Wikileaks Exposes Collusion Between Clinton Campaign And DOJ's Peter Kadzik

ORIGINAL LINK

Yesterday we noted that Podesta's friend Peter Kadzik was the DOJ representative chosen to head up the "thorough" review of the new Huma Abedin emails as revealed by a letter he wrote to Congress.  Given Kadzik's personal relationship with Podesta, it seemed like a "convenient" choice for the Clinton campaign. 

In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.

"Ironically", that is the same Peter Kadzik who has proven his "impartiality" in multiple WikiLeaks emails including this newly released bombshell in today's dump in which Kadzik provides a very helpful "heads up" about Hillary's email server investigation.

 

Sure, who needs an independent investigator...this guy will do just fine.

via IFTTT

Secrecy over the silliest things: our government today

ORIGINAL LINK

The following is a news commentary

For federal and local government, the reflexive position too often seems to be secrecy. Not only is it often unnecessary, but it could be argued it’s unethical and possibly unlawful, at times. It’s as if government entities don’t understand they derive their power from the people. They’re funded by the people. They work for the people. The information they have belongs to the people. Instead, bureaucrats often treat information as if they own it, like a corporation coveting highly-proprietary material. They lord over and withhold it in ways they perceive to be to their political advantage, regardless of the public nature of the information and of the bureaucrats’ mission.

A few weeks ago, I asked whether the news media was avoiding showing Donald Trump’s large crowds. I concluded, in part, that Hillary Clinton (for her own reasons) appears to be choosing to speak at relatively modest venues.

Read: Is Media Avoiding Showing Donald Trump’s Crowds?

Today, prior to a Clinton appearance at Florida’s Sanford Senior Center, I called the center to ask how many people it can hold. This is a routine call to help determine maximum capacity for an event. Instead of answering the question, the person who answered the phone sounded distressed and consulted somebody else in the room.

“It depends on how it’s configured, if there are tables or chairs…” she explains, in dodging my answer.

“Well just tell me the normal capacity for a standing event,” I say.

Silence. She consults the other person in the room again.

“We can’t tell you that, for security reasons,” she informs me. She argues that the Secret Service doesn’t want them to say how many people could be attending the speech.

“You don’t have to address this particular event,” I tell her. “Just how many can the facility hold, in general, for other events, standing only?”

More conversation with the other person in the room. She finally returns.

“I can’t tell you. Sorry,” she says, and hangs up on me before I can ask anything else.

I do a little hunting around online and find that the information I’ve asked for is published on the senior center’s website. It says the maximum capacity if the auditorium, lobby and annex, if filled, is about 850.

But the point here is how the reflexive position is too often to withhold the most basic information from the public, even when unnecessary or unwarranted. The public has started to become accustomed to being stonewalled, even over the simplest matters. It’s a slippery slope, if allowed, that leads to a society-wide clampdown on material that we own and have a right to.

 

via IFTTT

Real Rehabilitation

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

In the U.S., there are more prisoners than farmers. In fact, according to Solutions journal the U.S. housed about one-fourth of the prison population worldwide, which amounts to nearly 2.3 million people.¹

Most (80 percent) of the prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent crimes such as drug charges, and the U.S. spends more than $80 billion a year on the criminal justice system alone. The implications of spending so much on prisons, not only financially but socially, are concerning, to say the least.

And, perhaps not ironically, where small family farms once stood is now an influx of new prisons dotting the rural countryside. Prisons are often built in economically depressed areas and are touted as a tool for promoting economic growth.

But this growth hinges on the continuation of crime. Efforts to stop crime would, in effect, shut down the prisons that many rural areas depend on.² Meanwhile, for all the billions being spent on incarceration and criminal justice, most inmates are not rehabilitated upon their release.

Many prisons still focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, which means many prisoners may be angrier and harder upon their release, any may be unwilling or lack the skills necessary to function in society. According to Solutions:³

“In states such as New York, Florida, and California, more is spent on keeping people in prison than is spent on higher education.

In California, for example, it costs almost $45,000 to keep an inmate in prison for a year, while only $15,000 to send that same person to the state university system. For all the money allocated to locking people up, very little targets rehabilitation.”

Gardening is Powerful Rehabilitation

Adding gardens to prisons may seem trite; prior to the 1970s, many prisons, including Alcatraz, had them. Then came an era when, as The Washington Post put it, “lock-’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key justice took hold.”⁴

Gardens in prisons disappeared, along with their many profound, yet little-recognized, benefits.

