Numerous missing or dead scientists simply "too coincidental" not to be major concern, congressman says: now number 11

WASHINGTON — The deaths or disappearances of 11 top US scientists and researchers is a matter of urgent national importance, a member of the House Oversight Committee insisted Friday.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) said his office had already been eyeing some of the “too coincidental” disappearances a year before President Trump told reporters Thursday that he had ordered an investigation.

The lawmaker argued the fate of the scientists is almost “certainly” linked to the access some had to classified aerospace, defense and UFO information, and may involve bad actors from China, Russia or Iran.

“This is a rallying call to pay attention to this issue and make sure that our nation’s top scientists are safe and secure,” Burlison told Fox News' “Fox & Friends.”

“This is too coincidental, and so we have to be investigating this. We need to have our nation’s top investigators, the FBI and every agency looking into this matter.”

Some of the scientists, Burlison noted, “literally just disappeared” without a trace, including Air Force Maj. Gen. William “Neil” McCasland, who vanished in February after Burlison said he tried to contact him twice about his research into Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs), government-speak for UFOs.

Investigators claimed McCasland had experienced “mental fog” before disappearing from his home in Albuquerque, NM.

The retired general had worked in top positions pertaining to space research and acquisition, with his name even appearing in the WikiLeaks dump of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, with former Blink-182 singer Tom DeLonge claiming to have conversed with him about UAPs.

In many cases, the congressman continued, these scientists “felt some form of threat” and “left all of their devices at home” before they dropped out of sight.

“This is not normal,” Burlison said on Fox. “These are some of the most advanced scientists, researchers in our nation, some of the most important people for national security efforts. And they all just mysteriously disappeared.”

Burlison’s call for “bipartisan support” for a federal probe into the concerning cases comes after another scientist’s mysterious death came under scrutiny Thursday, NewsNation reported. Amy Eskridge, 34, who was involved in extensive research into anti-gravity technology, UFOs and extraterrestrial life, died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head at her home in Huntsville, AL. in 2022, according to the Daily Mail.

Her death was ruled a suicide and no public information was released.

Before her death, Eskridge had launched a research company, “The Institute for Exotic Science” in order to create a “public-facing persona to disclose anti-gravity technology.”

She chillingly said that she had started the company because “if you stick your neck out in private… they will bury you, they will burn down your house while you’re sleeping in your bed and it won’t even make the news.”

Eskridge revealed in a 2020 interview that she had plans to disclose information about UFOs and extraterrestrials to the public, and was receiving threats as a result.

“I need to disclose soon, man. I need to publish soon because it’s like escalating. It’s getting more and more aggressive,” she said.

“This has been going on for like four or five years, and over the past 12 months, it’s been escalating, like more aggressive, more invasive digging through my underwear drawer and sexual threats.”

Eskridge partnered with retired British intelligence officer Franc Milburn to investigate the alleged harassment, according to the Daily Mail.

Milburn, who submitted his findings to Congress in 2023, concluded that Eskridge did not kill herself and at one point was attacked by a “directed energy weapon” that burned her body with microwaves.

The other missing or dead scientists include: 

Melissa Casias, who had a security clearance at Los Alamos National Laboratory and vanished last June; Anthony Chavez, a retired Los Alamos National Laboratory worker who went missing last May; Jason Thomas, who led Novartis’ chemical biology team and was found dead this past March; NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory engineer Frank Maiwald who died in 2024; famous MIT physicist Nuno Loureiro who was shot dead last December; exoplanet researcher Carl Grillmair, who was killed in February; Steven Garcia, who worked on security for a producer of non-nuclear components in American-made nukes and went missing in August of last year; aerospace engineer Monica Jacinto Reza, who went missing last June.

While widespread theories about the researchers and their fate have spread online, officials have not identified any connection between those deaths and disappearances.

There is something profoundly unsettling about this pattern. When the most brilliant minds working at the frontier of aerospace, defense, and the most sensitive questions surrounding unidentified anomalous phenomena begin to vanish or turn up dead under circumstances that strain credulity, one does not dismiss it as mere coincidence without inviting accusations of willful blindness. These are not ordinary citizens. These are individuals entrusted with knowledge that could alter the balance of global power. The instinct of any serious nation must be to treat such losses not as isolated tragedies but as a potential assault on its strategic advantage.

Rep. Burlison is right to sound the alarm. When scientists who have touched classified material on UAPs, anti-gravity propulsion, or exotic technologies start leaving their devices behind, reporting escalating threats, and then simply disappear, the burden of proof shifts. It is no longer sufficient for officials to shrug and mutter about suicide or “mental fog.” A republic that cannot protect its own intellectual capital in matters of national security is a republic that has already begun to surrender the future. The involvement of foreign adversaries, whether Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran, is not conspiracy but the cold logic of great-power competition. Nations that covet America’s edge have every incentive to neutralize those who guard it.

The case of Amy Eskridge is particularly haunting. A young researcher bold enough to speak of public disclosure, she warned explicitly of the consequences: those who “stick their neck out” risk being buried without ceremony. Her words carry the chill of prophecy. That she died by what was ruled a self-inflicted wound, after reports of directed energy attacks and invasive harassment, only deepens the unease. When even those who attempt transparency through “public-facing” institutions meet such ends, it suggests a machinery of suppression that operates beyond the reach of ordinary accountability.

