Stories about
Peter Schweizer


Peter Franz Schweizer (born November 24, 1964) is an American investigative journalist, novelist, author, and political consultant. He is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and a former William J. Casey Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is also Senior Editor-at-Large of Breitbart News.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Author Peter Schweizer’s new book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, reveals how Hunter Biden secured a billion-dollar deal with Chinese investors ten days after his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, visited China in 2013.

Breitbart News reported:

According to an exclusive New York Post excerpt from the book, the Biden billion-dollar China deal occurred as follows. In 2013, Hunter Biden was managing partner in the private equity firm Rosemont Seneca Partners. The Chinese funds were managed by Rosemont Seneca Bohai, which did not involve Chris Heinz.

In December of that year, Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days after the trip, a subsidiary of the Bank of China named Bohai Capital signed an exclusive deal with Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz’s Rosemont to form a $1 billion joint-investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST. The deal was later increased to $1.5 billion.

“The Chinese government was literally funding a business that they co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision makers,” writes Schweizer in Secret Empires.

Appearing on Fox News Thursday evening, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, said he believes the agreement is a massive scandal.

Biden Bombshell – @SebGorka on Hunter Biden’s billion dollar deal with the Chinese: I am rarely at a loss for words, but this is potentially one of the biggest pay-for-play scandals outside of Uranium One. @realDonaldTrump #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/ntjUqtFJ17

— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) March 15, 2018

DR. GORKA: “The stepson of John Kerry, the son of Joseph Biden, when they were cabinet members of the Obama administration, create a new investment fund… then inked a billion-dollar deal with the Chinese government — the Bank of China. Then, together they proceeded… to buy a U.S. manufacturing company called Henniges, making very sensitive equipment — crucial to our American military here at home. This, look, I am very rarely at a loss for words Stuart, but this is potentially one of the biggest pay-for-play scandals we have ever seen outside of Uranium One.”

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Attorney General nominee William Barr said in 2017 that he believed there was more basis to investigate failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her alleged role in the Uranium One agreement than President Donald Trump’s purported collusion with the Russian government in the 2016 election.

Following a call last year by President Trump for the Department of Justice to probe into Clinton’s role in the deal, Barr told the New York Times that there was “nothing inherently wrong” about a president requesting a probe — but cautioned that one shouldn’t be undertaken because the White House wants one. Barr also told the Times: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he added.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Barr was asked about his previous comments regarding Uranium One. “I have no knowledge of Uranium One,” he told lawmakers. “I didn’t particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. I was trying to make the point that there was a lot out there. I think all that stuff at the time was being looked at by [Utah U.S. Attorney John] Huber.”

Huber, tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is looking into whether the law enforcement officials ignored allegations of Clinton involved in the sale of American uranium rights.

“The point I was trying to make there was that whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly,” Barr added.

Brought to the forefront by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer in his New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, the Uranium One scandal refers to an alleged scheme in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia control over more than 20% of America’s uranium supply in exchange for $145 million in pledges benefiting the Clinton family and their foundation.

Rosatom acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013. Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Such committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one item that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former president Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.

Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to Schweizer, who also serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, the FBI, headed up by now special counsel Robert Mueller at the time, appears to have ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market when they approved the deal in 2010. “There was a megatons program that was designed to, in a sense, help the Russian nuclear industry transition from sort of military-based work to civilian work — a lot of detailed corruption that the FBI tracked in the 1990s and 2000s, so going up to the 2010 approval for Uranium One, it’s really impossible for senior FBI officials, including the director at the time — Mueller — to argue that they are just completely shocked that Uranium One and these kickbacks were taking place. It was widely known,” Schweizer told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak last February.

The congressional testimony of “Uranium One whistleblower” William Douglas Campbell has led to the convictions of Russian executives tied to Rosatom in 2015 on bribery and money-laundering charges in connection to the Uranium One agreement. “This is a guy who was an FBI witness. It’s known that the Russians were paying him $50,000 a month to do work for them, and some of that work included, according to his job description, setting up meetings with high-level ranking U.S. officials. That’s all not in dispute,” Schweizer said of Campbell. “So this is a guy that certainly was there. The FBI found him credible. He got FBI executives thrown into jail, and they eventually pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including bribery and kickbacks. So you can’t dismiss, as some Clinton defenders want to, this whistleblower as if he has no credibility because he was there.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

National Review

Published  2 weeks ago

Mueller scours Team Trump for Russian collusion as Dems marinate in it.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 weeks ago

The subject of Russia’s influence in American politics has been a hot topic of late, particularly as the MSM continues to link Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and the DNC hack. However, a report published by the Government Accountability Institute presents a new twist in the Kremlin-US political ties. It all started with the 2009 “Russian reset” touted by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As detailed in a WSJ op-ed by Peter Schweizer (author of the GAI report), after President Obama visited Russia in 2009, both nations agreed to “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

One such project was Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley. As chief diplomat, Hillary was in charge of courting US companies to invest in this new Russian city. Russia, on the other hand, had committed to spend $5 billion over the next three years (2009-12).

As Schweizer continues, “soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.”

Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton…

Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity”

Thus far, this should not be surprising. It is yet another instance of crony capitalism that has so well characterized the Clintons over the years. However, as US intelligence agencies including the FBI were soon to find out, the Russian Silicon Valley served other purposes as well.

More from the WSJ op-ed: “The state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature…”

“The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies. The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”

Even if it could be proven that these tens of millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations by Skolkovo’s key partners played no role in the Clinton State Department’s missing or ignoring obvious red flags about the Russian enterprise, the perception would still be problematic. (Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.) What is known is that the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian “Silicon Valley” whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops.

A Russian reset, indeed.

Naturally, the Hillary campaign did not reply to any requests from Schweizer on the report. But we are comfortable that HRC’s response would likely be along the lines “what difference at this point does it make?”

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden will likely decide in the next two weeks if he will run for president in 2020, according to a report.

Biden reportedly told people close to him that he does not think any other Democrat challengers could take on President Donald Trump in a general election.

The 76-year-old Democrat has spent the last few weeks reaching out to allies and supporters as he prepares to announce his decision about running in 2020, the New York Times reported.