Today some prison officials are recognizing the importance of rehabilitation. Most prisoners are released, but as it stands more than 60 percent will be sent back to prison after committing new crimes or violating parole.⁵ Could the simplistic act of adding gardens to prisons really change that?

Preliminary research in California prisons suggests that among prisoners who participated in gardening programs, less than 10 percent returned to prison.⁶

Beth Waitkus, director of the Insight Garden Program, which helps U.S. prisons establish gardens, told the Post, “The demand is huge … Prisons see the value of this. When you have to tend to a living thing, there’s a shift that happens in a person.”⁷

And the prisoners aren’t the only ones who benefit. Some prison garden programs use their harvests to feed inmates, both saving money and adding to the quality and taste of the food.

Others donate food to low-income areas, allowing prisoners to give back to areas where many of them were raised. Still other prison gardens generate so much food that they’re even able to donate to churches, nursing homes and schools.

Gardening Lets Prisoners Experience Success

Part of what makes planting a garden so cathartic is that it represents a tangible measure of success. Growing food from seed, many prisoners finally experience success after a lifetime of failures, which helps to build self-esteem.

More than just work details in which prisoners work in the fields while being closely supervised, today’s gardening programs teach inmates gardening skills and allow them to take part in the garden’s plan and make other decisions. Solutions reported:⁸

“Through programs that teach the science of gardening, inmates learn that knowledge is empowerment. They shed their identity as inmates and become students. As a result, they take a greater interest in what they do, and become more skilled and passionate gardeners.

… The hopelessness of ever finding a skilled job after release, a job that provides enjoyment and dignity in a complex technological world, is replaced by a greater sense of purpose.”

Former inmates that took part in prison gardening programs may even be able to use those skills upon their release. For instance, the California-based group Planting Justice, which helps to build gardens in inner-city areas, has hired former inmates to work on their landscaping jobs.

Connecting Prisons With Nature

The Washington-state-based Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) goes beyond gardening and is working toward comprehensive “greening” strategies at correctional facilities.

In addition to gardens, SPP helps such institutions to establish recycling programs, composting, and green job training for inmates. Their activities include:⁹

• Educating and training inmates in science and conservation
• Conservation projects involving inmates, including caring for western pond turtles and propagating native prairie plants
• Helping inmates and staff develop sustainable operations such as recycling and composting
• Contributing to the community; in 2015, SPP donated more than 400,000 pounds of fresh produce to food banks and prisons and 30,000 hand-crafted items to non-profit organizations

Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Prison System (PSS) also operates a composting program that keeps 685 tons of food waste out of landfills every year, turning it into compost instead. The program also saves Philadelphia $40,000 a year in landfill costs.¹⁰

PSS built a composting facility via a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and now creates so much “black gold” that they give it away to the community for free.

There’s also the Philadelphia Prison Orchard Project, which got its start from a donation of 200 fruit trees. The prison-created compost is used to fertilize the orchard, and inmates are able to work in both areas.

PPS has partnered with Temple University and inmates can earn a vocational certificate in organic farming after completing the program.

Food Waste Is a Global Issue

Inmates in the Philadelphia prison system generate 1.4 pounds of food waste per person per day, which is part of what prompted the composting program that is cutting back on sending this food waste to landfills. Food waste is not unique to prisons, however, and composting programs shouldn’t be either.

California supermarkets are among those joining in the composting movement. In April 2016, a California law took effect that requires large grocery stores to compost or recycle their food waste. Companies like California Safe Soil, which created a process to turn food waste into farm-ready liquid fertilizer in just three hours, are helping to channel the waste into usable fertilizer, fast.¹¹

The issue of food waste attracted national attention in the U.S. in September 2015 when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), together with the EPA, announced the first national food-waste reduction goal, which calls for a 50 percent reduction by 2030.

According to the USDA, the average U.S. family of four wastes more than 2 million calories, which equates to $1,500 worth of food, every year. The USDA continued:¹²

“Food loss and waste in the United States accounts for approximately 31 percent — or 133 billion pounds — of the overall food supply available to retailers and consumers and has far-reaching impacts on food security, resource conservation and climate change.

Food loss and waste is single largest component of disposed U.S. municipal solid waste … Furthermore, experts have projected that reducing food losses by just 15 percent would provide enough food for more than 25 million Americans every year, helping to sharply reduce incidences of food insecurity for millions.”

As for howthey expect to achieve a 50 percent reduction in food waste, they plan to build on the ongoing U.S. Food Waste Challenge (launched in 2013), which creates a platform of leaders and food-chain members to share best practices to reduce, recover and recycle food loss and waste.