This is not the time for partisan squabbling or institutional complacency. It is a moment that demands rigorous, transparent investigation, free from the reflexive dismissals that have too often characterized official responses to uncomfortable anomalies. The American people deserve to know whether their country’s premier scientific talent is being systematically targeted. Anything less is an abdication of the first duty of government: to secure the republic and those who defend its secrets.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. If you really want to help support my work here, you can Buy Me A Coffee or click on the ads alongside this page--it really helps. You can even subscribe to Brain Flushings--it's free.

Tweet

Hillary Clinton's narcissistic delusion

In a breathtaking level of denial and lack of self-awareness as to how others generally see her, as well as an obnoxious level of arrogance and self importance, along with the abject pandering to minorities as well as bald-faced lies to the general public, and a level of hypocrisy as a self-proclaimed woman's advocate as she dons an Islamic veil or attacks her husband's sexual victims, not to mention having an illegal private server with seriously classified material that should never have gotten to where it could easily be hacked by those who would do us harm,  Hillary Clinton blames FBI Director James Comey, and WikiLeaks for her loss in the presidential election to a reality TV guy, even though she failed to campaign in states that may have taken her over the top in winning the presidency.

One cannot help but write a sesquipedalian pleonasm of run-on sentences when describing Hillary Clinton but I will do my best to curb my verbiage.

On Tuesday, the former Secretary of State Secrets said she took "absolute personal responsibility" for her losing the presidential campaign; then she took a breath.

In her next breath she blamed FBI Director James Comey and the Russians for helping Donald Trump win the presidency. The Queen of Mean cited a letter from Comey saying FBI agents were pursuing new information related to Clinton's illegal secret, homebrewed, private server that should have landed her in the slammer but didn't. 

So instead of thanking Comey for not having her fitted for an orange jump suit, she blamed him for her loss rather than her total incompetence.

But that wasn't enough for Clinton, a lady who appears to have problems with her balance as much as she has for the truth. She went on to blame the WikiLeaks website, which posted hacked emails of her fellow scumcrumpet and Campaign Chairman John Podesta.

"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but were scared off," she said at the Women for Women International Conference.

Then she had the audacity of dope to say, "If the election were on October 27th, I'd be your president."

How pathetic can a person get? 

Clinton is writing a book about her 2016 experience as the person who was screwed over by the world. It will be classified as a novel.

She had no clear platform, no charisma, no new ideas. All she had was identity politics and female parts. She didn't lose because of James Comey--she lost because of Hillary Clinton.

And all she has is obnoxious rotomontade.


To follow Brain Flushings, please click the Follow tab in the right margin.



Tweet

Wiki's Julian Assange fires back

WikiLeaks founder and head leaker Julian Assange fired back at the U.S. intelligence community for reporting his anti-secrecy website was used by Russia to distribute hacked information from Democratic staffers during the presidential campaign season.

The blond wonder spoke during a Periscope Q&A session and claimed that his source of information was not a member "of any government" or "state parties" nor did the source "come from the Russian government." He said Friday's declassified intelligence report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions on Recent US Elections" was inadequate and misleading.

"It was not an intelligence report," Assange said. "It does not have the structure of an intelligence report. It does not have the structure of a Presidential Daily Brief. It was frankly quite embarrassing."

How does Assange know how a Presidential Daily Brief is structured? Or an intelligence report, for that matter. 

That's the scary part.

He then added: "It was clearly designed for political effect."

As much as Assange is a detestable piece of rat excrement on the shoe of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi's sandal, I kind of believe him. The reason for this is because it has become so obvious how often the Obama administration has lied to us, it becomes almost impossible to believe anything they say, including "hello."

When Assange was asked if it's possible that WikiLeaks' source was a go-between affiliated with the Russian government, he answered saying he didn't want to "play twenty questions with our sources."

An answer filled with more questions.

The intelligence report was prepared at the direction of Lame Duck President Obama, with whom even going to a mens room can be a political act. He laid the blame for the breach of the Democratic officials' emails at the feet of Putin and the Russians, without mentioning the breathtaking stupidity of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton for the ways in which they failed to protect their emails. 

Podesta's password was 'password.' Clinton's server was in a toilet in Colorado. Do you know anything about what Colorado toilets are like? 

Seriously, how can you trust the judgment of either one of those clowns?

But the real irony is that our government knew about Russia's hacking for several years, but only now, with the election defeat of Hillary Clinton, the Obamatron, is our so-called president going after Russia with silly sanctions that make Vladimir's nipples hard.

The intelligence report stated: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence . . . relayed material to WikiLeaks."

That may or may not be true, but if the report said otherwise, I would bet that people in the intelligence community would be asking: "Do you want to supersize those fries?"

When asked if he believed the report was "fabricated" Assange said "Most of this so-called intelligence report is not even fabricated. That is, it does not even make assertions for the most part to rise to the level of fabrications . . . it uses speculative terms and admits its own speculation."

When it got down to the nitty-gritty, Assange said that he didn't think it mattered who gave WikiLeaks the information. "Even if you believe that hackers of some kind illicitly obtained the Podesta emails and the DNC emails we published . . . what are we talking about in terms of impact?" He then said, "What was discussed are the words of Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and her team revealing unethical practices, corruption, hypocrisy, etcetera."

Then Assange asked: "Should the American people have been denied that true information?"

And the truth shall set you free--unless you're a Democrat.



Tweet

Democratic password strategies and other incompetence

Now that the election is over, the Democrats have a lot of ground to make up over the next four years. Things have to change: Chuck Schumer's nostril circumferences, Nancy Pelosi's choreoathetosis and computer server passwords and ways to protect them.