“If you can persuade me there is somebody better who can win, I’m happy not to do it. But I don’t see the candidate who can clearly do what has to be done to win,” Biden reportedly told supporters on a phone call, according to one Democrat close to Biden.

Biden has felt confident about his chances of winning against Trump in the 2020 presidential election, telling The Intercept in December 2018 that “anybody” could beat Trump.

But if the former vice president mounts a presidential bid for the third time, he may have to answer to explosive revelations about a $1.5 billion deal he and his son Hunter made with the Chinese government-backed Bank of China.

The deal was made just ten days after the vice president and his son returned from a trip to China aboard Air Force Two.

Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, in his book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, detailed how Biden may have helped Hunter secure the $1.5 billion deal with a China-based investment firm that had ties to a Chinese atomic energy company indicted for “nuclear power conspiracy against the United States.”

“The FBI arrests and charges senior officials in this company with stealing nuclear secrets in the United States. Specifically, they’re trying to get access to something called the AP-1000 nuclear reactor that is very similar to the ones that we put on U.S. submarines,” Schweizer wrote.

“So again, you have the son of the vice president, a close aide to the secretary of state who are investing in a company that is trying to steal nuclear secrets in the United States. It’s a stunning story, and here’s the thing: none of this is required to be disclosed because they’ve figured out a way to get around these disclosure laws,” Schweizer continued.

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money-laundering in the Uranium One affair is not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, what is?

infowars

Published  1 month ago

Special Counselor Mueller a Clinton Foundation

Dan Bongino

Published  2 months ago

Three Clinton Foundation whistleblowers will speak out Thursday and make some “explosive” allegations, according to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.)

Meadows spoke with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum last night where he revealed a hearing would take place this week to go over 6,000 pages of evidence from the Clinton Foundation investigation.

When asked that the next steps would be for the investigation, Meadows replied, “… we’re going to be having a hearing this week, not only covering over some of those 6,000 pages that you’re talking about, but hearing directly from three whistleblowers that have actually spent the majority of the last two years investigating this.”

The Congressman also described the allegations from the whistleblowers as “explosive.”

“Some of the allegations they make are quite explosive,” he said. “…just look at the contributions. Now everybody’s focused on the contributions for the Clinton Foundation and what has happened just in the last year. But if you look at it, it had a very strong rise, the minute she was selected as secretary of state. It dipped down when she was no longer there. And then rose again, when she decided to run for president. So there’s all kinds of allegations of pay-to-play and that kind of thing.”

According to federal tax filings, donations to the Clinton Foundation dropped by $36 million the year after Hillary Clinton ran for president.

The filings, obtained by the New York Post, show that “contributions plunged from $62,912,331 in 2016 to $26,566,825 in 2017.”

The Clintons and their foundation have a long history of troubling dealings, many of which are outlined in the bestselling book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

Consider the below list as a small example of some of the questionable behavior of the Clintons as laid out by Breitbart:

Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti

Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.

At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

In a recent op-ed, Fox Business pundit and author John Stossel discussed the documentary The Creepy Line which explores the censorship by tech giants such as Google. Stossel has had his own brush with Google’s “creepy line” when he attempted to publish a video about socialism on YouTube, which prevented young people from being able to view it.

In an article published in TownHall.com, Fox Business pundit John Stossel discusses his experience attempting to publish videos critical of socialism via YouTube and what he learned from the documentary The Creepy Line about how tech giants view privacy matters.

In his article, Stossel outlines his experience when attempting to publish a video about the effects of socialism on the country of Venezuela, which was subsequently removed from YouTube:

This morning Google told me that it would not allow my YouTube video “Socialism Leads to Violence” to be viewed by young people. It violates “community guidelines,” said the company in a computer-generated email.

Anti-capitalist bias? Or just an algorithm shielding children from disturbing violence in Venezuela? I don’t know.

But a new documentary, “The Creepy Line,” argues that companies like Google and Facebook lean left and have power they shouldn’t have.

The title “Creepy Line” refers to a comment by former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who said when it comes to issues like privacy, Google policy “is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it.”

But the documentary argues that Google crosses that creepy line every day.

Google’s power comes from its dominant search engine. We assume that whatever appears at the top of our searches is the “best” or most popular result.

But is it?

Stossel then discusses his conversation with Peter Schweizer, the writer of The Creepy Line:

“It is a company that has an agenda,” the writer of “The Creepy Line,” Peter Schweizer, says in my latest video.

Google executives do give much more money to Democrats than Republicans. Eric Schmidt even advised Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“Their ability to manipulate the algorithm is something that they’ve demonstrated,” says Schweizer, and last election Google put positive stories about Hillary Clinton higher in Google searches.

Stossel discussed the problem with one company having so much power over the content seen by millions of people:

My purpose in making the videos is to reach kids, to educate them about the benefits of free markets. It’s why I started StosselInTheClassroom.org, a nonprofit that provides videos, plus teachers’ guides, free to teachers.

If Google and Facebook decide adults should be “protected” from seeing those videos, too, then “Stossel TV” will go dark.

As Peterson says in the documentary, “Whatever the assumptions are that Google operates under are going to be the filters that determine how the world is simplified and presented.”

Read the full op-ed at TownHall.com here.

quodverum

Published  2 months ago

Uranium One and SpyGate are rigged to blow wide open. The Clinton’s money and information laundering fingerprints are all over both crimes, as REX explains.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Bill and Hillary Clinton kicked off their 13-city paid speaking tour, “An Evening with the Clintons,” on Tuesday night by accusing President Donald Trump of taking part in a Saudi “cover-up.”

The Clintons — speaking at the Scotiabank ice hockey arena filled with empty seats in Toronto, Canada, Tuesday evening — took the opportunity to bash Trump’s support for Saudi Arabia and accused him of being part of the “cover-up” of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

“What makes this so troubling is how much commercial interest both the president’s family and business and his son-in-law’s family and business have with the kingdom,” said Hillary Clinton.

“We have a president who is the part of the cover-up as to what happened in that consulate or embassy when Mr. Khashoggi was murdered,” she added.

Former President Bill Clinton said the U.S. “compromised” its place in the world under Trump and went on to defend his North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton continued to take potshots at the president.