Tackling Food Waste and Food Loss

Other initiatives aim to tackle both food waste andfood loss. The celery that goes bad in your veggie crisper, the remainder of your sandwich at a restaurant, and the loaf of bread that goes moldy on your kitchen counter are all contributors to the massive epidemic of food waste.

Restaurants and supermarkets are also contributors. Food loss is another issue, which typically takes place at production, postharvest and processing stages in the food supply chain. Initiatives to tackle these issues include:

• Apps to help consumers understand how to safely store food and understand food date labels
• Consumer education campaigns with food-waste facts and reduction tips
• Encouraging restaurants, grocery stores, food service companies and others to set aggressive goals for reducing food loss and waste

Gardening and Composting in Your Own Backyard

The benefits of gardening are universal, and you stand to reap the rewards of starting your own backyard garden and compost pile. Once you begin to grow your own foods, it naturally lends itself to composting the scraps from all of the produce you harvest. Composting can be done on virtually any scale. If you live in a city or suburb, there are many small systems available. The principles of composting — finding the balance between carbon, nitrogen, water and air — remain the same.

If you want to give it a try, check out my interview with New York City native Rebecca Louie, above. She’s the author of "Compost City: Practical Composting Know-How for Small-Space Living,” and in the video shereveals how to create compost in even the smallest of spaces.

Sources:

• Civil Eats October 17, 2016

• The Washington Post June 7, 2015

• NPR January 12, 2014

• The Solutions Journal May 2013

Related Articles:

  Practical Composting Know-How for Small-Space Living

  The New Nitrogen Bomb Is About to Blow

  How Organic Farming Could Release Us From the Curse of Fertilizer

 Comments (4)


via IFTTT

CDC Blocks Whistleblower From Vaccine Injury Testimony

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

A 16-year-old boy with autism and his family are suing a medical clinic for administering vaccines they believe caused the boy's autism. The Tennessee-based case is unique for a number of reasons, the first being that it's the first time in 30 years that a vaccine case such as this has been heard in a U.S. court.

This is because in the U.S. there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as "vaccine court."

The VICP is a "no-fault" alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits slammed vaccine manufacturers.

The federal VICP compensates vaccine victims not from a fund paid into by vaccine manufacturers, but through a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given.

The 16-year-old Tennessee boy, Yates Hazlehurst, was denied compensation from the VICP, so the current lawsuit is giving him a second chance at justice.

CDC Blocks Key Whistleblower Testimony From Autism-Vaccine Case

A key part of the case hinges on testimony from Dr. William Thompson, a research scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases (NCIR).

He was a co-author of four key studies the CDC has used to refute a link between the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine and autism, as well as thimerosal-containing vaccines (thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative) and autism.

Thompson claimed the CDC covered up a vaccine-autism connection in relation to the MMR vaccine. According to a news release provided by the World Mercury Project;¹

"Dr. Thompson has publically stated to Congressman William Posey and others that he and his colleagues in the CDC Vaccine Safety Branch were ordered to commit scientific fraud, destroy evidence and manipulate data to conceal the link between autism and vaccines."

According to Thompson, one of the studies in question found that African-American boys who received the MMR vaccine before the age of 36 months had an increased risk for autism.² He also maintains that CDC studies have found a relationship between thimerosal and tics, which are associated with autism.³

CDC: Thompson's Testimony Would Not Promote CDC Objectives

Thompson's testimony could be critical to the lawsuit in order to set the record straight about the flawed data used to deny other autism vaccine-injury claims.

According to Ecowatch, Morgan & Morgan law firm attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. argued to Tennessee Senior Circuit Court Judge William Acree that Thompson's testimony was necessary:⁴

"Yates, and almost 5,000 other vaccine injured autistic children, lost their cases in vaccine court because CDC and the Justice Department submitted fraudulent science wrongly denying the vaccine-autism link."

CDC director Thomas Frieden blocked the request to have Thompson testify, stating, "Dr. William Thompson's deposition testimony would not substantially promote the objectives of CDC or HHS [Health and Human Services]."⁵

Thompson received federal whistleblower protection in August 2014 and is still employed by the CDC. The attorneys for the case, Kennedy and Bryan Smith, also with Morgan & Morgan, plan to appeal the CDC's denial. According to Smith:⁶

"Frieden's denial was a disappointment but not a surprise, since the inescapable implication of Dr. Thompson's allegation is that the agency altered the science to undermine autism cases worth potentially $1 trillion in compensation ordered by Congress." 