A recent batch of messages released by the State Department shows that Hillary Clinton and her 'dream team' routinely shared her upcoming schedules, talking points (like Schumer's: "make America sick again" that has now been spoken by his clown entourage) and other sensitive items such as her iPad password on her illegal home-brewed ssystem, which was "KillBill," as well as "10261947" (her date of birth) and "Deplorablewinsky69."

A computer security expert who wishes to be anonymous as he is afraid of "Clinton retaliation and death" said "Those passwords can be hacked by a 12-year-old kid with a dirty mind, a little knowledge of Hillary, or an angry disposition."

In addition, new emails, which were posted as a result of litigaton, show Hillary's top advisers complaining about her when she served as secretary of state; another by an Asian ruler who considered Bubba Clinton as part of his "family" and later implemented Sharia law; and another email discussing Justin Cooper, a key figure who administered her illegal private server.

Of course, everyone knows that John Podesta, her campaign chairman and Adolf Eichmann lookalike used, for his password, the word "password." Had he at least changed it to 'P@ssw0Rd' it would have taken the same 12-year-old hacker an extra ten to fifteen seconds more to get into his system.

And had Podesta known what a phishing scheme is, this blog post would be about how annoying Barack Obama is in his last days as POTUS.

Let's not allow Hillary to get off the hook--she sent her iPad password over her email! And she wanted to run the most powerful nation on earth.

In an August 20, 2012 email, Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner's wife and Clinton's closest aide, put Clinton's password at the top of the message explaining that she had the iPad password reset and that it's "all good now." The State Department redacted it upon release.

Hillary, in her infinite wisdom, responded to Abedin with additional information, just in case the 12-year-old didn't get it the first go-around. "I finally realized I had to add the [redacted] to the password!!!!"

Clinton aide Cooper logged hacking attempts on Hillary's server on several occasions.

In spite of the probability that her server could be hacked, Clinton kept sending sensitive information that could be quite dangerous in the hands of our enemies: advanced copies of her schedules with detailed description; talking points for upcoming calls and meetings with foreign leaders and U.S. officials.

The most powerful nation on earth!



Tweet

Podesta refuses to say election was fair

John Podesta

Clinton's campaign chair-wuss John Podesta spoke on "Meet the Press," and said he cannot imagine that his old boss, Hillary, lost the election on pure merit. Well, actually, lack of merit. 

When asked if he thought the election was "free and fair," the Adolf Eichmann lookalike demurred. "Well, look," he began, "I think the Russians clearly intervened in the election and I think that now we know that both the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI all agree that the Russians intervened [and] helped Trump and that as . . . NBC first revealed, that Vladimir Putin was personally involved with that."

Adolf Eichmann

Host Chuck Todd pushed the Podesta, "You didn't answer the question. Do you believe it was a free and fair election?"

"Well, I think it was -- I think it was distorted by the Russian intervention. Let's put it that way," Podesta said."

Both the CIA and FBI agree that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win, and liberals want a 'do-over.' 

The reason the hacking by the Russians helped Trump to win is due to the content of the emails exposing the Clinton team as the disgusting people they proved to be.

If the Clinton campaign was fair and honorable to Bernie Sanders, for example, the emails would have actually helped them. But they weren't and it didn't and they suck.




Tweet

Priebus: Trump OK if CIA & FBI agree on hacking by Russia

According to Reince Priebus, President-elect Donald Trump will accept that Russia is behind the hacking of Democrats' email accounts during the 2016 presidential election if a consensus is agreed upon by leaders of the intelligence community; specifically the FBI and CIA. Priebus is the incoming White House Chief of Staff.

"I think he would accept the conclusion if they would get together, put out a report and show the American people they are on the same page," Priebus told "Fox News Sunday."

Hillary Clinton's campaign was obviously hurt by the leakage of the terrible things said as revealed in the Podesta emails. While the Clinton campaign never denied the authenticity of the emails, they were livid over the way they were obtained, which was via a Russian hacking into Podesta's system after he opened a link that he shouldn't have opened.

Silly Podesta.

But Clinton's people are trying to convince us that because it was a Russian hack, what was found in those emails shouldn't matter.

Clinton's logic is: if a murdered took video of someone stealing your car, that shouldn't lead you to conclude that the person who stole your car is really a car thief.

The real reason the Clinton campaign is pushing the Russian involvement in the leaks is their way to delegitimize Trump's election victory, according to his campaign.

"There's no evidence that shows the outcome of the elections was changed by a couple of dozen John Podesta emails," Priebus said, adding that the intelligence community is "almost there" on a consensus regarding the Russian involvement.

Personally, I'm more concerned about Trump suggesting that China keep our underwater glider.

Tweet

The Times has Thrush

Politico's Glenn Thrush (thrush is an infection caused by types of fungal yeast called Candida spp. Small numbers of Candida spp. commonly live on the skin around the vaginal area) who was outed by WikiLeaks for sending stories to Hillary Clinton staffers for their approval before publication will be joining the failing leftist parakeet cage liner The New York Times. 

Thrush will be covering the White House, The Huffington Post wrote Monday.

According to Elisabeth Bumiller (a bumiller is a homeless person who sleeps in abandoned grain mills) the people at The New York Times are thrilled that someone so dedicated to Hillary Clinton as they are is joining the paper. "We're thrilled that Glenn Thrush is joining The Times. He's a premier political journalist, a master of breaking news and long-form story telling and a stellar addition to our White House team."

Story teller, or teller of tales, is definitely what Thrush is. 

Although Bumiller described the story teller as a "premier political journalist," in one email to the Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, Thrush described himself as a "hack."

He was being modest--he's a damn hack.

Thrush wrote to Podesta in April of last year in an email: "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fu**ed up anything." [asterisks mne.]

