Bill and his bimbos, Hill and her emails: vast security danger

—sloppiest security on the planet—

by Jon Rappoport

September 15, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Colin Powell’s emails have been hacked and exposed. One email contained Powell’s 2014 comment to Jeffrey Leeds, as reported by the NY Post: “Bill [Clinton] is still dicking bimbos at home.”

Naïve Americans believes sexual agents only exist in fiction.

Bill’s endless string of bimbos are all farmers’ daughters? Are you kidding? Foreign intelligence agencies play this kind of situation like a piano. It’s so easy, it’s ridiculous. Send in a female operative, or five or six. —Pillow talk, on-the-scene observation, blackmail, the works.

Who knows, Bill may actually want to spill secrets. After all, he did send advanced military tech to China back in the day, in exchange for campaign money. And as an arch Globalist, why should he care about America as a sovereign nation?

Meanwhile, Hillary, stricken with some kind of neurological deficit, sets up a private email server through which she sends and receives classified information. Either she’s too far gone to notice, or she doesn’t care.

What a pair.

If she staggers into the White House this November, with Bill at her side, why not just open up all the books and classified briefings and print them in the New York Times?

The only secrets the Clintons want to keep in the dark are their own; for example, the inner workings of the pay-to-play cash laundromat known as the Clinton Foundation.

And while we’re at it, what does Hillary think about Bill’s continuing parade of women? Has it never occurred to her that some of them are mining her husband for information, on behalf of foreign governments? Apparently, she’s beyond caring about it. Which tells you about her overall attitude toward security issues. As in: she’s a disaster.

Again: she and her husband could take over the White House in a few months.

The mainstream media avoids discussing the security aspect of Bill. Aside from the fact that they want Hillary to win the Presidency, they certainly don’t want to revisit Bill’s sexual history going all the way back to Arkansas.

I assure you, there are work-a-day reporters who understand the security and spying implications I’ve sketched above. They know very well that Bill has been an open target, in that regard, for a long, long time. But they don’t bother writing about it, because their editors would never touch those stories.

Any one of these reporters with CIA connections could, in a few days, open up a line of conversation that wouldn’t quit. How do CIA agents and overseas Agency assets feel about the specter of a former US President who was, and is, an ideal candidate for sexual exploitation by honey-trapping operatives?

No, this isn’t fiction. The use of such operatives has been a fact of political life since the discovery of sex. In intelligence communities, the denial of such activities would be laughable.

The Clintons. A dream couple.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Hillary dropping out of the race no longer a fantasy

Sep12

Hillary dropping out of the race no longer a fantasy

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Hillary buckled and fainted at the 9/11 memorial. The video available here at InfoWars, tells the story.

I’ve written about her health problems before, including the blood-thinning Coumadin she’s taking. And the blood clots. And the advisory against flying, because new life-threatening blood clots can occur.

I wrote—and I still say—Democrat power players would go along with electing her even if she was dragged into the Oval Office dead on arrival. They don’t care.

After Hillary’s fainting spell at the 9/11 memorial, the Washington Post, that organ of unquestioned truth, grants that it’s now acceptable to ask polite questions about her health. Well done, boys. You’re really going out on a limb. Thanks so much.

I think it’s time for major media to take an overt stand about Hillary: “She may be very sick, dangerously so, but it’s still a crime to emphasize that because it’s sexist, and besides, untoward publicity could allow Trump to slip into the White House, and besides, our news organization has donated to the Clinton Foundation, and besides, she’s Hillary and we all know and love her and we don’t want to think about something bad happening to her because then we would cry.”

I would accept that statement.

—Hillary’s public coughing fits. The physical instability. The fainting. The handler, Todd Madison, walking out on stage, putting his hand on her, telling her to keep talking, as if she’s forgotten what’s going on. You have to conclude her doctors have tried everything they can to keep her upright and functioning, and if this is best they can do, she’s in bad shape.

Hillary dropping out of the race for the Oval Office is no longer a fantasy. It could happen. If it does, the media will swing into gear and try to demand a delay in the election.

There is no basis for such a demand, because both major Parties can pick their candidate on their own terms. The Democrats, for example, as we’ve seen, can rig the vote and secretly back Hillary from the beginning and cook up propaganda to defeat Bernie Sanders. They can choose a slew of so-called super-delegates who owe nothing to the voters and, instead, support whoever they want to (Hillary). So if she drops out, the Democrat leaders can simply decide, again, without consulting voters, who the substitute is. Kaine? Biden? Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Michelle Obama? Rachel Maddow? Karl Marx?