CDC Called a 'Cesspool of Corruption'

If you want to know more about the underhanded dealings allegedly going on at the CDC, read the book "Vaccine Whistleblower." It contains the unedited transcripts of four legally recorded phone conversations between Thompson and Dr. Brian Hooker, a scientist investigating autism and vaccine research.

The transcripts reveal the confession of the alteration of data that showed a significant link between vaccines and autism. Thompson has previously stated that a meeting was scheduled "to destroy documents related to the study."

He said the remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, "and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can."⁷ Thompson has said he retained hard copies of all of the data, however.

The transcripts are also featured in the film Vaxxed, which was originally scheduled to be shown at the Tribeca Film Festival earlier this year but was allegedly pulled due to threats from other filmmakers to cancel their participation.

Unethical Practices Are the Norm at the CDC

A group of senior CDC scientists sent a letter to the CDC raising concerns about the conflicts of interest and industry ties that appear to be so common among CDC leaders.

The group goes by the name CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research (CDC SPIDER), leaving their names out for fear of retaliation. The letter begins:⁸

"It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders.

What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors.

… Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.

These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health."

Conflict of Interest, 'Climate of Disregard' at the CDC Highlighted

The letter specifically addresses several areas of "particular concern," including:

• A cover-up of accurate screening data for the CDC's Wise Woman Program. Despite, a multi-million-dollar investment, the number of women screened during the program fell short of expectations.

Officials misrepresented actual screening numbers, "cooked" the data to make results "look better than they were," and manipulated data in "irregular ways."

• Resources allocated to domestic programs for Americans being directed toward global health and research issues.

• A questionable relationship between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., former director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), and Coca-Cola; she left the agency unexpectedly, two days after her close ties with Coca-Cola were revealed.

• Michael Pratt, senior adviser for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, has also allegedly promoted and led research for the soda giant.⁹

"Neither of these relationships were necessary (or appropriate) to uphold our mission … In fact, these ties have now called into question and undermined CDC's work," CDC Spider wrote of Bowman and Pratt.¹⁰

Their letter continued, " … this 'climate of disregard' puts many of us in difficult positions. We are often directed to do things we know are not right."

Can You Trust Health Information From a Corrupt Agency?

Knowing that the CDC has allegedly intentionally withheld data showing a link between vaccines and autism, it calls into question where their loyalties lie. Are their continued and urgent calls for vaccination truly in the name of public health, or are they the result of corporate influence?

The CDC, by the way, claims that it does not accept commercial support, but it receives millions of dollars in gifts and funding from industry.¹¹ The CDC, a supposed independent public watchdog, is therefore neither independent nor a watchdog. Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, even stated, " … Several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking."¹²

When it comes to making health decisions for your family, it's crucial to do your research from legitimate independent sources to get the truth. Many are not aware, for instance, that in 2008 the U.S. government conceded that childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of autism in 9-year-old Hannah Poling.

If you or your child is injured by a vaccine, meanwhile, and find yourself in vaccine court, the government will fight your claim — even if it's more than legitimate — or they may try to quietly settle it with a lowball offer (which preys on families in urgent need of money).

If the government settles outside of court, they don't have to admit that the vaccine caused harm, which keeps them in good light with the public.

Related Articles:

  Government Wipes Recent Vaccine Injury Data from Website

  Dissolving Illusions About the Measles Vaccine

  Documentary ‘Shots in the Dark’ Delves into Catastrophic Vaccine Reactions

 Comments (3)


via IFTTT

DOJ Tells Congress It Will Work "Expeditiously" To Review Huma's Emails... There Is Just One Problem

ORIGINAL LINK

Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner's notebook, among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton's personal server, moments ago the Us Justice Department decided to also finally join the probe, and as AP reported moments ago, it vowed to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in the Clinton case.

BREAKING: Justice Dept. says it'll dedicate all needed resources to quickly review emails in Clinton case.

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 31, 2016

In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.

#BREAKING Senior DOJ official sends letter to lawmakers responding to request for more information about email review.#8days pic.twitter.com/PCgT2ODkQd

— Just the Facts (@JTF_News) October 31, 2016

So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton's Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.

For those who missed it, this is what we reported:

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

 

The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant.  The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

 

Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik's role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta's, and thus the Clinton Foundation's inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”

The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.

Kadzik's current role

In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”

It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions.

Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.

Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

* * *

And now it seems that Kadjik will be in charge of the DOJ's "probe" into Huma Abedin's emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find "anything" of note.