“He said today that his gut and his opinion is a lot smarter than peoples’ brains. Literally, you can’t make this stuff up. A dozen times your head is spinning,” she said.

But the Clintons did more than just bash Trump at the Tuesday evening event.

Former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna, who was a major Clinton Foundation backer featured in Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash, interviewed the couple with softball questions on hot topics and events in the past.

“It seems almost offensive to ask you, but why does Putin hate you so much?” he asked Hillary Clinton. “You seem like a very nice person.”

Toronto was the first stop on the Clintons’ much-hyped 13-city speaking tour for which tickets sold for thousands of dollars on resale sites in many cities.

Officials say the Clintons’ Toronto event sold approximately 3,300 seats in a 19,000-seat venue that fills up when the Toronto Maple Leafs play a major hockey game, although event organizers blocked off seats in the arena’s upper deck.

The tour was billed by promoter Live Nation as a “one-of-a-kind conversation with two individuals who have helped shape our world and had a front seat to some of the most important moments in modern history.”

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Donors have left the Clinton Foundation in the dust one year after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election to President Donald Trump, according to the organization’s latest federal tax filings.

The filings, obtained by the New York Post on Saturday, showed that contributions to the foundation took a $36 million nosedive over the past year—reported contributions fell from $62,912,331 in 2016 to $26,566,825 in 2017.

The $36 million drop in donations comes as House Republicans plan to hold hearings in December on the results of a Justice Department probe into the Clinton Foundation—one month before Democrats assume control of the House.

Donations to the foundation have tanked over the past few years as the organization had tried to fend off allegations that Hillary Clinton used the foundation to engage in pay-to-play schemes with foreign governments.

In 2015, donations plummeted by 37 percent amid allegations that Clinton, the former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, used the charity to solicit millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments and corporations in exchange for giving these entities favorable treatment while she served as Secretary of State.

Right before Hillary Clinton announced her intent to run for the White House, the New York Times published a piece explaining how she, as Secretary of State, approved a sale which allowed 20 percent of U.S. uranium to be transferred to the Russian government.

Although the Clinton State Department was one out of eight Obama administration agencies to look over the deal, Hillary Clinton was the only head of an Obama administration agency whose foundation directly benefited from the sale.

The New York Times reported that Clinton’s family foundation— the Clinton Foundation— received $145 million in contributions from donors involved in the sale.

Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer exposed this deal—known as the Uranium One deal— and other deals between Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department in his book Clinton Cash, which prompted a flood of media coverage of the foundation’s dealings on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

The non-profit organization’s donations and revenue gained from both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements tanked when Schweizer’s revelations went public and Clinton lost her election.

The foundation reported $3.6 million in revenue from the Clintons’ speeches in 2015, but reported making just under $300,000 from those speaking engagements in 2017, according to the tax filings.

The filings show that the Clinton Foundation did not report any earnings from the Clintons’ speaking engagements in 2016 when Hillary Clinton ran for president.

Clinton Foundation executives brushed off the foundation’s revenue dip due to organizational restructuring, even as the foundation had to lay off 22 staffers and shut down the Clinton Global Initiative.

“We anticipated a decline in both revenue and expenses for 2017, largely attributable to the absence of sponsorship and membership contributions for CGI,” a spokesman for the Clinton Foundation told the Post.

Dan Bongino

Published  3 months ago

Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told the Hill that there are whistleblowers who could have damaging information about the Clinton Foundation and that he hopes to secure their testimonies for an upcoming House Oversight Committee hearing.

Meadows’ revelation came Tuesday after he told Hill.Tv’s “Rising” that he is planning on holding a hearing on Dec. 5 with Attorney John Huber, who was appointed by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the Clinton Foundation and allegations of FBI misconduct.

“Mr. Huber with the Department of Justice and FBI has been having an investigation — at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation..,” he said.

Meadows said his committee is working on getting testimonies from whistleblowers who “would indicate that there is a great probability of significant improper activity that’s happening in and around the Clinton Foundation.”

The Hill reports that “Meadows…said the committee plans to delve into a number of Republicans concerns surrounding the foundation, including whether any tax-exempt proceeds were used for personal gain and whether the foundation complied with IRS laws.”

The Clinton Foundation has a long history of troubling dealings, many of which are outlined in the bestselling book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

Consider the below list as a small example of some of the questionable behavior of the Clinton Foundation as laid out by Breitbart:

Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti

Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.

At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors

Breitbart

Published  3 months ago

Matthew Whitaker, former U.S. Attorney, said he has always believed the Clinton Foundation scandal is more serious than the email scandal.

Judicial Watch

Published  3 months ago

The U.S. government has blown almost $90 million on a doomed project to help Afghan women enter the workforce with a big chunk of the money going to a Clinton-aligned “development” company that reaped big bucks from Uncle Sam while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The cash flows through the famously corrupt U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), which is charged with providing global economic, development and humanitarian assistance. In this case USAID allocated $216 million to supposedly help tens of thousands of Afghan women get jobs and gain promotions over five years. Known as “Promoting Gender Equity in National Priority Programs,” the endeavor was launched in 2014 and tens of millions of dollars later it’s proven to be a major failure.

Someone must be pocketing the cash because the costly program has helped between zero and 60 women. This isn’t a joke, though it sounds like a bad one. All the dirty details are laid out in a scathing federal audit released this month by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Investigators found that around 55 women got “new or better” jobs in three years and they can’t even fully credit the U.S.-backed program for the women’s prosperities. SIGAR writes that it found “multiple problems” in the program, including security, staffing and economic conditions in Afghanistan. “In addition, SIGAR found that USAID/Afghanistan’s records on the contractors’ required deliverables were incomplete and inaccurate because the agency’s management did not give contracting officer’s representatives enough guidance on record keeping,” the report states. Of interesting note is that one of the biggest contracts went to a company, Chemonics International, with close ties to the Clintons. The Washington-based development firm was awarded $38 million, according to the figures included in the SIGAR report. “Chemonics thrived during Clinton’s tenure, nabbing more contracts during the Haiti reconstruction effort than any other company,” a 2015 news report reveals. “Peter Schweizer noted the extensive Clinton connections to development failures in Haiti in his book, Clinton Cash.”