No doubt, some progressive pundit will suggest Obama should stay in office for a while, because he has the experience, he’s Presidential, he’s done such a magnificent job in his two terms, his mission is unfinished (he must get the TPP treaty ratified), we need him to continue the dialogue on race in the post-racial society, he knows how to bypass Congress with a blizzard of executive orders, he can figure out a way to admit millions more illegal immigrants to these shores, he backs Black Lives Matter, and he knows how to talk about fake employment numbers and pretend they’re real.

The Democrats and their supporters will go on a victim binge: woe is us, Hillary our leader has fallen, we’re crippled (differently abled), we need time to regroup, we can’t be expected to make a snap judgment, who cares about constitutional rules governing elections, this is really serious, we have to decide what’s best for The People—and we have to find a way to pay off Bernie Sanders so he stays in hiding and keeps his big mouth shut.

I, for one, would like to see Trump vs. Bernie. Socialist vs. Capitalist. They could do three debates on Globalism and its horrendous effects on America, at which point the public would realize they both claim to perceive the gargantuan threat, albeit from different angles.

Hillary was the unabashed queen bee of Globalism.

At any rate, you can bet that, as we speak, media giants are taking private briefings on how the election season would proceed if she drops out. They’re preparing their talking points and tall stories and outright lies. All somehow culminating in a Democrat Party victory this November, come hell or high water.

“After Congressional leaders begged President Obama to stay on for several months, he reluctantly agreed, saying: ‘Well, I do have sixty or seventy executive orders drawn up and ready to go, so perhaps I could bring the country a little closer to the future we envision. We’re all in this together.’”

Jon Rappoport

Clinton Foundation key to giving Putin 20% of US uranium

Aug29

Clinton Foundation key to giving Putin 20% of US uranium

by Jon Rappoport

August 29, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

She could be the next US President.

He already was the President.

They’re married.

Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics.

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this, consider—-suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? And she’s going to be the next President? Can we give her a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

Jon Rappoport

Reverse engineering Hillary’s crimes: media have it backwards

Aug24

Reverse engineering Hillary’s crimes: media have it backwards

by Jon Rappoport

August 24, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

The Hillary email scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal have been slithering, segment by segment, into public view.

And now we have “pay to play.”

The latest revelation, from the Associated Press:

“More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion…Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million [to the Foundation].”

The implication is clear. “You want a favor from the State Department? Pay the Clinton Foundation.”

The National Review gives us the tip of the iceberg:

“Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain wanted a sit-down with Secretary Clinton but was rebuffed; Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band intervened through [Huma] Abedin to try to find a work-around for the crown prince, who gave donations to the Clinton Global Initiative totaling $32 million through 2010. Donations to the Clinton Foundation came in from the kingdom itself and from the state oil company. Band also intervened to secure a visa for a foreign athlete held up because of his criminal record, doing so at the behest of donor Casey Wasserman, a Hollywood sports-entertainment mogul, whose foundation has contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation…”

But let’s put all this in the right perspective. Let’s reverse engineer this. The media has it backwards.

Heading up the State Department didn’t incidentally afford Hillary the opportunity to funnel cash into the Clinton Foundation, in return for granting favors to donors. No.

Head of the State Department was her side job. She was really an officer of the Foundation. And as such, she picked out a plum position that would allow her to expand the Foundation’s coffers: she became Secretary of State.

It would be like the son of a mafia crime boss landing a slot as a judge, so he could rule in favor of his father’s mob associates in court. The judgeship was just an angle, a way of serving the family. The family comes first.

Yes, as Secretary of State Hillary could remain in the public eye—an essential factor for her later run for President. And she could also exercise her passion for making war and wreaking havoc: Libya is a prime illustration. But behind it all, she has been Hillary Clinton of the Clinton Foundation.

Right now, as the latest chapter in the Clinton Foundation scandal is exploding, Bill, her husband, is promising to tighten Foundation rules for accepting donations. He’s presenting a typical mafia ploy: “The Family is getting out of the rackets. We’re going completely legit.”

Sure they are. Bill and Hillary have an itch that can never be scratched. They have to run a racket. They have to pile up money through cons and schemes and payoffs. That will never change.

Hillary convincing Obama to give her the Secretary of State job was a champagne moment for the Clintons. The husband and wife team were in clover. The State Department would become their satellite office for the Foundation, and as such, it would go global and suck in gobs of cash from California to Saudi Arabia.