Peter Kadzik, with lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.

via IFTTT

More Evidence Was Just Leaked Showing How DNC Rigged Primary Against Bernie

ORIGINAL LINK
What many suspected is being proven true by WikiLeaks.

via IFTTT

FBI Director Comey’s Disclosures Set Stage for a Public Interest Exception to Secrecy

ORIGINAL LINK

When FBI Director James Comey decided in July to violate Justice Department guidelines and publicly announce that the FBI would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton, he explained that he was taking such an exceptional step because the “American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.”

Comey’s decision last week to inform Congress that the FBI is now reviewing additional emails that apparently originated from Clinton’s private server has ignited an even more furious debate, with Democrats accusing him of election interference and law breaking.

There’s a reason that the Justice Department has nondisclosure rules about ongoing or closed investigations. Lots of things emerge in investigations that are not true, or do not amount to crimes. Disclosing those things can ruin reputations. So it is typically left to prosecutors to decide what accusations to make public, in the form of an indictment.

Among the people criticizing Comey for his latest foray into radical transparency were former attorney generals Alberto Gonzales and Eric Holder, who both pointed out that it is against Justice Department policy to comment on ongoing investigations, certainly within 60 days of an election.

Comey’s actions have raised lasting questions about when the public interest outweighs the current policy, and whether there should be a “public interest” exception to the Justice Department’s secrecy rules.

In his July announcement, Comey said that “given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.” Part of his goal was clearly to reassert the FBI’s independence from political pressure. “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear,” he said.

If there were a public interest exception, there are many other high-profile investigations that the Justice Department could be encouraged to discuss.

In 2012, for instance, the Justice Department closed a three-year investigation into CIA torture. The investigation reportedly found that the CIA tortured multiple detainees to death but did not lead to the prosecution of any Bush administration officials. Due to suspicions of meddling by the Obama administration, perhaps the Justice Department should explain why it chose not to prosecute anyone.

In September, Elizabeth Warren noted Comey’s new chattiness and called for a similar level of transparency about why the Justice Department had not brought cases against bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.

“You explained these actions by noting your view that ‘the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest,’” Warren wrote in a letter to Comey. “If Secretary Clinton’s email server was of sufficient ‘interest’ to establish a new FBI standard of transparency, then surely the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis should be subject to the same level of transparency.”

A public interest exception could help the government explain why it so often fails to bring powerful people to justice. But so far, Comey only seems interested in applying that exception to Hillary Clinton.

Top photo: FBI Director James Comey prepares to testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on July 14, 2016, in Washington, D.C.

The post FBI Director Comey’s Disclosures Set Stage for a Public Interest Exception to Secrecy appeared first on The Intercept.

via IFTTT

"What Trump Represents Is Not Crazy... And Is Not Going Away" - Peter Thiel Full Transcript

ORIGINAL LINK

Silicon Valley billionaire (and now pariah) Peter Thiel defended his support for Donald Trump in a speech this morning. The excellent oration wondered from the ignorance of the elites and the bankruptcy of the nation, to the endless and pointless wars and America's slumping quality of life...

 

*  *  *

Full Transcript:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE.

EVERYONE KNOWS WE HAVE BEEN LIVING THROUGH A CRAZY ELECTION YEAR. REAL EVENTS SEEM LIKE THE REHEARSALS FOR SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.

ONLY AN OUTBREAK OF INSANITY WOULD SEEM TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UNPRECEDENTED FACT THAT THIS YEAR, A POLITICAL OUTSIDER MANAGED TO WIN A MAJOR PARTY NOMINATION.

TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE USED TO INFLUENCING OUR CHOICES, THE WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO GIVE MONEY AND THE COMMENTATORS WHO GIVE REASONS WHY, IT ALL SEEMS LIKE A BAD DREAM.

DONORS DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT WHY WE GOT HERE, THEY JUST WANT TO MOVE ON. COME NOVEMBER 9, THEY HOPE EVERYONE ELSE WILL GO BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL. BUT IT IS THIS HEEDLESSNESS: THE TEMPTATION TO IGNORE IN DIFFICULT REALITIES INDULGED IN BY OUR CITIZENS THAT GOT US WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

A LOT OF SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE ARE TOO PROUD TO ADMIT IT SINCE IT SEEMS TO PUT THEIR SUCCESS IN QUESTION. BUT THE TRUTH IS, NO MATTER HOW CRAZY THIS ELECTION SEEMS, IT IS LESS CRAZY THAN THE CONDITION OF OUR COUNTRY. JUST LOOK AT THE GENERATION THAT SUPPLIES MOST OF OUR LEADERS. THE BABY BOOMERS. THEY ARE ENTERING RETIREMENT IN A STATE OF ACTUARIAL BANKRUPTCY. 54% OF THOSE OVER THE AGE OF 55 HAVE LESS THAN ONE YEARS WORTH OF SAVINGS TO THEIR NAME.