Here’s a nugget from this month’s SIGAR report that illustrates how poorly this boondoggle was planned by the government; even when the Afghan women complete the program, there are not jobs waiting for them. The audit reveals that the Afghan government won’t sustain the program, referred to as Promote, because it can’t hire all the graduates. “It is also unclear whether the graduates will obtain jobs in the private sector in large numbers due to the country’s low projected economic growth rate,” the report states. “This raises questions about whether Promote is sustainable at all and could put USAID’s investment in the program in jeopardy.” So, the U.S. government is spending enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars to train women in a crime-infested, third-world country for jobs that don’t exist. Afghanistan has a poverty rate of 39.1 %, according to the World Bank, and an unemployment rate of 22.6%. The security situation has worsened and civilian casualties are at their highest since 2002, with an unprecedented level of conflict-induced displacement.

Nevertheless, in the summer of 2013 the Obama administration announced it was launching the “largest women’s empowerment program in [USAID] history.” The goal was to advance opportunities for Afghan women to become political, private sector, and civil society leaders and to build upon existing and previous programs for women and girls. Of course, this requires a lot of money so the administration allocated the $216 million to get the job done. The money was supposed to educate, promote and train a new generation of Afghan women in order to increase their contributions to the country’s development. “Promote strengthens women’s rights groups,” USAID proclaims, and boosts female participation in the economy while increasing the number of women in decision making positions within the Afghan government. It also helps women gain business and management skills. The SIGAR report identifies Promote as the “largest single investment to advance women globally.”

A few years ago, Judicial Watch reported on another scandalous USAID program aimed at helping women in Afghanistan escape repression. After spending a whopping $64.8 million on 652 projects, programs and initiatives, a federal audit determined lack of accountability and follow up made it impossible to know if they made a difference. That disastrous project was also funded by the departments of State and Defense and federal investigators found that none of the three agencies had effective mechanisms for tracking the funding associated with the projects.

TheHill

Published  4 months ago

The FBI actually released a few documents — but they were just already-public letters from members of Congress demanding answers in the Uranium One case.

Breitbart

Published  5 months ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden echoed Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” moment during a Saturday evening speech at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner in Washington, DC, calling President Donald Trump’s supporters “virulent people” and “dregs of society.”

“Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made,” Biden told dinner attendees Saturday evening.

“This time they—not you—have an ally in the White House. This time they have an ally. They’re a small percentage of the American people—virulent people, some of them the dregs of society,” Biden continued.

Biden then urged the crowd to do what they could to oppose Trump and his administration for promoting “prejudice” under the guise of culture.

“Those who try to excuse this kind of prejudice in the name of culture, I say, ‘Prejudice is prejudice, and humanity is humanity. It is a crime,'” he said. “Our work is not yet done–by any stretch of the imagination. The stakes are much too high.”

Biden’s comments come two years after Clinton called Trump’s followers “a basket of deplorables” at a fundraiser in New York packed with liberal donors.

Donald Trump Jr. immediately called out Biden, tweeting Sunday evening that the comments went “too far even for him.”

We are all used to Creepy Joe saying stupid stuff but this is too far even for him. https://t.co/vNiD9TDZg6

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 16, 2018

Biden’s remarks come as he mulls a possible third run for the presidency. If the former vice president decides to run, he may have to answer to explosive revelations that he and his son Hunter struck a $1.5 billion deal with the Chinese government-backed Bank of China just ten days after the vice president and his son returned from a trip to China aboard Air Force Two.

Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, in his book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, detailed how Biden may have helped Hunter secure the $1.5 billion deal with a China-based investment firm that had ties to a Chinese atomic energy company indicted for “nuclear power conspiracy against the United States.”

“The FBI arrests and charges senior officials in this company with stealing nuclear secrets in the United States. Specifically, they’re trying to get access to something called the AP-1000 nuclear reactor that is very similar to the ones that we put on U.S. submarines,” Schweizer wrote.

“So again, you have the son of the vice president, a close aide to the secretary of state who are investing in a company that is trying to steal nuclear secrets in the United States. It’s a stunning story, and here’s the thing: none of this is required to be disclosed because they’ve figured out a way to get around these disclosure laws,” Schweizer continued.

Daily Wire

Published  5 months ago

The Democrats have pounced on a story from CNN about Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) to derail his nomination to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

The story alleges that Price committed some sort of insider trading by using his power as the House Budget Committee chairman to increase the price of health care stocks and then sell them.

However, the story is fake news, as Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro explains here. It's also a blatant hypocrisy by the Democrats, as various Democrats have been accused of using their positions of power to enrich themselves through the same type of insider trading that they have accused Price of doing.

Here are five Democrats that faced allegations of insider training.

1. John Kerry. The outgoing secretary of state and former Massachusetts senator used Obamacare to enrich himself through health care stocks, according to Business Insider:

As passage Obamacare seemed more likely, Kerry bought nearly $750,000 in Teva Pharmaceuticals stock, one of several big drug companies that benefitted from the health care bill. When the bill was signed in 2010, the Kerrys sold some of their Teva shares, making tens of thousands of dollars in capital gains. They kept more than $1 million worth of Teva stock.

In 2009, the Kerrys also picked up shares in ResMed, a medical device manufacturer that was a big winner in the healthcare reform battle. In early versions of the bill, medical device companies would have been subject to higher taxes. Kerry opposed the taxes, and the fees were much lower in the final version. ResMed's stock rose 71% when the bill was passed.

The Kerrys also invested in hospital supplier Thermo Fisher Scientific, a major beneficiary of the healthcare bill. The stock jumped 40% after Obamacare passed.

At the same time, the Kerrys dumped all of their investments in the health insurance industry, including shares in United Health and Wellpoint. Needless to say, healthcare providers were the biggest losers in Obamacare.

Business Insider also notes that Kerry cashed in on the Medicare Part D program, as "the Kerrys made 111 trades in pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare providers that would administer the plan" while the bill was being drafted by Congress. After the law's passage, a number of those stocks were sold and benefited the Kerrys to the tune of "$100,000 and $1 million." The Kerrys have claimed that their "investments are managed by independent trustees."

2. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). Peter Schweizer, author of Throw Them All Out, told Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard in 2011 that Polis, who sat on the House Ways and Means Committee, was a major proponent of Obamacare while investing $7-35 million into Bridge International, a company that arranges surgeries outside of the country.