Annual huddle of the Foundation: “Well, folks, our marketing arm, also known as the State Department, has exceeded all expectations. Everything we’ve been working for, all these years, is coming to fruition. It’s called free money, and we’ve got it.”

What Hillary has done is typical for any clandestine agent: she went undercover; her cover story was, she was Secretary of State; in that role, she achieved hidden ulterior objectives.

Mission accomplished.

Except, as usual, she and her husband did sloppy work. They failed to conceal their operation properly. They wandered off the reservation.

What’s next? Well, how about the Clinton Global Initiative? What might be discovered during a deep probe of that charity? Now we’re talking about real money: over 2000 projects and 69 billion dollars raised (Reuters, 9/22/11). Who diverted and kept how much of that gargantuan sum? Who used money from that vault to extract favors?

Doug Band, the long-time Clinton associate who pulled off this fund-raising feat, was also, according to reports, the man who convinced Obama to give Hillary the job of Secretary of State. If true, one wonders if Band made the President an offer that was hard to refuse: a financial boon after the Oval Office faded in the rear-view mirror.

Every President needs a nest egg, something to fall back on after rendering public service to the nation.

Why shouldn’t the Clintons throw a few large bags of cash out of a plane winging over Hawaii, as the Chosen One and his family arrive to build their new home on a hill?

It’s only fair.

Jon Rappoport

Hillary: what drugs is she on?

Aug16

Hillary: what drugs is she on?

by Jon Rappoport

August 16, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Reports, speculations, rumors abound concerning the health of Hillary Clinton. Among them: she has Parkinson’s.

Obviously, the situation would be clarified if we had access to a complete and unbiased analysis of her health and medical treatment. But how likely is that?

Meanwhile, if Hillary has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, there are drugs that are routinely prescribed, and their adverse effects should be noted.

For example, the drug L-dopa. Here, from WebMD, are several side effects that would raise serious questions: aggressive behavior; altered mental status; blood pressure drop upon standing; depression; mood changes; anxiety; confusion.

Another popular Parkinson’s drug is Sinemet. RX List mentions these adverse effects: lightheadedness; mental/mood changes; agitation; hallucinations; depression; thoughts of suicide.

With either drug, resulting depression could be treated with an SSRI antidepressant, such as Paxil. That drug also has adverse effects.

Among the side effects of Paxil listed by Drugs.com: weakness; dizziness; blurred vision; visual disturbance; lack of concentration; anxiety; confusion.

Psychiatrist and author, Dr. Peter Breggin, writes (“FDA Warns that Paxil Makes Depressed Adults Suicidal”):

“In a May 2006 release in collaboration with the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the FDA has acknowledged the antidepressant Paxil causes a statistically significant increased rate of suicidality in depressed adults as measured in controlled clinical trials. The results are based on a re-analysis of all adult controlled clinical trials that compared Paxil with placebo. Buried in the FDA/GSK release is an astounding fact: Depressed people are 6.4 times more likely to become suicidal while taking an antidepressant than while taking a sugar pill.” [Emphasis in original]

What about antidepressants, such as Paxil, leading to violence? Writing in Psychology Today, Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America, states (“Psychiatric Drugs and Violence: A Review of FDA Data Finds A Link”):

“There has been an enduring controversy over whether psychiatric medications can trigger violent actions toward others. A review of the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System by Thomas Moore, Joseph Glenmullen and Curt Furberg, which was published by PLoS One on December 15 [2010], found that such ‘adverse events’ are indeed associated with antidepressants and several other types of psychotropic medications.”

Note: Sudden withdrawal from antidepressants can trigger quite severe and dangerous adverse effects.

As I wrote at the top, we need a detailed, clear, and unbiased report on Hillary Clinton’s health and medical treatment. But in the absence of such an assessment, it’s necessary to lay out possibilities, which is what I’m doing here. And those possibilities are sobering, to say the least, when you contemplate Hillary occupying the Oval Office as President and Commander in Chief of all US Armed Forces; and when you factor in her role, for example, in the massive attack on Libya, which reduced that nation to a sea of chaos.

Jon Rappoport

Media lie about Hillary’s severe health condition

Aug8

Media lie about Hillary’s severe health condition

The rat poison problem

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Major media are rushing to do damage control on Hillary’s health. They’re trying to lay down the concrete of a fake consensus that she’s fine, because her doctor issued a positive report in 2015. (See here).