THAT IS A PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN THIS IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE YOU HAVE TO PAY UP TO 10 TIMES AS MUCH FOR SIMPLE MEDICINES AS YOU WOULD PAY ANYWHERE ELSE. AMERICA'S OVERPRICED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM MIGHT HELP SUBSIDIZE THE REST OF THE WORLD, BUT THAT DOES NOT HELP AMERICANS WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT AND THEY HAVE STARTED TO NOTICE.

OUR YOUNGEST CITIZENS MAY NOT HAVE MEDICAL BILLS, BUT THEIR COLLEGE TUITION KEEPS ON INCREASING FASTER THAN THE RATE OF INFLATION, ADDING MORE EVERY YEAR TO OUR $1.3 TRILLION MOUNTAIN OF STUDENT DEBT. AMERICA HAS BECOME THE ONLY COUNTRY WHERE STUDENTS TAKE ON LOANS THEY CAN NEVER ESCAPE, NOT EVEN BY DECLARING BANKRUPTCY.

STUCK IN THIS BROKEN SYSTEM, MILLENNIALS ARE THE FIRST GENERATION THAT EXPECT THEIR OWN LIVES TO BE WORSE THAN THE LIVES OF THEIR PARENTS. WHILE AMERICAN FAMILY EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCREASING RELENTLESSLY, THEIR INCOMES HAVE BEEN STAGNANT. IN REAL DOLLARS, IMMEDIATE HOUSEHOLD MAKES LESS MONEY TODAY THAT MADE 17 YEARS AGO. NEARLY HALF OF AMERICANS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH $400 IF THEY NEEDED IT FOR AN EMERGENCY.

YET, WHILE HOUSEHOLDS STRUGGLED TO KEEP UP WITH THE CHALLENGES OF EVERYDAY LIFE, THE GOVERNMENT IS WASTING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON TAXPAYER MONEY ON FARAWAY WARS. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE FIGHTING FIVE OF THEM. IN IRAQ, SYRIA, LIBYA, AND SOMALIA.

IN THE WEALTHY SUBURBS OF WASHINGTON DC, PEOPLE ARE DOING JUST FINE. WHERE I WORK IN SILICON VALLEY, PEOPLE ARE DOING JUST GREAT. BUT MOST AMERICANS DON'T LIVE BY THE BELTWAY OR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. MOST AMERICANS HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF THAT PERSPECTIVE. IT SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISING TO SEE PEOPLE VOTING FOR BERNIE SANDERS OR DONALD TRUMP, WHO IS THE ONLY OUTSIDER (VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT HAVE EVER THOUGHT OF DOING SOMETHING SO EXTREME AS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. THE PEOPLE WHO RUN ARE OFTEN POLARIZING).

THIS ELECTION YEAR, BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES ARE IMPERFECT PEOPLE TO SAY THE LEAST. I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP HAS SAID AND DONE, AND I DON'T THINK THE MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE VOTING FOR HIM DO EITHER. NOBODY THINKS HIS COMMENTS ABOUT WOMEN WERE ACCEPTABLE. I AGREE, THEY WERE CLEARLY OFFENSIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I DON'T THINK THE VOTERS PULL THE LEVER TO ENDORSE A CANDIDATE'S FLAWS.

IT IS NOT A LACK OF JUDGMENT THAT LEADS AMERICANS TO VOTE FOR TRUMP, WE ARE VOTING FOR TRUMP BECAUSE WE JUDGE THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR COUNTRY TO HAVE FAILED.

THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HARD TO ACCEPT FOR SOME OF THE COUNTRIES MOST FORTUNATE, SOCIALLY PROMINENT PEOPLE. IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN HARD TO ACCEPT FOR SILICON VALLEY, WHERE MANY PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED TO KEEP QUIET IF THEY DISSENT FROM THE COASTAL BUBBLE. LOUDER VOICES HAVE SENT A MESSAGE THAT THEY DO NOT INTEND TO TOLERATE THE VIEWS OF ONE HALF OF THE COUNTRY.