"He knew exactly what he was doing because the medical tourism industry in the summer of 2009 was saying, 'If ObamaCare passes, this is going to be a boon to our industry because surgeries are going to become more scarce, and people are going to want to go overseas to avoid a lot of red tape,'" Schweizer said. "So, here you had an individual who was supporting a law, and he knew that the economic consequences would not be good for the healthcare system, but he sought to profit off of it by buying a huge chunk in a medical tourism company."

Schweizer also pointed out that Obamacare guaranteed a 12 year patent protection for biotechnology company drugs, which was helpful to the industry since most companies only have fiveyear patent protections for their drugs. Polis purchased around $1-5 million in sector funds for biotechnology funds at the time, Obamacare boosted those funds by 25 percent.

3. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out notes that the Pelosis bought various shares of Visa just after the House was debating legislation that "would have allowed retailers to negotiate lower fees with the major credit-card companies," a major source of revenue for those companies. The Pelosis were able to buy the shares a day before the stock became publicly available, and after they purchased that share Pelosi killed the bill. Eventually, the behemoth Dodd-Frank law covered the matter.

"By that time, the value of Pelosi’s IPO shares had more than doubled, while the market as a whole had shown a double-digit decline," writes Newsweek's review of Schweizer's book.

4. Former Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). When then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke held a confidential briefing about the pending economic collapse of 2008, the Morans quickly dumped 90 shares to avoid the substantial losses that many Americans would face. Moran has denied that he ever attended this briefing, although his sketchy record makes it hard to take his denial seriously.

5. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Feinstein and her husband purchased $1 million in Amyris-Biotechnologies equity just before the Department of Energy approved a $24 million grant to the company under President Barack Obama's stimulus bill. Amyris was owned by prominent Democrat donor John Doerr.

"With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million," Schweizer writes in Throw Them All Out. "John Doerr's firm, Kleiner Perkins, did very well, more than tripling its investment. A $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It's not clear how [shareholder] Steve Westly or Senator Feinstein did, but it's safe to assume they did well too. Meanwhile, Amyris continues to lose money, and the grant created forty jobs."

Breitbart

Published  6 months ago

Seamus Bruner, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government positions to enrich themselves. He joined Peter Schweizer, GAI president and Breitbart News senior editor-at-large, for a Wednesday interview with Sean Hannity.

“This is a familiar story [about] the revolving door; turning public service into self service,” said Bruner. “We followed the money. We followed it to the top, and we found that these choir boys or boy scouts — as the media likes to depict them — James Comey and Robert Mueller, they’re really no better than anyone else in the swamp. They use their public service [and] their contacts and they cash in through the revolving door.”

Bruner described Lockheed Martin’s — the country’s largest national defense and security contractor — hiring of James Comey in 2005 to the dual position of general counsel and senior vice president as unusual. Comey was 44 at the time and without requisite corporate experience.

Listen to the discussions below:

Bruner added, “[James Comey] wasn’t just consulting Lockheed Martin, he was their general counsel and a senior vice president at the corporation, which begs the question, why would you choose a young James Comey? He’s got no corporate experience of that kind.”

Bruner drew on a 2012 Huffington Post article describing Next Generation identification — a proposed biometric database and facial recognition system commissioned by the FBI via Lockheed Martin — as a “billion-dollar boondoggle.” He noted that Comey “signed off” on the project as a Lockheed Martin executive and chief legal counsel in 2012, and the project’s authorization by then FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Bruner spoke of Comey’s and Mueller’s complementary roles in expanding “the surveillance state.”

“James Comey and Robert Mueller have this long history together going back to the nineties at the DOJ,” recalled Bruner:

They’ve been very concerned with matters relating to surveillance, especially FISA and the Patriot Act. We see repeatedly throughout the early 2000s and all the way up through today [that] Robert Mueller and James Comey wanted to “tear down the wall,” so to speak, between intelligence agencies, and had issues with what they call “the going dark problem,” where they didn’t have enough information. So they really rapidly expanded [what I describe as] “the surveillance state” which is now, of course, being used against journalists, citizens, and even now a presidential candidate.

Schweizer explained how government officials leverage their roles towards self-enrichment: “What this highlights is this problem, happens at Health and Human Services, it happens at DoD, where you have government officials, who basically, while they’re in government, create demand for their own services when they leave.”

Schweizer continued:

So in the case of Jim Comey, he goes to Lockheed Martin from the Department of Justice. At the Department of Justice, he helped establish some of these very programs that Lockheed Martin was getting contracts to implement and carry out. So he sets up these programs, who is Lockheed Martin going to look for to give a paycheck to who understands this program better than anybody else? The government official who helped put it together, and that is sort of a tried and true story in Washington, DC, and the point is, you played that clip at the beginning of James Comey talking about how sensitive he is to the appearances of doing something wrong or wrongdoing, the fact of the matter is, this is a very familiar story, unfortunately, in the swamp.

Schweizer concluded, “What Seamus shows is this pattern where, when Mueller is in the private sector and Comey is in government, there seem to be contracts and resources that flow in that direction, as well. It’s kind of a tag team arrangement that these two have. It speaks to the financial underbelly that exists even at the Department of Justice. … There are lots of ways in which these officials self-enrich themselves.”

Investor's Business Daily

Published  6 months ago

Russian Scandal: As the old saying goes, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. That's certainly true with the growing scandal over the Russians' extortion racket in the U.S., possible... Read More

Truthfeed

Published  6 months ago

It’s frustrating, day after day to see the wrongdoings with Robert Mueller and his Russia witch-hunt, and nothing is done about it.

But this is part of the war we’re fighting. In many ways, it’s a war of information, and the more we uncover and spread the more we empower Trump’s base and beyond with the knowledge needed to stand up to this Deep State tyranny.

Let these stories fuel your passion to get out and vote in 2018. We can’t sit back and allow the Democrats to seize any power. If we do, everything we have fought for up until this point will be for nothing.

Let the fact that Mueller and disgraced James Comey colluded together, leveraging their government contracts, to enrich themselves, to be just one of your reasons to come out in 2018 and shut these people out.

