Russiagate – The Slow Drip of the Coup to Take over Russia


Little by little the truth is starting to surface with respect to the blackmail of Yeltsin and the attempt to take over Russia during the 2000 election. Now the former British National Crime Agency international corruption boss, Jon Benton, says he was ordered to stop an investigation into Russian money laundering. He was the head of the UK international corruption. He says that a senior official from the Foreign Office told him to shut down his investigation. Why?

The Daily Mail has reported that his perspective was that the Government was not tackling Vladimir Putin’s cronies who stash their wealth overseas. Benton claims he was given a 37-page dossier about London-based money laundering by Russian crime syndicates linked to the Kremlin. The entire problem is that he has, unintentionally, misinterpreted the order to shut the investigation down. That directive was not to protect Putin’s friends, but to prevent the truth coming out about the attempt to stage a coup led by the New York bankers to seize control of Russia.

The governments have gone after Putin’s friends using the Magnitsky Act. So Benton’s interpretation does not make sense. It was far more likely that someone paid to have Magnitsky killed in prison because he was a key witness for Putin against Browder, Safra, and crew. Some have speculated alleging that Browder & MI6 out of Britain had Magnitsky killed. Interesting twist to that plot if true.

 

 

I have publicly made it clear that I had a face to face meeting in the Department of Justice detailing the claims of money laundering by the Russians through the Bank of New York and that the $7 billion had been stolen from the IMF loans. I discussed the entire plot of blackmailing Yeltsin. I have shown that when the story first broke, even CNN reported that the money was taken from the IMF. Later, of course, they claimed it was a ransom for a Russian businessman but nobody ever said who and not even Warren Buffet could fork over $7 billion in cash for a ransom. In my own case, they sealed countless documents from me and the public using the National Security card.

CNN Theft of IMF Money – Sep. 1, 1999

CNN Russian money laundering probe widens – Aug. 26, 1999

CNN BNY dismisses second exec in fraud case – Sep. 2, 1999

CNN Money reported on September 1st, 1999 before everyone removed the theft from the IMF as the source of the money: “[They] funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russia’s communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.” Nekrasov has had his hands full just trying to get the film shown. He is up against tremendous obstacles to shutting it down by Browder.

This is what Putin offered. The USA could interrogate any Russian concerning the 2016 elections, provided he could do the same with respect to the Russian 2000 election and specifically naming Bill Browder. It certainly seemed to be a reasonable offer if there was no truth to the Putin allegations! So are dark forces planning another war to cover their ass in this whole mess? And as for those writing in asking why the Guardian has not investigated this mess, it may be even too hot for them

Chairman Grassley Schedules Committee Vote Friday Morning For SCOTUS Nominee….


Posted from The Conservative Tree House on by

There is still no reason to believe accuser Christine Blasey-Ford will appear for a Thursday hearing to review her sketchy allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Ranking Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein stated she was unsure if Ms. Ford will appear to deliver sworn testimony.

With Ms. Ford’s attendance still in question, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is using regular order to schedule a judiciary committee vote on Friday morning.  The committee vote is not mandatory, but generally following procedures.  This would set up a full Senate vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

(Via Politico) […]  Senate Republicans hired a female attorney to use as a questioner of Ford at Thursday’s high-stakes hearing on a sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh but are declining to release her name.Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO on Tuesday that “we aren’t announcing the name for her safety.”

Asked if Republicans have received any indication of threats to the attorney they’re preparing to use, Grassley said: “I don’t know, but I guess we’re just being cautious.”  (more)

No more Mr. Nice Guy from Grassley:

ChuckGrassley

D’oh – Democrat Joe Biden Explains Irrelevance of FBI Investigations Within SCOTUS Nomination Process….


In 1991 Democrat Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden explains how an FBI investigation is useless in relation to an accusation against a Supreme Court nominee:

Project Veritas Fourth Release – The Administrative State and The IRS…


In October 2015 the DOJ announced it was dropping the investigation into the IRS, Lois Lerner, and the unlawful sharing of taxpayer data in the IRS targeting investigation surrounding True The Vote et al.  However, they never EXPLAINED WHY.

(Washington DC) Project Veritas has released the fourth story in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials who candidly discuss the IRS’s unfair treatment of conservative non-profit groups. The two officials in the report are Thomas Sheehy, an IRS tax examiner and member of the Austin Democratic Socialists of America in Texas, and Jerry Semasek, an IRS attorney in Washington, DC.

Sheehy boasts about and appears to justify former disgraced IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was mired in scandal for losing tens of thousands of emails regarding the Lois Lerner controversy. The Lois Lerner controversy occurred in 2013 and involved revelations showing that the IRS unfairly scrutinized conservative groups. (read more)

Ms. Blasey-Ford Attorney Casts Doubt on Appearance…


As of last weekend sketchy DC political lawyer Michael Bromwich, joined the legal team to represent the political interests of sketchy Kavanaugh accuser Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford.