This is just one more example why the mainstream media, particularly newsprint, is becoming extinct. Soon The Times will follow down that road.


Tweet

Brazile bagged for second email with debate question

If you believe the emails released by WikiLeaks are genuine, whether or not the Russians hacked them, you might be surprised to learn that another leaked email shows that Donna Brazile gave the Hillary Clinton campaign a second debate question in advance.

The WikiLeaks document release Monday shows that Brazile sent Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri an email titled: "One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash," the night prior to the March 6th CNN (Clinton News Network) primary debate in Flint, Michigan.  

"Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint," Brazile's email stated.

The following night the question proved to be accurate. Lee-Anne Walters, a mother of twin boys who stopped growing and her daughter lost her hair during the Flint water contamination crisis. She posed the question to both Clinton and Sanders: "After my family, the city of Flint and the children in D.C. were poisoned by lead, will you make a personal promise to me right now that, as president, in your first 100 days in office, you will make it a requirement that all public water systems must remove all lead service lines throughout the entire United States, and notification made to the citizens that have said service lines?" Walters asked.

Clinton's answer to the question was so detailed and lengthy that Anderson Cooper had to interrupt her twice to attempt keeping her to the agreed-upon time limit. The crowd cheered but she still lost the state's primary to the socialist Sanders.

The alleged tip-off was found in the load of messages hacked from Clinton's Campaign Manager Chairman John Podesta's Gmail account. 

In the same month, Brazile was accused of tipping off the Clinton machine with a question she sent to Clinton campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri. The subject line of that email read: "From time to time I get the questions in advance." She then sent the question which dealt with the death penalty.

After Palmieri responded back, Brazile wrote "I'll send a few more."

CNN's Roland Martin asked the death penalty question verbatim the following night during a CNN town hall.

Brazile, who appeared Oct. 19th on Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly, naturally denied helping Hillary during the primaries and attacked Kelly for even asking the question. 

Brazile's indignation is laughable.

"As a Christian woman, I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted," she huffed. "Your information is totally false," she lied.

Donna Brazile is a disgrace to her party, journalism and Christianity.

CNN announced in a statement Monday after the email became public that Brazile had tendered her resignation and CNN accepted it on October 14th a few days after the  Brazile tip-off first broke.


Tweet

Trump revives Clinton "pay to play" scheme

Donald Trump loves WikiLeaks. "The more emails WikiLeaks releases, the more the lines between the Clinton Foundation, the Secretary of States' office, and the Clintons' personal finances are blurred," he said in a statement Thursday. 

Trump and fellow GOPers are reviving old allegations of roily deals involving 'pay to play' surrounding the Clintons now that the latest emails were published, showing how the Clinton family, their foundation and Hillary's State Department were in bed with each other. 

Yuck--I said 'in bed' and Hillary in the same sentence and I just threw up in my mouth.

The emails did not come from Hillary's illegal private server, but from the more 'secure' (LOL) GMail account of her Campaign Chairman John Podesta.

Podesta's hacked emails reveal many conflict-of-interest concerns that Clinton Foundation (CGI) staffers raised and later tried to separate the entangled companies and roles that put a king's ransom of money directly into the pockets of the Clintons. The emails also suck up from the slime several companies that donated to CGI with concurrent business with the State Department while Hillary was in charge.

These findings did not escape the Trump campaign's scrutiny. "If the Clintons were willing to play this fast and loose with their enterprise  when they weren't in the White House, just imagine what they will do if they are given the chance to control the Oval Office," Trump said.

If the Clintons return to the White House (heaven forbid) we will need to count the silverware and check to ensure all the furniture is intact when they depart.

There are plenty of "smoking guns" in the WikiLeaks revelations but nothing in the past has ever kept the Clintons from suffering real consequences and there is no reason to believe that anything we discover now will make a difference. If the Director of the FBI can be corrupted and manipulated by the Clintons, what makes anyone think they're not going to get away with the current corruption?




Tweet

Obama's administration kept list of Muslims for top jobs, excluded infidels

Obama's message to America

The media, mainstream and otherwise, doesn't appear to be interested in this story, perhaps because they're too scared to be labeled Islamophobic or racist (if you believe that an ideology can be considered to be a race). 

This story didn't even make it to the right-of-center Fox News, yet its significance is breathtaking. 

According to a WikiLeaks dump of John Podesta's emails, the Obama administration kept a list of Muslim candidates for jobs in the administration. Podesta is Chairman of the Clinton's presidential campaign and was also a former chief of staff for Bill Clinton.

An aide wrote to John Podesta: "High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted."

As it turned out, many high-profile Muslims were not carefully vetted and still worked for the Obama administration. 

Mohamed Elibiary is a prime example of the failed vetting process. He believes that the United States is an Islamic country and will be part of the caliphate. Elibiary was a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council and there were doubts about his true allegiances years before his appointment.

Elibiary's Twitter profile had the pro-Muslim Brotherhood hand signal "R4BIA" or Rabaa, and Rabbi'ah, sometimes known as Rab3a, which is a common hand gesture and a sign that appeared in late August 2013 in social media and protest marches in Egypt and used to show allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Elibiary was also a speaker at a December 2004 conference in Dallas titled: "A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary." It was all about the visionary, and founding father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The Obama administration was obviously okay with that little tidbit.

The Podesta email chain indicated that from 2008, he received lists of exclusively Muslims and Asians to be considered for jobs in the Obama administration, and it further revealed that in the process, Christians from the Middle East were purposefully excluded, or put on a separate list and an aide writing:

"In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).