THIS INTOLERANCE HAS TAKEN ON SOME BIZARRE FORMS. THE ADVOCATE, A MAGAZINE WHICH ONCE PRAISED ME AS A GAY INNOVATOR, EVEN PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE SAYING THAT AS OF NOW I AM, AND I QUOTE "NOT A GAY MAN" BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS. THE LIE IN THE BUZZWORD OF DIVERSITY COULD NOT BE MADE MORE CLEAR. IF YOU DON'T CONFORM, THEN YOU DON'T COUNT AS DIVERSE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR PERSONAL BACKGROUND.

FACED WITH SUCH CONTEMPT, WHY DO VOTERS STILL SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP? EVEN IF THEY THINK THE AMERICAN SITUATION IS SERIOUS, WHY DO THEY THINK TRUMP OF ALL PEOPLE CAN MAKE IT BETTER?

I THINK IT IS BECAUSE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT TRUMP GETS RIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, FREE TRADE HAS NOT WORKED OUT WELL FOR ALL OF AMERICA. IT HELPS TRUMP THAT THE OTHER SIDE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. ALL OF OUR ELITES TREAT FREE TRADE AND EXPLAIN THAT CHEAP IMPORTS MAKE EVERYONE A WINNER ACCORDING TO ECONOMIC THEORY. BUT IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, WE'VE LOST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FACTORIES AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FOREIGN TRADE. HEARTLAND HAS BEEN DEVASTATED. MAYBE ELITES REALLY BELIEVE NO ONE LOSES OR MAYBE THEY DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT TOO MUCH BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY ARE AMONG THE WINNERS.

THE SHEER SIZE OF THE U.S. TRADE DEFICIT SHOWS SOMETHING HAS GONE BADLY WRONG. THE MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE EXPORTING CAPITAL TO LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. INSTEAD, THE UNITED STATES IS IMPORTING MORE THAN $500 BILLION EVERY YEAR. THAT MONEY FLOWS INTO FINANCIAL ASSETS, DISTORTS OUR ECONOMY IN FAVOR OF MORE BANKING AND MORE FINANCIAL'S ASIAN AND GIVES WELL-CONNECTED PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT A REASON TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO. BUT NOT EVERYONE BENEFITS, AND THE TRUMP VOTERS KNOW IT.

TRUMP VOTERS ARE ALSO TIRED OF WAR. WE HAVE BEEN AT WAR FOR 15 YEARS AND WE HAVE SPENT MORE THAN $4.6 TRILLION. MORE THAN 2 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AND MORE THAN 5000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN KILLED. BUT WE HAVE NOT ONE. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROMISED $50 BILLION COULD BRING DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ. INSTEAD, WE SQUANDERED 40 TIMES AS MUCH TO BRING ABOUT CHAOS. EVEN AFTER THESE BIPARTISAN FAILURES, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS MORE HAWKISH TODAY THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE IT BEGAN THE WAR IN VIETNAM. HARKING BACK TO THE NO-FLY ZONE BILL CLINTON ENFORCED OVER IRAQ BEFORE BUSH COSTS FAILED WAR, NOW HILLARY CLINTON HAS CALLED FOR A NO-FLY ZONE OVER SYRIA. INCREDIBLY, THAT WOULD BE A MISTAKE EVEN MORE RECKLESS THAN INVADING IRAQ. SINCE MOST OF THE PLANES FLYING OVER SYRIA ARE RUSSIAN PLANES, CLINTON'S PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WOULD INVOLVE US IN A MESSY CIVIL WAR -- IT WOULD RISK A DIRECT NUCLEAR CONFLICT.

WHAT EXPLAINS THIS EAGERNESS TO ESCALATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION? HOW COULD HILLARY CLINTON BE SO WILDLY OVEROPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF WORK?

I WOULD SUGGEST IT COMES FROM A LOT OF PRACTICE. FOR A LONG TIME, OUR ELITES HAVE BEEN IN THE POWER A LONG TIME, OUR ELITES HAVE BEEN IN THE HABIT OF DENYING DIFFICULT REALITIES. THAT IS HOW BUBBLES FORM. WHEREVER THERE'S A HARD PROBLEM BUT PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE IN AN EASY SOLUTION, THEY WILL BE TEMPTED TO DENY REALITY AND INFLATED BUBBLE. SOMETHING ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE BABY BOOMERS, WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN SO MUCH EASIER THAN THEIR PARENTS OR THEIR CHILDREN HAS LED THEM TO BUY INTO BUBBLES AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE TRADE BUBBLE SAYS EVERYONE IS A WINNER. THE WAR BUBBLE SAYS VICTORY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER, BUT THESE OVEROPTIMISTIC STORIES SIMPLY HAVE NOT BEEN TRUE AND VOTERS ARE TIRED OF BEING LIED TO.