But one of the bottom lines is: she’s suffered from dangerous blood clots. And the treatment is blood-thinners, which are given to reduce the possibility of a fatal clot.

Hillary is taking Coumadin, also known as Warfarin.

It’s a rat poison. It kills rats by causing them to bleed out internally. This is a fact.

Therefore, the prescribing doctor and the patient walk a tightrope. How much Coumadin is too much? How little is too little? Too much, and life-threatening bleeding can occur. Too little and fatal blood clots can occur.

Therefore, Hillary is being monitored VERY closely, on a weekly basis, with tests. But the tests aren’t mathematically precise. The monitoring isn’t ironclad science.

And since Coumadin is highly toxic, serious liver damage is a consequence, especially when the drug is given long-term, which is the case here.

Media outlets are going with, “Well, her doctors know what they’re doing. They’re issuing positive reports. They’re giving her a clean bill of health.”

Nonsense.

You put someone on Coumadin, long-term, and you’re rolling the dice. In her case, this treatment is back-against-the-wall, last-line-of-defense.

If her past blood clots were somehow interpreted as minor or incidental, long-term Coumadin would never be the treatment of choice.

This patient, Hillary Clinton, is very high-risk.

The last thing you would want this patient to do is engage in day-to-day, high-stress activity. You would definitely not want the patient to fly in airplanes, because that activity can exacerbate her condition. Lethally.

Her major media allies (and they are, of course, many) have no genuine interest in her health risks. They would be able to handle her as President, even if she turned out to be dead on arrival.

Her closest aides, and her husband, are aware of all these facts. They’re shrugging them off and pressing for a victory in the election this fall. That’s the game plan, come hell or high water.

But the blood clot problem and rat poison problem aren’t going to go away.

Any honest doctor will tell you that.

Whether Hillary has Parkinson’s, whether she has trouble maintaining her balance, whether she has “brain-freezes”…yes, these are all subjects for discussion. But either way, the blood clots and the Coumadin are putting her on a cliff’s edge.

Politics aside, the refusal of major media to bring this into the light on a serious basis is insane.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Zika, Florida, NSA Hillary emails, Obama signs Dark Act

Aug2

Zika, Florida, NSA Hillary emails, Obama signs GMO Dark Act

Give us your urine

by Jon Rappoport

August 2, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Every day in the news business is a fake day.

Headlines and articles smear lies, cover stories, distractions, diversions, and phony parroting across the landscape. And headlines that would reveal important truth are omitted.

The gullible buy in and submit themselves to prime-A mind control.

Here are three current stories I have covered in detail already:

Zika, Florida (one Miami area is the focus): the CDC has issued a travel warning. Pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant, should avoid this area. Feds are going door asking for urine samples, to test for Zika.

But every effort in Brazil, America, Colombia and other countries to link Zika to the birth defect called microcephaly has failed. Utterly. (Zika article archive here)

The correlation between the presence of Zika and cases of microcephaly is so weak, so thin, that researchers have resorted to a bumbling “add-on” analysis. It goes this way:

“If we can find several groups in which Zika and microcephaly are barely connected at all, and combine these findings, we can say they add up to a convincing case.”

In Brazil, embarrassed researchers have simply given up trying to show a correlation between Zika and the birth defect. They simply assert the connection, despite the fact that, at best, Zika is present in perhaps one-fifth of all microcephaly cases.

By any scientific measure, this constitutes counter-evidence that Zika causes microcephaly. But it doesn’t deter the CDC or the World Health Organization. They march on, their message of unrelenting fear fed directly into the brain of the mainstream press, and out into the public. The promise? A blockbuster vaccine, and high profits for Pharma.

Shifting to Hillary Clinton: her email scandal is, at the least, a case of extreme gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. FBI Director Comey said as much, several weeks ago, as he recommended no-prosecution during a global press conference.

“She’s guilty as hell, but we shouldn’t take her to court.”

Comey, acting as if he were, suddenly, a Grand Jury, the US Attorney General, and an appellate judge, misread the Federal Penal Statute—which specifically states that intent to do harm is irrelevant, and gross negligence is the standard—and dismissed a felony case against Hillary out of hand.

Now, Bill Binney, a former high-level NSA analyst who exposed the Agency’s crimes long before Ed Snowden emerged, states that the NSA would actually have all her emails, including the ones which were deleted and never turned over to the Justice Department.

Not only that, the NSA would, as a matter of course, share this information with the FBI and the CIA. In other words, the FBI has been posturing for over a year, in its comments about the missing emails. They could have access to them with a single request.