Seamus Bruner Government Accountability Institute (GAI) researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves. He joined Peter Schweizer, GAI president and Breitbart News senior editor-at-large, for an interview on Monday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.

Bruner and Schweizer examined what they described as a “revolving door” of “cronyism” within the federal government’s national security and intelligence apparatuses, focusing on the monetization of security clearances held by former administration officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper.

Bruner noted the growth of Comey’s net worth between 2003 and 2009, after Comey left the Department of Justice to join Lockheed Martin as senior vice president and lead counsel.

“It doesn’t really make much sense why [Lockheed Martin] would pay [James Comey] upwards of six million dollars in a single year,” assessed Bruner. “But one reason — aside from his security clearance — is that his buddy Robert Mueller is running the FBI. They begin passing 100-million-dollar-plus contracts to Lockheed Martin.”

Breitbart

Published  6 months ago

Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government positions for self-enrichment. He joined his colleague Seamus Bruner, a GAI researcher, to discuss the latter’s forthcoming book, Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, in a Friday interview with Sean Hannity.

Hannity opened the interview with questions: “How is it all of these politicians have become filthy rich? They’re supposed to be public servants. Where does the money come from? What are the conflicts of interest?”

Hannity drew from Bruner’s new book, “James Comey’s net worth has skyrocketed 4000 percent. By the time he left [the Department of Justice] in 2005 and came back in 2013, [James] Comey made 6.1 million dollars after [Robert] Mueller granted his employer, Lockheed Martin — the largest contractor in history — a billion-dollar boondoggle. Under Mueller’s direction, the FBI granted multiple spy contracts to Lockheed Martin while Comey was advising them on the legality of their operations. Comey also received another six million dollars working for one of the world’s largest hedge funds and an additional $500,000 for unused vacation time.”

“Mueller cashed in, as well,” continued Hannity. “In 2013, when Comey took over the FBI while Mueller left to start consulting at a consulting firm, he made more than 3.5 million in about year giving speeches and representing clients who had previously enriched his FBI director; clients like the world’s most profitable spy corporation.”Apple and Facebook are both former clients of Mueller’s consulting firm, with the former providing Paul Manafort’s iCloud data to Mueller’s team of lawyers. Hannity read, “Two of Mueller’s former clients are cooperating with the special counsel, Facebook [and] Apple. Mueller’s former client, the paragon of privacy Apple Inc. provided the special counsel with access to Paul Manafort’s iCloud despite making a public spectacle protecting the San Bernardino terrorist’s privacy. Mueller’s former client, and another paragon of privacy Facebook, may be cooperating with the special counsel voluntarily without a subpoena according to congressional testimony from CEO Mark Zuckerberg.”

Schweizer described Comey and Mueller as a “tag-team” engaged in the “revolving door” of “crony capitalism.”

“Jim Comey and Robert Mueller are very close friends,” said Schweizer. “They met each other in the 1990s at the Justice Department and have really been sort of this tag team from the beginning. When one of them is in the private sector and one is in government, they steer contracts in the direction of people they’re affiliated with and vice-versa. It’s a very troubling story that shows the revolving door applies every bit as much to these gentlemen, and crony capitalism applies every bit as much as it does to other people in Washington.”

Bruner said, “Mueller was senior vice president of Lockheed Martin and general counsel, so he was the top lawyer at the largest contractor in U.S. history. Lockheed Martin gets about 50 billion dollars a year, 95 percent of that is in taxpayer money, and James Comey — who’s never been the general counsel of a corporation that large — comes in in 2005, and by 2009, he’s made 6.1 million dollars just in that year alone in cash and stock options, and that’s disclosed in SEC documents.”

“This is after Robert Mueller gives a program in 2008 called Next Generation Identification [to Lockheed Martin]. It is a surveillance program [with] biometric facial recognition, basically turning everyone’s face into a fingerprint.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) describes Next Generation Identification (NGI) as poised to become “the largest biometric database in the world” which will include “fingerprints, iris scans, DNA profiles, voice identification profiles, palm prints, and photographs.” It warns of NGI’s inclusion of “millions of individuals who are neither criminals nor suspects … in [its] database. Many of these individuals will be unaware that their images and other biometric identifiers are being captured [and used].”

Bruner said some federal contracts procured by the FBI during Mueller’s directorship were unlikely to have been competitively selected using best practices for procurement, including contracts valued as highly as $100 million.

“Like Peter said, [Comey and Mueller] kind of work as a tag team,” said Bruner. “So Robert Mueller leaves [the FBI directorship] in 2013, and James Comey takes over. Mueller goes and sets up Robert Mueller and Associates, a consulting firm. He starts giving speeches — much like the Clintons do — and he returns to his old firm WilmerHale, and some of Mueller’s clients are really interesting characters. You‘ve got Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc., both of those corporations are now cooperating with the special counsel.”

Bruner noted Apple’s refusal to comply with court orders directing it to unlock and decrypt the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the perpetrators, one of the perpetrators of the 2015’s Islamic terrorist mass murder attack in San Bernardino, CA. “Apple Inc. kind of sells itself as a paragon of privacy, as if they’re going to keep your data private,” he said. “The San Bernardino terrorist is one very public example where they resisted court orders to unlock this terrorist’s phone. Meanwhile, they cooperated with a subpoena from Robert Mueller’s special counsel for Paul Manafort’s iCloud.”

Hannity remarked, “Apple received a court order to give over Paul Manafort’s iCloud data while they refused a court order to unlock the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone.”

Schweizer explained how security clearances held by former government officials are monetized for self-enrichment.

“If you do not have a security clearance as a retired FBI director or former DOJ senior executive, if you do not have access to that security clearance, you can’t work for these contractors,” stated Schweizer. “It’s not just an issue of John Brennan or James Comey or whoever having access to these clearances for purposes of knowing what’s going on. It actually affects their bottom line in a big way.”

Schweizer added, “This revolving door is a big problem. We know that it happens in the Pentagon. We know that Health and Human Services people do favorable things for, say, a pharmaceutical company, and then they leave to go work for this pharmaceutical company. The same thing is going on at FBI and DOJ and James Comey and Robert Mueller are involved in it.”

