| Ukraine ‘Anti-Corruption’ Director Bragged About Helping Hillary Clinton in 2016: Leaked AudioPosted: 07 Oct 2019 11:09 AM PDTAfter a multi-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election that resulted in sanctions and a handful of indictments, the fact that Ukraine meddled in the same election been largely ignored.Veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa worked directly with the Ukrainian Embassy in the United States, and investigative reporter Michael Isikoff to target Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to a Politico report.Michael Avenatti, Alexandra Chalupa“They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” said Andrii Telizhenko, who worked in the embassy at the time, adding “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.“If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump’s involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September,” Telizhenko recalls Chalupa saying.In a leaked email obtained by The Blaze, Chalupa tells the DNC’s Louise Miranda:Hey, a lot coming down the pipe. I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine last night at the Library of Congress, the Open World Society forum. They put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort. I invited Michael Isikoff, who I’ve been working with for the past few weeks, and connected him to the Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow, since there was a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in the next few weeks. Something I’m working on that you should be aware of. -Alexandra Chalupa to Louise MirandaThanks to Chalupa’s outreach on behalf of Clinton and the DNC, Artem Sytnyk, Ukraine’s Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU – which Joe Biden helped form) and lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko released a “black ledger” containing off-book payments to Manafort. In December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Sytnyk and Leshchenko “acted illegally” by releasing Manafort’s name, according to the Kiev post (Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection).Artem SytnykAs an interesting side-note, Sytnyk leaked Manafort’s name to journalist Nataliya Sedletska of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – which is funded by the US State Department.In short, a DNC operative coordinated Ukrainian election meddling in the 2016 US election – and worked with a US journalist to ensure it would inflict maximum damage to the Trump campaign.While the ruling against Sytnyk and Leshchenko was later overturned on a technicality, The Blaze obtained and translated recording of Sytnyk bragging about helping Clinton in the 2016 US election.”I don’t know how, but the Americans got an audio recording of Mr. Sytnik’s conversation: He is resting with his family & friends & discussing how he would like to help Hillary.”@glennbeck reveals the Ukraine transcript the media isn’t talking about.https://t.co/fZHzqMCZbV pic.twitter.com/9jyMLVwdEB— BlazeTV (@BlazeTV) October 5, 2019Translation via The Blaze:Kolya: Did they, those Russians, help Trump? Your people?Sytnyk: I think they did. Yeah. I helped him, too. Not him, but Hillary. I helped her.Kolya: Yeah. Right. Then her position tottered, right?Sytnyk: Well, this is how they write about it, right.Ivan: Hillary’s humanitarian aid … [indiscernible.]Kolya: Well, I’m about … the commentaries. At the time, we were not [indiscernible.]Sytnyk: Trump … his purely inner problem … issue … they dominate over the external matters. While Hillary, she is — how shall I put it? She belongs to the cohort of politicians who comprise the hegemony in the US. Both in the US and the entire world, right? For us, it’s … sort of … better. For Americans … what Trump is doing is better for them.Kolya: Well, we have lots of those American experts here now … [indiscernible.]Sytnyk: Well, there, you see why Hillary lost the elections? I was in charge of the investigation of their “black accounting” records. We made the Manafort’s data available to general public.Biden and Ukraine:On another very interesting note, the Epoch Times‘s Jeff Carlson documented former Vice President Joe Biden’s connections to Ukraine in an April article that has become immensely relevant in recent weeks.Select excerpts via the Epoch Times:As Ukraine underwent dramatic changes in 2014, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden played a critical role in the Obama administration’s involvement in the revolution that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.Following the revolution, Biden would use his influence to help force the creation of the troubled National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). Notably, during the 2016 election campaign, information leaked from NABU about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that helped to create the false narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.***In April (of 2014), Biden would get personally involved, as would his son, Hunter. On April 18, 2014, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors for Burisma–one of the largest natural gas companies in Ukraine.Four days later, on April 22, 2014, Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine, offering his political support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk’s shaky new government. Poroshenko, a billionaire politician, was elected as president of Ukraine on May 25, 2014.Biden became close to both men and helped Ukraine obtain a four-year, $17.5 billion IMF package in March 2015.In October 2016, Foreign Policy wrote a lengthy article, “What Will Ukraine Do Without Uncle Joe,” which described Biden’s role in the removal of Ukraine’s general prosecutor, Victor Shokin. Shokin, the choice of Poroshenko, was portrayed as fumbling a major corruption case and “hindering an investigation into two high-ranking state prosecutors arrested on corruption charges.”Read the rest of the report here.Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permissionThe post Ukraine ‘Anti-Corruption’ Director Bragged About Helping Hillary Clinton in 2016: Leaked Audio appeared first on We Are Change. |