"Also notable, there was concern that some of the Muslims suggested would not survive media scrutiny, with one aide writing, "High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted.

"I suspect some of the people I list would not survive such a vet--but I do personally know, at least in part, virtually all of the candidates in the 1st two categories (but I know very few of those listed for outside boards/commissions."

The lists themselves had a breakdown of candidates with each labeled by their nationality and sometimes race, which depicts the Obama administration's pattern of using race and religion to determine hiring showing some potential appointees labeled with an "F" for female, "B" for black, "H" for Hispanic (definitely not Hebrew) and "M" for Muslim.

In the best of worlds, all potential candidates for any job would be chosen with absolutely no attention paid to religion and race. But in today's world, governments are pressured to show the public a diverse staff that represents the population they represent.

So, in an ideal world, Muslims would be represented in the USA according to their population percentage which is roughly 1 percent. And to take it one step further, 3.8 percent of the American population self-identifies as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender but are represented in the entertainment media by highly overrepresented numbers, proving the enormous power of the left.



Tweet

WikiLeaks emails show Clinton's allies unaware over 'insane' private server

It's good to know that some of Hillary Clinton's top advisers weren't aware that she was using a private [illegal] server as secretary of state. It gives one hope that if she becomes POTUS (heaven forfend) that one or two of her top aides may actually be concerned over national security, not that it will change the open borders that Clinton wants.

Some of her top advisers had no clue as to the depth and scope of her email system when the scandal broke in March 2015. Even her current campaign manager had no idea about the bathroom server according to the Thursday WikiLeaks release of emails.

A close ally ('You go girlfriend') of Hillary's, Neera Tanden, the head of the Center for American Progress, was still p'd off months after the scandal broke. She pressed John Podesta over who gave Hillary permission to use the private system.

"Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?" Tanden wrote in July. "Like whole thing is f***ing insane."

But some of Clinton's closest aides, especially those who worked with her at the State Department (like Cheryl Mills and Huma Weiner Abedin) were very likely aware and on board with the illegal email setup, while others were in the dark.

On March 2nd, Podesta wrote to campaign manager Robby Mook asking if he had "any idea of the depth of this story?"

March 3rd, 1:32 a. m. Mook wrote back: "Nope. We brought up the existence of emails in research this summer but were told that everything was taken care of."

March 2nd, John Podesta also wrote to Tanden about his worries the day the email scandal broke. "Speaking of transparency, our friends [attorney David] Kendall, Cheryl and Phillipe [Reines] sure weren't forthcoming on the facts here."

Tanden's reply implied that keeping the [illegal] email setup a secret was probably Cheryl Mills' doing: "This is a Cheryl special," she wrote. "Know you love her, but this stuff is like her Achilles heel. Or kryptonite. She just can't say no to this s**t. Why didn't they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy. I guess I know the answer they wanted to get away with it."

Six months afterward, Tanden was still angry, and in a September 4th interview said Clinton still owed the American people an apology.

Actually, the American people are owed more than an apology. We are owed an FBI director who upholds the law and is apolitical. We are owed an Attorney General who wears the blindfold of fairness and justice. 

We are owed true transparency, not just words.

And we are owed a prison sentence for Hillary Clinton who clearly broke the law simply by having a private server and a real investigation into the Clinton Foundation with questionable practices.

Tweet

Donna Brazile pulled "a Hillary"

Donna Brazile, formerly of CNN (Clinton News Network) and now the Democratic Party leader, claimed to the world that emails showing her apparently giving Hillary Clinton questions at a March town hall were "doctored." 

In order to check out the veracity of her claim, tech forensic experts went to work, and they are now saying that they've found proof the emails were authentic, which proves Brazile did "a Hillary" with the truth.

On a TV interview with Fox News, Megyn Kelly questioned Brazile about an email that surfaced from Campaign Chairman John Podesta's email account and attributed to Brazile which was posted on WikiLeaks, an internet website headed by Julian Assange (who Hillary Clinton wanted to "drone"). 

The email was passed on to campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri about the death penalty, under the subject line: "From time to time I get questions in advance."

Soon after the email was sent, the March town hall was hosted by CNN and TV One. A similar question was asked by Roland Martin, but Brazile vehemently denied receiving questions from CNN. "I have seen so many doctored emails. I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don't even send," she said. "I will not sit here and be persecuted, because your information is totally false."

But of course it was not false--Donna Brazile's indignation was false.

Tech blog Errata Security quickly found the email in question could be verified by using an ordinary verification program.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) is a system verification system used by many email servers, among them is HillaryClinton.com. It is used to avoid spam filters whereby the system sends a DKIM "key" to the receiver to verify the sender and confirm the email hasn't been tampered with.

Bloggers ran the DKIM keys that were included with this and other emails through the verification software and it validated the Palmieri email as both real and undoctored.

Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham presented his results and showed that if the emails had been in any way altered, the software would have declared the emails unverified. The whole procedure took about five minutes, he told Fox News.

So it's obvious Brazile lied.

When asked if it was possible that WikiLeaks could have been hacked too, Graham said that it was very unlikely because to do so, the hacker would have needed access to the HillaryClinton.com server.

Graham is so confident in his finding that he posted a $600 BitCoin challenge for anyone who can alter an email and still have it come up as verified after being run through DKIM software.

So far, no takers.

It seems that Donald Trump has a good case to make about the election and media being rigged. This is not the America I grew up in--this America is becoming like a Third World nation and it saddens me.