Schweizer explained the motivations behind political and news media recalcitrance towards President Donald Trump’s removal of security clearances from former Obama-era intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper.

“One of the reasons you’re going to see a lot of pushback and a lot of screaming on this issue of security clearances is that it goes to the heart of their ability to cash in,” said Schweizer. “If they don’t have a security clearance, they cannot cash in with these contractors in this way.

Schweizer went on, “It’s a huge issue, because if you work for a contractor, let’s say you’re a former assistant director of the FBI and you go work for Lockheed Martin or you go to Booz Allen Hamilton or one of these other consulting firms, you are working on classified projects and you need a security clearance. So if you are John Brennan, for example, who was a contractor after he left the intelligence service, those opportunities dry up. Booz Allen Hamilton can’t hire you. Lockheed Martin can’t hire you to work on any intelligence programs, because those programs are classified. … Access to top secret security clearances is key if you are going to work for the multitude of contractors out there working in the national security or the intelligence space.”

Life and Liberty

Published  6 months ago

It has become more and more apparent that it was a good move to take away the security clearances. Hannity talked about the book “Compromised,” on his radio show. Peter Schweizer, President of The Government Accountability and Institute, gave the forward for the book by Seamus Bruner. In the Forward Schweizer clued us all into how intelligence agents, like Comey and Mueller, were working the system. But this was not meager connections. They made millions.

“James Comey’s net worth has skyrocketed 4000 percent. By the time he left [the Department of Justice] in 2005 and came back in 2013, Comey made 6.1 million dollars after [Robert] Mueller granted his employer, Lockheed Martin — the largest contractor in history — a billion-dollar boondoggle. Under Mueller’s direction, the FBI granted multiple spy contracts to Lockheed Martin while Comey was advising them on the legality of their operations. Comey also received another six million dollars working for one of the world’s largest hedge funds and an additional $500,000 for unused vacation time.”

“Mueller cashed in, as well. In 2013, when Comey took over the FBI while Mueller left to start consulting at a consulting firm, he made more than 3.5 million in about year giving speeches and representing clients who had previously enriched his FBI director; clients like the world’s most profitable spy corporation.”

“Two of Mueller’s former clients are cooperating with the special counsel, Facebook [and] Apple. Mueller’s former client, the paragon of privacy Apple Inc. provided the special counsel with access to Paul Manafort’s iCloud despite making a public spectacle protecting the San Bernardino terrorist’s privacy. Mueller’s former client, and another paragon of privacy Facebook, may be cooperating with the special counsel voluntarily without a subpoena according to congressional testimony from CEO Mark Zuckerberg.”

“Jim Comey and Robert Mueller are very close friends,” said Schweizer. “They met each other in the 1990s at the Justice Department and have really been sort of this tag team from the beginning. When one of them is in the private sector and one is in government, they steer contracts in the direction of people they’re affiliated with and vice-versa. It’s a very troubling story that shows the revolving door applies every bit as much to these gentlemen, and crony capitalism applies every bit as much as it does to other people in Washington.”

Listen To More From His Radio Show Here.

Mueller has been investigating our president and wasting taxpayer dollars since 2016. He has also been living the high life by abusing government power. And we are supposed to listen to a corrupt government employee on a case of possible collusion? It sounds like Mueller and Comey would likely have made deals with everyone and anyone. Especially if they laced their pockets in the process. This just proves how messed up the MSM and intelligence agencies are.

Breitbart

Published  6 months ago

Seamus Bruner explained how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves.

americanthinker

Published  7 months ago

An indictment of Manafort while the Podestas and Team Clinton roam free after their real and treasonous collusion with Ukraine and Russia in the Uranium One scandal would be a scandal unto itself.�

National Review

Published  7 months ago

Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.

Breitbart

Published  9 months ago

Millions of taxpayers dollars trafficked through food stamp fraud went to terrorists who funded their activities at home and abroad, according to an explosive report from the Government Accountability Institute (GAI).

The report from GAI, where Breitbart News Senior-Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer serves as president, highlighted several instances where money obtained through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits fraud went to fund acts of terrorism, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing.

Although this method of using food stamp fraud money for terrorism has been around since the 1980s, it gained notoriety when New York City detectives testified before a Senate subcommittee about the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

Ads by Revcontent

Detectives told the committee that $125 million in food stamp fraud had “unwittingly” gone to terrorist activities.

One of the masterminds of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, Mahmud Abouhalima, funded the attacks by operating a million-dollar food stamp fraud scheme out of a video store in Brooklyn.

But the U.S. government did not pinpoint how a lot of these terrorists used money from food stamp fraud to fund their attacks until shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

The U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) identified that many terrorists would get away with funding their illicit activities by using businesses known as “hawalas” to launder money.

A “hawala”— which is an Arabic term defined in English as transfer (or trust)— is a method of transferring money through informal agents from international networks, and many Muslim immigrants settled in western countries use the “hawala” method to transfer funds to family members.

GAI, citing a U.S. Treasury report, found that more than $7 billion flows into Pakistan alone through hawalas every year.

Because of the informal, simple nature of the transaction, the “hawala” method has also been popular among criminals and terrorists to launder money from the U.S. to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia without a paper trail.

In one such instance in 2015, federal agents discovered couriers for these “hawala” networks traveling with cash-filled suitcases on flights leaving the United States for East Africa out of Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle, according to the report. The act of transporting the cash itself was not illegal, but it raised suspicion among federal authorities.

One federal investigator analyzing the financial records of the hawalas found that ten of the couriers working for those networks had been on federal welfare benefits.

Investigators say it is very difficult to track the money moved around through hawalas, even though the federal government has known about the use of hawalas and their alleged role in financing terrorism for years.

But as federal investigators became more familiar with the welfare fraud mechanisms used to fund terrorist activities after the September 11 attacks, investigators have cracked down on a number of instances where terrorists have used the benefit fraud for such purposes.

In 2006, a judge sentenced a Chicago grocery store owner to more than four years behind bars for defrauding $1.4 million from the nation’s food stamp program and using it to fund terrorist activities carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In 2011, the FBI arrested Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, both Iraqi refugees, on federal terrorism charges for sending “money and weapons to Iraqi insurgents from the U.S.” Alwan became a refugee in 2009, citing persecution in his native country, when he settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky. After briefly holding a job in the area, he moved into public housing and collected welfare payouts.