Mr. Bromwich sends a letter tonight beginning to back-away from his clients prior agreement to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This latest development is entirely predictable.

How can sketchy Ms. Ford deliver credible testimony about a 36-year-old event (at an unknown time and unknown location) where there is ZERO corroborating evidence supporting her claim, and mountains of evidence refuting her claim?  Five teenagers at a house party, yet all of the five say not their house. Additionally, every witness she identified as present during the event has gone on record denying any knowledge of anything within the foundation of her claim.  How can she testify? She can’t.

Ms. Ford cannot testify because there’s no truth in her sketchy accusations; this was a political stunt with no intention of testimony.  So, with a deadline looming it is more likely her political lawyers will try to extricate Ford from their prior commitments.

(Source)

The claimed witnesses were: (1) Mrs. Leland Ingham Keyser, (2) Mr. Mark Judge, and (3) Mr. Patrick “PJ” Smyth.

According to CNN’s current reporting here’s the statements from the witnesses:

(1) Simply put, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said (2) Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

(3) Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement:

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

CNN article link.

According to the accusations by Ms. Ford there were five people present at the unknown residence, at the unknown time, at the unknown party.  Three boys and two girls.

Four of the people Ms. Ford claimed were present, including the accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh, now publicly state they have no knowledge of anything related to the accusation; including no recollection of any attendance at any gathering at a high school party claimed by Ms. Ford.

The only person left claiming attendance to a party; at the unknown time; in the unknown year; at the unknown residence; is the accuser, Mrs. Blasey Ford.

Who’s House? According to her story, there are five teenagers at “the house”.  So it has to be one of “their houses”.  Yet four of the five have said they don’t have any idea what she’s talking about; it’s not their house… and it’s not Mrs. Ford’s house; so…

…How can she testify?

Martha MacCallum Full Interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh…


Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley speak out in their first television interview since Dr. Christine Blasey Ford levied accusations against Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Judge Kavanaugh faces questions on Ms. Ford’s allegations and how this has impacted him, his family, and his future as a Supreme Court nominee.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh: “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process”…


Judge Brett Kavanaugh releases the following letter amid the face of malicious allegations from two politically motivated accusers.

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy.

At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.

Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.

Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.

These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.

As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last minute character assassination will not succeed.

I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday.

Sincerely,

Brett M. Kavanaugh

(pdf version)

President Trump on Accusations Against Kavanaugh: “It is totally political”.


Entering the U.N. for an earlier General Assembly meeting President Donald Trump was asked about Judge Kavanaugh.  President Trump was firm in stating his continued support for Kavanaugh.  The president remarked “this could be one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything”, and directly noted that all accusations against the judge were “totally political”.

Sketchy Business: Grassley Releases Original Ford Letter to Feinstein…


It’s clear the stall tactic behind the original Christine Blasey-Ford strategy was likely due to democrats understanding the accusations would collapse under scrutiny; and as a consequence they needed more time to concoct the Deborah Ramirez construct; which is even more flat out ridiculous than Blasey-Ford.

Judiciary Chairman Grassley releases a batch [see here] of letters and documents.  One of them is the original unsigned Blasey-Ford letter to Feinstein of unknown authorship:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t need to grant credence to the accusations by denying them.  Instead just refer to the accusers own witnesses.  Both political accusations from Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez are refuted and denied by the witnesses they stated would back-up their claims.  This is a transparently political con-job.  Nothing more.

LIES !

New Yorker Publishes Accusation Containing ZERO Evidence to Support, and 100% of Evidence To Refute…


This is beyond bizarre.  Seriously.  Forget the salacious details in the story…. the construct of the story is so stunningly flawed it is jaw-dropping as presented.

The New Yorker runs an article about an accusation made by a woman named Deborah Ramirez (53, pictured right) about a freshman party at Yale, where she claims she was in a drunken stupor and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then 18, pulled out his penis during a drinking game.

Etc. Etc. Etc….  Really, no need to go further.

Why?

Because despite their search, and discussions with “dozens” of potential witnesses…

“The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident”…

….the New Yorker was unable to find a single witness to corroborate the story being made by the accuser.  None.  Not a single confirming witness to back up the claim.   They write:

…”The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”…

But wait.

It gets better.

The accuser did give the New Yorker six names to support her claim.  Six witnesses Deborah Ramirez stated could substantiate her accusation.  And when the New Yorker interviewed them, ALL SIX said it never happened.

[…] “In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.”

“We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.””  (The Article)

Now, stop for a minute and think about this.

A claim is made.

The New Yorker tries to substantiate the claim.

The New Yorker finds ZERO people who can validate the claim.

The six witnesses the accuser says will back up her claim all deny any knowledge of the claim; yet the New Yorker still runs the article.

100% of the evidence discovered by the New Yorker refutes the claim.

Yet they publish it.

Enter the Star Chamber….