the powers of the government that they formed. In the words of Madison, these provisions were to “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part” and “will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States.”
One of these features is the Electoral College, which was designed to prevent highly populated states from dominating the election for U.S. president. As shown below in the electoral precinct map from Washington State University professor Ryne Rohla, the vast majority of America’s communities voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Yet Hillary Clinton’s personal vote count was higher, mainly due to support in big cities:  AND ILLEGAL  VOTERS WHO HAVE BEEN ASSISTED IN VOTING FOR THE BIG GOVERNMENT CANDIDATE! Mod rule assures that the will of the masses will be taken as final and the meritocracy will be stripped away and replaced by a Marxist Ideology of Free every thing for everybody who cannot afford it and taking it away from those that do.. until nobody has anything except the "RULING CLASS"

How they will sustain this in America is very simple. The Natural resources of America is valued about $400 Trillion. They will exploit it all to sustain their Control. We have 1000 times more Natural resources than Venezuela. Venezuela stripped their country and it lasted 28 years and made Hugo Chavez a $ 4 Billion dollar man. Imagine what the controllers of America could do for 250 years!

Exposing the falsity of Bernstein’s storyline, most Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College based on arguments about democracy. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for example, said of the Electoral College: “It’s gotta go. We need a national popular vote. It would be reassuring from the perspective of believing that we’re a democracy.” Educators build support for such agendas when they teach students that “the U.S. is a democracy” without any qualifiers.
Another major implication is the centralization of power. President Trump and former President Obama have complained about opposition parties standing in the way of their agendas, but the founders created different branches of government for the expressed purpose of “keeping each other in their proper places.” As detailed in Federalist Paper 51, this entails a separation of powers between:

• the states and federal government.
• the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the federal government.
• the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

A mere “representative democracy,” as described by Bernstein, does not necessarily have such features. And without them, a “stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker,” as stated in Federalist 51. Such governments, wrote the paper’s author, are akin to “anarchy,” because “the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.”
Nonetheless, some people wish the Constitution didn’t have all of these provisions. For instance, Sanford Levinson, a professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin has called the Constitution “imbecilic” because its “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” causes “gridlock” that “prevents needed reforms.” He would prefer that the U.S. government had more elements of a “direct democracy.”
All of these facts reveal major differences between the words “democracy” and “republic.” Hence, Bernstein’s blurring of these terms fosters ignorance of the crucial reasons why the founders of the U.S. structured the government as they did.
The Foremost Matter
The most substantial check on unfettered democracy created by the U.S. founders is Article V of the Constitution, which allows it to be amended with the approval of three-quarters of the states. This high bar is meant to stop a simple majority from trampling on the rights of others. At the same time, it gives the Constitution flexibility to change if there is widespread agreement.
Yet, Professor Levinson has argued that the “worst single part of the Constitution” is “surely Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world.” He would like to make it easier to change, which would also make it easier for democratically elected majorities to strip people of their constitutional rights. This includes, for example, freedom of speech, the “right to be tried by an impartial jury,” the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This is why George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention and first U.S. President, highlighted the import of Article V in his farewell address to the nation:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Many politicians and jurists have attempted to undercut this restraint on democracy. One of the most candid admissions of this came from Thurgood Marshall, a liberal icon who mentored President Obama’s second Supreme Court appointee, Elena Kagen. When asked to describe his judicial philosophy, Marshall responded, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”
This view is reflected in a third grade social studies textbook titled Our Communities from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. It states: “The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges. They make sure our laws are fair.”
Marshall’s doctrine—which violates the oath of office that every public official takes to uphold the Constitution—allows a majority of the Supreme Court to flout the Constitution based on their personal notions of right and wrong. Since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life by the president and confirmed by the Senate, these elected officials can effectively void the Constitution by appointing jurists with such mindsets.
That is what occurred in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Korematsu v, United States. In this World War II-era case, six of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s appointees to the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Roosevelt to put U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into detention camps without any evidence that the individuals were disloyal to the United States. These justices ruled in this way in spite of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requirement that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Had the justices faithfully applied the U.S. Constitution in Korematsu, this infringement of human rights would not have happened. However, under democratic standards, it could, and it did.
Conclusion
After the uproar that ensued when the Michigan Board of Education released draft social studies standards in May of 2018, an election changed the composition of the board from an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to two Republicans and six Democrats. This new board released an altered draft of the standards in March of 2019.
These latest standards never use the phrase “constitutional republic,” which appeared 43 times in the previous standards. Instead, they use similar phrases among a jumble of other terms to describe the U.S. government, such as “republican government,” “constitutional government,” “American democracy,” “representative republic,” and “Constitutional Democracy.”
To Madison and other framers of the Constitution, the words “democracy” and “republic” had important differences. Democracy meant majority rule, and it still has this connotation today. A republic, on the other hand, meant a democratic government with limited powers that are widely divided among different voting blocs in order to protect the rights of as many people as possible.
Towards that end, the founders of the U.S. produced what is now the longest-standing constitution of all nations in the world. As explained by Encyclopædia Britannica, it is “the oldest written national constitution in use,” and it “has served as a model for other countries, its provisions being widely imitated in national constitutions throughout the world.”
Like many words, the meanings of “democracy” and “republic” have changed over past centuries, and neither now fully describes the United States or differentiates it from other “republics” like the People’s Republic of China. A term that arguably does that is “democratic constitutional republic.” This captures in modern terminology the key elements that the founders put in place.
The U.S. also distinguishes itself from other democratic constitutional republics by virtue of its stronger protections against tyranny by majorities. However, the practical application of this is sometimes undercut by politicians and jurists who violate their oaths of office and place their personal agendas over that of the Constitution.