Tweet

Hypocrisy Rodham Clinton

This isn't brand new--we've always known that Hillary Clinton pays women about $0.71 to the dollar the men at the Clinton Foundation make, but now hacked emails released by WikiLeaks describes a payroll schedule where men at the foundation averaged about $68,000 per year in salary and women averaged about $64,000.

The disclosing email was sent by an employee to Bruce Lindsey, the foundation's chairman, and to Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.

The averages were based on 25 men and 37 women employed by the foundation.

Hillary has always been quite vocal for a woman's right to choose for herself if she wants to kill her unborn child. She has also advocated equal pay for all but the foundation checkbook evidently didn't get the memo.

Her hypocrisy is palpable.

She lies when she claims to be for women's rights--if she really was, she would be appalled at anyone who accepted money from nations that oppress, beat and kill women. But she accepts money from the Saudis and a bunch of other Islamic nations that do just that.

She lies when she denies all wrong doing with national security. She lies about a video being responsible for the attack in Benghazi, and then lied to the families of the dead.

She lies about her support of TPP and open borders. 

She lies when she says "hello."



Tweet

WikiLeaked: What Huma implied about Clinton's Moroccan trade-off

Hillary Clinton was questioned about charges of "pay to play" at the Clinton Foundation in the first presidential debate and, as is her wont, she was an artful dodger. But within hours after the debate, WikiLeaks produced a new load of emails depicting her at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

Ironically, it wasn't Putin or Trump or a guy named Harmon Glunk who made the charge; it was Hillary's most loyal aide, Huma Abedin. 

Huma described the connection in an email exchange from January of last year with John Podesta and Robby Mook.

Abedin, the soon-to-be ex-wife of Carlos Danger (aka Anthony Weiner) wrote that "this was HRC's idea" in regard to her speaking at a meeting of the Clinton Foundation (aka Clinton Global Initiative) in Morocco in May of 2015. The purpose of Hillary's going there to "speak" was to finagle a $12 million commitment from King Mo.

"She created this mess and she knows it," Huma wrote to Hillary's henchmen, Mook and Podesta. 

The 'mess,' in part was how her three advisers wanted her to have no part in the speaking engagement as she was getting ready to launch her presidency campaign. They believed it would likely raise questions about her role at the foundation and be viewed as a serious conflict of interest should she become "THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!" as she puts it so loudly.

The month prior to the speaking engagement, Politico reported that the Clinton Foundation was accepting a "major donation" of no less than $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned company, OCP, a phosphate exporter. The report said that it would be "unlikely" that Hillary would attend the event the following month as she had just began her campaign (to the chagrin of informed voters who have her number, so to speak).

As it turned out, the influence peddling came to $12 million and Hillary almost passed out from the shock (as she is also wont to do). 

She struggled with her decision about whether she should stay or go and this was due to the fact that her role with lining the coffers of her foundation was a lot bigger than the public knew--emphasizing the distinction between what she says publicly versus what she says privately.

As early as January, Robby Mook indicated that Hillary was wrestling over whether to attend the event--her advisers worried about how it would look in terms of her involvement with the foundation and its fundraising.

The email subject line was: "FYI CGI Africa." The CGI being the Clinton Global Initiative. The email was sent to Podesta and Abedin around the same time Carlos Danger was also online sending something else to young women who would have him.

"Came up on our call with HRC," Mook wrote. "John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she's sitll (sic) considering."

Huma later replied that King Mohammed would be totally pissed off if Hillary pulled out. She wrote: "Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if (sic) it, meeting was a non-starter."

Perhaps King Mo had 'a thing' for Hillary, but he sure wanted her there.

It turns out that the idea for the event to be held in Morocco was Hillary's. "This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," Abedin wrote. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting."

The big question now is what did Morocco and other donors to the Clinton Foundation get for their money? 

Possibly the first female president that money could buy.


Tweet

Clinton aides agree to take the foreign money but get no argument from her

Luckily for Hillary Clinton, she never has a clue when it comes to things that could get her in trouble with the law. She was totally "in the dark" in April 2015 when her top aides decided to accept tons of money by lobbyists who represent the interests of foreign countries. The aides did the dastardly deed without telling Clinton, according to newly leaked emails.

One of Hillary's top advisers simply wrote: "The the money!"

And Hillary never knew jack, because she probably didn't want to know. It's called 'plausible denial'.

The money discussions raised by lobbyists under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) began on April 13, the day following Hillary's announcement that she was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in hopes of becoming "THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!"

Dennis Cheng, Hillary's Finance Director, initially raised the subject of the money. He wasn't sure if the campaign was indiscriminately allowing "those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise" money for the campaign or if the issue would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

General Counsel Marc Elias referred to the decision as "a straight up political call" and an aide, Jesse Ferguson, asked: "How much money we're throwing away" if they turned down foreign lobbyists.

It is illegal for an American campaign to accept money from foreign donors in order to protect the country from their influence. 

But if Hillary Clinton cannot even protect her emails and confidential documents because she illegally used a private server, how can we expect her to protect us from foreign actors after they bought their influence in her presidency?

The following day, aide Karuna Seshasai noted that of the 370 prospective bundlers, 27 had already been flagged as registered with FARA. Among those countries were: Iraq, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Libya and the United Arab Emirates.

Campaign Manager Robby Mook, John Podesta, Huma Abedin and others held a conference call and at first voted not to allow anyone currently registered as a foreign agent to contribute or raise money, but anyone who terminated with FARA would be allowed to contribute.

But Cheng said in an April 15 email that some of "our friends who happen to be registered with FARA are already donating and raising." He then added that the campaign would be "leaving a good amount of money on the table" if the Mook-Abedin-Podesta plan was followed.