In 2013, federal investigators discovered that Islamic militants Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings, had been receiving more than $100,000 in federal welfare assistance over ten years. The Tsarnaev brothers, who had emigrated to the U.S. from Kyrgyzstan, had been receiving cash, section 8 housing, and food stamps.

Federal lawmakers have also become aware of these illicit means of transferring money, and have introduced bills to stop “hawalas” and similar money laundering activities. In May 2017, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed legislation that would prohibit the practice of money laundering through hawalas.

Breitbart

Published  2 years ago

Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.

The revelation appears in Throw Them All Out, the new book by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, which was the focus of 60 Minutes on CBS this evening, and which is featured in this week’s issue of Newsweek.

Schweizer’s investigation of Pelosi and other members of Congress–from both parties–raises a critical question: should it be legal for lawmakers to buy stocks in companies directly affected by their legislative efforts?

In early 2008, Nancy Pelosi and her real estate developer husband, Paul, were given an opportunity to buy into a Visa IPO. It was a nearly impossible feat–one that average citizens almost certainly could never achieve. The vast majority of purchase opportunities went to institutional investors, large mutual funds, or pension funds.

Despite Pelosi’s consistent railing against credit card companies, on March 18, 2008, the Pelosis bought between $1 million and $5 million (politicians do not have to report the exact amounts, only ranges) worth of Visa stock at the IPO price of $44 per share. Two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50% profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share.

How did Nancy Pelosi snag one of the most coveted initial public offerings in history? The facts are still emerging. Yet according to Schweizer, corporations that wish to build congressional allies will sometimes hand-pick members of Congress to receive IPOs. Pelosi received her Visa IPO almost two weeks after a potentially damaging piece of legislation for Visa, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, had been introduced in the House. If passed, the bill would have cut into Visa’s profits substantially by lowering so-called “interchange fees,” the 1% to 3% charge retailers pay Visa when customers use Visa cards for purchases. Interchange fees are a critical source of revenue for the four credit card companies–$48 billion in 2008, to be exact.

If the Credit Card Fair Fee Act had been passed into effect, it would have amended antitrust laws to require credit card companies to enter negotiations with merchants over interchange fees, and it would have given the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission the power to arbitrate if the two sides failed to come to an agreement. For that reason, Visa and the other credit card companies strongly opposed the bill.

The Credit Card Fair Fee Act was exactly the kind of bill one would think then-Speaker Pelosi would have backed. “She had been outspoken about antitrust problems posed by insurance, oil, and pharmaceutical companies,” Schweizer notes, “and she was vocal about the need for controlling interest rates individual banks charged to use their credit cards.”

Initially, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act cleared the Judiciary Committee on a 19-16 vote, and the National Association of Convenience Stores began lobbying for a vote on the floor of the House. “It is imperative to tell your Representatives to request a vote on the House Floor from Nancy Pelosi,” the association urged its members. Still, with at least ten percent of the Pelosi family’s entire stock portfolio invested in a single stock, Nancy Pelosi clearly had a vested interest in ensuring that Visa’s profits were protected. And that is exactly what she accomplished. Despite broad public support for the bill–77% in one study–Pelosi saw to it that the bill never made it to the House floor.

Shortly thereafter, a second bill limiting collusion by the credit card companies on interchange fees was proposed. The Credit Card Interchange Fee Act of 2008, while not as strong as the first bill, would have required greater transparency from credit card companies in informing customers how much they were paying in interchange fees. Yet again, reports Schweizer, “this second bill suffered the same fate as the first, never making it to the House floor.”

By 2009, both bills had garnered even broader bipartisan support and were reintroduced. Under Speaker Pelosi, however, neither bill lived to see a vote on the House floor.

Pelosi eventually supported something called the Credit Card Reform Act. Curiously, the all-important interchange fees went untouched by that legislation. Instead, the bill stated that the interchange fee issue should simply be “studied.” The bill’s other measures would not affect Visa but rather its client banks. In short, the Credit Card Reform Act ensured that Visa and the other credit card companies dodged a potentially costly bullet.

None of that, however, prevented Pelosi from grandstanding. She publicly declared that the Credit Card Reform Act sent a “strong and clear message to credit card companies” that they would be held to account for their “anti-consumer practices.”

In the wake of the bill’s passage, the Pelosis’ shares of Visa stock rose. Indeed, according to Throw Them All Out, “the IPO shares they had purchased soared by 203% from where they began, while the stock market as a whole was down 15% during the same period.”

Nancy Pelosi is hardly the only member of Congress to be given IPOs, but Pelosi has been especially “lucky” at landing them. She and her husband have participated in at least 10 lucrative IPOs throughout her career. In 1993, Pelosi purchased IPO shares in a high-tech company named Gupta, watched the stock price leap 88% in 24 hours, then seized the profits by selling the stock the next day. The Pelosis did the same thing with Netscape and UUNet, resulting in a one-day doubling of their initial investment. Other fast and lucrative IPO flips included Remedy Corporation, Opal, Legato Systems, and Act Networks.

Schweizer says Nancy Pelosi’s financial disclosure forms typically mask the precise dates of her stock buys. He cites the Pelosis’ December 1999 stock purchase of between $250,000 and $500,000 in shares from high-tech company OnDisplay. A few months later, OnDisplay was bought by Vignette, which resulted in up to $1 million in capital gains for the Pelosis. What was unusual about the transaction is that Vignette’s IPO was underwritten by a major campaign contributor and longtime friend of Nancy Pelosi, William Hambrecht.

Throw Them All Out also chronicles the Pelosis’ $100,000 IPO purchase of Clean Energy Fuels at roughly $12 a share. Schweizer alleges that as Speaker of the House, Pelosi pushed several bills beneficial to the company.

Similarly, in November 2007, Pelosi bought $500,000 in the IPO for Quest Energy Partners before proceeding to champion the natural gas-related legislation that stood to significantly benefit the company. When Tom Brokaw asked her whether her significant personal investments in natural gas represented a conflict of interest, Pelosi shrugged off the question by hiding behind the crony capitalist’s false credo: “That’s the marketplace.”

->