IT WAS BOTH INSANE AND SOMEHOW INEVITABLE THAT D.C. INSIDERS EXPECTED THIS ELECTION TO BE A RERUN BETWEEN THE TWO POLITICAL DYNASTIES WHO LET US THROUGH THE TWO MOST GIGANTIC FINANCIAL BUBBLES OF OUR TIME. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDED OVER THE INFLATION OF THE HOUSING BUBBLE SO BIG THAT IT'S COLLAPSE IS STILL CAUSING ECONOMIC STAGNATION TODAY. BUT WHAT IS STRANGELY FORGOTTEN IS THAT THE LAST DECADE HOUSING BUBBLE WAS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE UP FOR THE GAINS THAT HAVE BEEN LOST THE DECADE BEFORE THAT. IN THE 1990'S, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON PRESIDED OVER AN ENORMOUS STOCK MARKET BUBBLE AND DEVASTATING CRASH IN 2000 JUST AS HIS SECOND TERM WAS COMING TO AN END. THAT IS HOW LONG THE SAME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PURSUING THE SAME DISASTROUS POLICIES.

NOW THAT SOMEONE DIFFERENT IS IN THE RUNNING, SOMEONE WHO REJECTS THE STORIES THAT TELL US EVERYTHING IS FINE, HIS LARGER-THAN-LIFE PERSONA ATTRACTS A LOT OF ATTENTION. NOBODY WOULD SUGGEST DONALD TRUMP IS A HUMBLE MAN. BUT THE BIG THINGS, HE IS RIGHT ABOUT AN AMOUNT TO A MUCH-NEEDED DOSE OF HUMILITY. HE HAS QUESTIONED THE POOR -- THE CORE CONCEPT OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

HE DOESN'T THINK THE FORCE OF OPTIMISM ALONE CAN CHANGE REALITY WITHOUT HARD WORK. JUST AS MUCH AS IS IS ABOUT MAKING AMERICA GREAT, TRUMP'S AGENDA IS ABOUT MAKING AMERICA A NORMAL COUNTRY, A NORMAL COUNTRY DOES NOT HAVE A HALF TRILLION DOLLAR TRADE DEFICIT. A NORMAL COUNTRY DOES NOT FIGHT FIVE SIMULTANEOUS UNDECLARED WARS.

IN A NORMAL COUNTRY, THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY DOES ITS JOB. TODAY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A JOB TO DO. VOTERS ARE TIRED OF HEARING CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS SAYING GOVERNMENT NEVER WORKS. THEY KNOW GOVERNMENT WAS NOT ALWAYS THIS BROKEN. THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, THE APOLLO PROGRAM, WHATEVER YOU THINK OF THESE VENTURES, YOU CANNOT DOUBT THE COMPETENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT GOT THEM DONE, BUT WE HAVE FALLEN VERY FAR FROM THAT STANDARD. WE CANNOT LET FREE-MARKET IDEOLOGY SERVE AS AN EXCUSE FOR DECLINE.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS ELECTION, WHAT TRUMP REPRESENTS IS NOT CRAZY AND IT'S NOT GOING AWAY. HE POINTS TOWARD A NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY BE ON THE DOGMAS OF REAGANISM. HE POINTS BEYOND THE REMAKING OF ONE PARTY TO A NEW AMERICAN POLITICS THAT OVERCOMES NILE, REJECTS BUBBLE THINKING AND RECKONS WITH REALITY. WHEN THE DISTRACTING SPECTACLES OF THIS ELECTION SEASON ARE OVER AND THE HISTORY OF OUR TIME IS WRITTEN, THE ONLY IMPORTANT QUESTION WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT THAT NEW POLITICS CAME TOO LATE. THANK YOU.

via IFTTT

New Evidence Links Voting Machines And Clinton Foundation

ORIGINAL LINK
Could these connections be enough to implicate the Clinton Foundation in the alleged early vote rigging in Texas? As usual, the internet has come through as the ultimate watchdog while the supposed safeguards of our democracy have failed. A Gab…

via IFTTT

Social Media Blackout? FBI Emails Are Not 'Trending' On Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed, Or Snapchat

ORIGINAL LINK

In the 24 hours since FBI Director Comey dropped perhaps the biggest bombshell of the entire Presidential campaign, sending Democrats (and media) scrambling headless-chicken-like for answers (and blame-scaping), does anyone else find it odd that 'FBI Emails' does not appear to be a hot topic, trending, big deal on any social media?

via IFTTT