Cheng then wrote: "How do we explain to people that we'll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the [Clinton] Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we won't"?

Elias then advocated for a case-by-case decision process and on April 16th, Mook wrote that he was convinced: "So . . . in a complete U-turn, I'm ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks."

Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri wrote the following morning: "Take the money!"

A week afterward, Abedin emailed Mook to say that Clinton learned about the plan to accept foreign lobbying money by reading about it in the newspaper. 

But she went along with it and is just as guilty. This is what is referred to as "pay to play."

The worst thing, however, is that the liberal media hasn't even reported any of this, and there is no greater journalistic sin than that of omission. This is the beginning of the erosion of our nation, unless things change quickly.



Tweet

Assange cut off from digital civilization

According to WikiLeaks (the website that Donald Trump raves about) its founder Julian Assange's Internet link was severed by a "state party" but added "appropriate contingency plans" have been activated.

The announcement was made soon after it published three tweets referencing Secretary of State John "Hair-plugs" Kerry, Ecuador and the UK's Foreign Commonwealth Office. Each tweet was matched with a string of numbers whose meanings are unclear.

It was originally thought that the 64-character codes may have indicated that Julian Assange had died, and the characters were actually a "dead man's switch," but the latest information is that he is alive and well.

Assange is ready to continue making Hillary Clinton's life miserable, as he did to our government when he released about 700,000 classified emails sent to the website by Edward Snowden, who has become a hero to American libtards.

Last October, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly was quoted to ask if Assange could be killed in a drone strike. And back in the day when Bob Beckel was still on Fox News Channel, he said that "a dead man can't leak stuff."

This month, 'specific information' alerted Assange to cancel a London balcony address to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the website.

Assange hinted that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, 27,  may have been an anonymous WikiLeaks source. Rich was shot multiple times in the back at a Washington D.C. street in July. He died soon thereafter and was believed to be a target of a robbery that went bad. 

Seth Rich is with Vince Foster, Walter Scheib, Mary Mahoney, Charles Ruff and Jim McDougal now, not to mention several scores of other Clinton associates. Google it.

WikiLeaks released a load of emails allegedly stolen from the account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chair. Over 12,000 emails of a purported 50,000 were released illuminating the inappropriate relationship between the Clinton campaign and some make-believe journalists. The emails also showed how Hillary's team handled sundry scandals.

It isn't certain if the Podesta emails are the "October surprise" Assange hinted that WikiLeaks would release.

Many so-called 'experts' believe the organization is actually a front for the Russian government, and Assange suggested that his emails had been hacked by the Russians. Also, officials have determined that a recent hacking of the DNC's computer files was probably the work of Russian hackers.

Vice President Joe Biden told NBC News that the U.S. would be "sending a message" to Putin, "at a time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact."

He probably means the U.S. will send the message to Putin when "Lead from Behind" Obama is finally gone. If Trump replaces Obama as president, the message may be in the form of a greeting card. If Clinton wins, the message may be in the form of a first strike.

Whatever .  .  .  let's just get on with the election.


Tweet

Podesta upset Muslim shooter wasn't a white guy

It's one thing to be upset about the Russians allegedly hacking into your email, but when you take the focus off what those emails contained and pretend that it's only the hacking that should be considered, you're only fooling some of the people some of the time.

Top Clinton aides were more upset that a Muslim man, Sayeed Farook, was named as the shooter in the 2015 San Bernadino massacre that killed 14, instead of a white shooter, according to the hacked emails released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.

A white shooter would have been perfect for the Clinton campaign--she could yell about gun control and how conservatives are to blame for the shooting. 

The emails were part of those stolen from Clinton Campaign chair John Podesta's account, a close, long-time friend of Bill and Kill.

The chain of emails began on December 2nd when Matt Ortega forwarded a tweet from MSNBC host Christopher Hayes and named one of the shooters in the San Bernadino attack. Karen Finney, a consultant, forwarded the email to Podesta who commented with "Damn." Not because of the tragedy of the situation, but because it was not politically in line with the left's narrative.

Podesta responded: "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter."

This is the garbage on the left of which Hillary is made. They will say and do anything to disassociate Islamic terrorism with terrorism. That's why we have a "War on Terrorism" not Islamic terrorists. In other words, a war on a tactic, not the people who use it.

Those on the left say that declaring war on Islam or demonizing the Muslim-American community plays right into the terrorists' hands.

But who does that? Nobody. However, to pretend that jihad, sharia and terrorism are separate from Islam is wrong and stupid to believe.

Anyway, to date, about 12,000 of the 50,000 alleged emails have been released. The Democrats aren't too worried, I suspect--they're going up against Donald Trump and he's going up against Donald Trump too.


Tweet

Emails reveal '08 Clinton team probed Obama on cocaine and Muslim dad

The mainstream liberal media is giving almost zero coverage to the WikiLeaks situation regarding Hillary Clinton campaign emails--NBC, in fact, is actually giving absolute zero coverage. 

The reason is obvious: to do so would hurt Clinton's presidential chances and that cannot be permitted.

The latest batch of WikiLeaks emails show Clinton's allies in 2008 discussing then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama's weaknesses, one of which is very personal: his father's Muslim faith and his own past cocaine use.

The hacked email exchange is Campaign Chairman John Podesta's account and were sent at the start of 2008, with the subject line as a "McCain Survey." But the email discussion was actually about Obama's weaknesses after he beat Hillary in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

One email stated: "Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) was the only candidate at a recent event not to cover his heart during the national anthem and he has stopped wearing an American flag pin."

Another: "Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)'s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world's most populous Islamic country."