| FBI Data Shows 5 Times More People Killed by Knives Than RiflesPosted: 07 Oct 2019 10:25 AM PDTOn September 30, the FBI issued a press release noting they have published their 2018 crime statistics. Most notable about the report is the fact that despite constant fear mongering by the mainstream media and the government that crime is running rampant, the number of violent crimes decreased 3.3 percent as compared to the previous year. Also contained in the report were the numbers and causes of deaths in murder cases. Although the FBI did not make the comparison themselves, when reading the data we can see the number of murders carried out with knives or cutting devices was five times higher than the number of murders carried out with rifles. This comparison is particularly important given the current gun climate in America.Before we go on, it is important to mention that handguns were responsible for the majority of firearms deaths. It is also important to point out that all firearms deaths combined made up the majority of all murders in the United States. Of the 14,123 murders in 2018, 10, 265 of them involved firearms—a 7 percent drop from the previous year. That being said, the number of rifle deaths is extremely important given that this is the weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers.“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” Democratic presidential candidate Beta O’Rourke recently said to a crowd in Houston, Texas. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”But as the statistics show, it really isn’t being used against that many Americans. In fact, far more Americans are dying by knives. According to the FBI data, 1,515 were stabbed, cut, or maimed to death by a knife or other cutting instrument. This is a number 5 times higher than those killed by rifles, which sits at just 297.What’s more, twice as many people were beaten to death with hands, fists, and feet (672) than were killed by rifles. And, nearly 150 more people (443) were bludgeoned to death with hammers and other blunt objects than killed with rifles.The weapon most often targeted by gun grabbers appears to play a rather tiny role in the majority of murders carried out in the United States. This is in spite of Americans owning around 16 million AR style rifles.Another important fact is that the FBI data does not differentiate as to what kind of rifle was used in the murder—meaning that it is not likely that all 297 rifle deaths were caused by AR type rifles. The FBI data includes all rifles — including bolt action, pump or lever action rifles — not just AR-15s.If we were to compare stabbings to just AR-15 rifle deaths, that disparity would more likely than not be even greater.Knowing these facts about rifles makes the gun grabbers calls for taking your AR-15s that much more hollow. Even if they were able to disarm all Americans of their AR-15 rifles, this would have little to no effect on the number of total murders.Perhaps this is the reason the right has joined the left in pushing for red flag gun laws which “take the guns first” and “go through due process second,” as Donald Trump famously said last year after the Parkland shooting.But would grabbing guns from people deemed a risk by the state actually have any effect on mass violence? Not likely.Stronger background checks would have little to no effect on mass shootings as most of the mass shooters acquire their guns legally and pass the background checks. As Reason points out:The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, “universal background checks,” is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating “strong background checks,” as President Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.But what about red flag laws that take guns from people deemed a risk?Citizens who are targeted by these laws will be deemed guilty first and only after their guns are taken, will they have a chance to defend themselves in court. This is the de facto removal of due process.As Reuters reports, under the legislation, a family member or law enforcement officer could petition a judge to seize firearms from a person they think is a threat to themselves or others. The judge could then hold a hearing without the targeted person being present and grant a temporary order for 14 days.Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, due process clauses are in place to act as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.In spite of what officials and the media claim, when a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process. And, it doesn’t work.We’ve seen this play out before already. Earlier this year, a tragedy unfolded in California as a deranged gunman, Kevin Douglas Limbaugh, walked up on an innocent woman, officer Natalie Corona, pulled out his guns and began shooting her repeatedly until she died. Limbaugh then fired several more shots at others before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. Had more people been nearby, Limbaugh would’ve likely carried out a mass shooting.Limbaugh’s case is important to bring up due to the fact that — before he killed a cop — he was subject to California’s “red flag” laws in 2018. Limbaugh was given a high-risk assessment that ordered him to turn in his registered weapons to police, the only one being a Bushmaster AR-15. On November 9, Limbaugh turned in the weapon.Despite being banned from possessing a weapon, he still obtained one illegally and used it to commit murder.Perhaps this push for taking AR-15s from law abiding citizens is a strategical one. Despite being used in very few murders, the AR-15 is an extremely effective deterrent against tyranny.“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.” — Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret ConversationsRepublished from TheFreeThoughtProject.com with permissionThe post FBI Data Shows 5 Times More People Killed by Knives Than Rifles appeared first on We Are Change. |
| Former CIA Chief Brennan Rewrites Entire Basis of US Judicial System in One Short SentencePosted: 06 Oct 2019 02:49 PM PDTThe presumption of innocence, as a foundation of the US judicial system, has seemingly been under attack since November 8th 2016. An allegation is made, media runs with the narrative, the seed of possibility of guilt is implanted in the minds of zombie Americans, and the accused is maligned forever – no court required. Simple.And now, none other than former CIA Director John Brennan clarifies exactly how the deep state sees “due process”…In an interview on MSNBC, Brennan, unblinkingly states that “people are innocent, you know, until alleged to be involved in some kind of criminal activity.”With sincere apologies in advance to all US liberals who are offended by criticisms of former CIA chiefs, @JohnBrennan‘s understanding of the presumption of innocence is completely warped, but in the most unsurprising way imaginable: pic.twitter.com/IsE8ulSJMo— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2019And not even a skip a beat from the MSNBC anchors.Some have suggested, in Brennan’s defense, that he was being sarcastic, or even joking, but nothing in his delivery suggests that and furthermore, it’s not the smartest thing to say given the goings on at the margin of the legals system and the death–by-allegation media narratives that are swarming around the enemies of his deep-state attack.Of course, we should by now know full well how to treat anything that comes out of Brennan’s mouth…An all-time MSNBC/CIA/Brennan classic, from just a couple of weeks before Mueller closed his investigation without indicting any American for conspiring with Russia over the election. Maybe life-long disinformation agents aren’t the best “news” analysts: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2019Utterly without value.Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permissionThe post Former CIA Chief Brennan Rewrites Entire Basis of US Judicial System in One Short Sentence appeared first on We Are Change. |