And finally: "Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) described his former use of cocaine as using 'a little blow.'"

Sadly, nothing will become of these emails. The left will not discuss it, but neither will Trump effectively attack it. He appeals to his base over and over, as if they can vote more than once.

That's the problem.


Tweet

Hillary's "Preparation 'H'"

More emails purportedly hacked and provided to WikiLeaks from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta's account depict the questions Hillary's team expected her to have to deal with when Trump brings them up. 

I like to call the prep book "Preparation 'H.'"

Questions they think will be about the women Bill Clinton sexually assaulted, raped, abused, had a tryst with, and who he kept as his mistress and how Hillary may have attacked them verbally, threatened them, made fun of them and possibly even paid some of them off. 

Who knows folks[?] as Trump would say.

So the Clinton campaign came up with a game plan nine months before Trump brought them up. They planned on how they would suggest Hillary respond to such Trumpian questions.

The most extensive information was found in a 157-page debate prep book attached to an email sent in March from Robby Mook, the Clinton Campaign Manager. At the time, Clinton was colluding with the DNC to ditch Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as her contender.

The debate prep book was divided into three sections: 1. personal/political, 2. domestic and 3. foreign policy. (Unlike Donald Trump's debate prep flyer which was divided into three sections: 1. refer to Clinton as "Lyin' Hillary," 2. Talk about The Wall and who will pay for it, and  3. How China manipulates its currency.)

Hillary's book contained 58 topics ranging from: "Can the American people trust you?" (This was a "no-brainer" that would require Hillary to come up with a series of lies to convince the American people that nothing that was ever said about her is true) to:  "Should we call this 'Islamic terrorism?'" (The brain trust decided to simply call it 'misplaced aggressive behavior mislabeled as Islam'.)

Trump's flyer contained 4 topics ranging from: "I love the Second Amendment and the NRA has endorsed me," to: "Hillary's not willing to call it 'Islamic terrorism' and that's why we would lose if she became president."

One question was "WJC [William Jefferson Clinton]: What do you say to the women making accusations. Specifically, the question asked if Hillary Clinton's actions helping her husband "cast doubt on these women's stories" was "in line with feminism."

Like many of the strategies in the prep book, Hillary was to dismiss the questions as off-base and outdated where possible and pivot to her [public] vision of the country.

Trump, of course, went after the Bill scandals and Hillary responded with: "So if Donald Trump wants to attack my family, that's his choice," the pat answer began. "Listening to Donald Trump on the campaign trail, it's clear to me that he and I see the world very differently."

Yes, Hillary sees the world as a place without borders, without citizenship, with free trade with herself in charge. Trump sees the world as a TV set with him starring in his own show called "The Donald Show."



Tweet

Clinton campaign says with straight face that WikiLeaks leak is bogus

The Hillary Clinton campaign suggested with straight faces that the new documents released by WikiLeaks are bogus and that they would like to drone the crap out of Julian Assange for making such a false claim--but this time they're not kidding, an anonymous spokesperson said.

The new documents show Hillary's candid views about the middle class and Wall Street.

Clinton campaign manager John Podesta told "Fox News Sunday" that "They've put out documents that are purported to be from my account," sounding a lot like government officials going after WikiLeaks when the website released 700,000 secret government documents given to them by Bradley/Chelsea Manning of traitor fame.

As much as I deplore WikiLeaks and their scumcrumpet Julian Assange for compromising our classified military information, I believe the documents are as real as NBC's Trump tape.

Podesta tried to explain Clinton's comments by arguing they were acquired by "Russians" hacking into the DNC computer files in order to influence the presidential election.

While that might even be a possibility, that doesn't make the Clinton documents a "hoax."

WikiLeaks said there were thousands of emails hacked from Podesta's personal email account.

One document posted online revealed an internal review of Hillary's Wall Street speeches to survey any political damage her speech could cause her if they became public. (Kind of reminds me of Trump's comments going public and the fallout that is currently ensuing.)

Clinton aides figured the most damaging passages from her remarks reflected on the necessity of "unsavory" political dealing, telling real estate investors "you need both a public and private position." And she admitted to Goldman Sachs and BlackRock bankers that she is "kind of far removed" from her middle-class upbringing in spite of her touting it in her campaign. 

Podesta minimized the argument about Clinton's tailored message to her audiences. "She said all throughout this campaign she will crack down on Wall Street," fork-tongued Podesta said. "There's nothing that she said that she hasn't said in private that she doesn't say in public; she's put forward the most aggressive Wall Street plan of any candidate" [in spite of her taking $3 million from Wall Street that she doesn't talk about publicly].

He also said, without laughing out loud, that Clinton wants to crack down on that Wall Street culture in order to ensure that there exists no institution "too big to fail and there's no person that's too big to jail" [not including herself].

Shifty-eyed Tim Kaine the Democratic VP nominee also questioned the authenticity of the 2,000 documents WikiLeaks released. "I don't think we can dig in documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume they're all accurate and true," the rude interrupter told the Clinton News Network (CNN).

Other documents show Hillary to be a free-trade advocate, a position she had to do contortions over during her campaign. In the first general election debate she said she supports "smart and fair trade."

Earlier in the year she conceded that presidential candidates need Wall Street to back them in order to mount a competitive campaign. Donald Trump, of course, attacked that position accusing Clinton of being bought and paid for by Wall Street.

That's only partially true. She has also been bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries who have made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

According to another document, Clinton referred to Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) supporters as "losers."

And yet, in spite of all this, there will be low-information voters who will support her bid to become "THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"




Tweet