But mainstream press outlets are ignoring these new revelations. The Hillary case is history. Nothing to see. It’s old news. She’s been exonerated. She’s good to go in her campaign to win the Presidency. That’s the unanimous mainstream consensus.

And finally, Obama has signed the Dark Act, the federal bill which guts the right of any state to clearly label food products containing GMOs. Instead, a new federal standard will be developed—a so-called Q rating system. Under this program, which may possibly be implemented in the next five years, consumers can, if they’re aware, stop shopping and use their i-phones (or an 800 number) to discover what a “Q” means for a given product. Shop all day, check up on four products.

Good luck. Monsanto wins. As I’ve detailed, Obama is the GMO President. He has appointed a whole raft of former Monsanto people to key posts in his administration. He has let more new GMO food crops in the door than any President. This, despite his nudge and wink to supporters during his first run for the White House—signaling that he was on their side, and would make sure they’d know what was in their food. It was all con all the time.

But of course, the mainstream press is giving this zero coverage. There was barely a mention the other day when he signed the new federal bill making GMO labels a cumbersome and useless piece of nonsense.

It’s a good and great thing that mainstream news is dying like a giant corpse who insists on continuing to walk down the street. The New York Times, which keeps re-financing its debt, is showing disastrous numbers for ad-sales revenue this quarter. I’m waiting for the death rattle, when all Times’ front-page stories will center on celebrities and their peccadillos. “Goofy Toofy, Reality Star, shows off her very pregnant shape on a beach in Monaco, in a tiny bikini you won’t believe.” “The British Queen’s fourth cousin’s nephew tries to grow a beard in support of unlimited European immigration.”

Yes, why not go all the way? The Times reporters would love it. Instead of channeling lies out of certified experts, they could make it all up. Low gossip is a lot easier than high gossip.

Meanwhile, pretending a Presidential candidate is innocent of a felony that could carry a 10-year sentence, opening the way to unlabeled GMO anything-and-everything, and blaming a harmless virus for a birth defect that has existed for centuries—it’s just another day at the office.

“Want to grab a few drinks after work?”

“Sure.”

“What are you working on?”

“A story about how Putin created ISIS when he was fourteen years old.”

“Sounds good. Who’s your source on it?”

“Osama Bin Laden.”

“Isn’t he dead?”

“The FBI just found a few hundred emails he sent to Putin in 1973.”

“Good show.”

Jon Rappoport

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision

Jul13

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

—You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on felony charges, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your grasp on how the system actually works—

How much blood is boiling among FBI agents?

Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News investigative reporter, has the story:

“Many people at the FBI are outraged, but cannot speak out,” one insider told me,” Attkisson writes.

We’re talking about FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted in her email scandal. This, after thousands of hours of FBI work scouring the emails connected to Hillary’s illegal private server.

Here are several other comments FBI professionals made, off the record, to Attkisson, with my remarks in parentheses ():

“It appears to me they made a deal not to record [the key FBI-Hillary] interview.”

(This failure, as I wrote, means the interview is lost forever. No stenographic transcript was executed, either. FBI agents’ notes on the interview are useless. They can never be used against Hillary as ironclad evidence in a court of law.)

“Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview—he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”

(Indeed he did. He functioned as FBI Director, Grand Jury, Attorney General, and appellate judge. In this last role, he knowingly misinterpreted the Federal Penal Code, which clearly states that gross negligence in the handling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Hillary was, at the very least, grossly negligent. FBI Director Comey acknowledged this.)

“It appears no Grand Jury was empaneled for this investigation. This is absurd, Grand Juries are used in nearly all criminal investigations.”

“Even in the most straightforward of cases, the time span between a target interview [of Hillary] and prosecution opinion [on whether to file charges] takes weeks, not days. If a good interview were conducted [with Clinton] on Saturday, there would have been leads or other new pieces of information to verify or investigate prior to any conclusion to the case.”

(In other words, the fix was already in.)

Attkisson: “During his Congressional testimony, Comey indicated he didn’t look into Clinton’s false statements. He said he needed an additional ‘referral’ or formal request [from Congress] for the FBI to investigate whether she committed perjury under oath to Congress. ‘This makes no sense,’ said a career agent. ‘It is normal practice that if you came upon evidence of a crime different than the one you were originally investigating, it was fair game.’”

(There is no need to wait for a request to investigate from Congress.)

You can bet many people at the FBI are boiling over after Director Comey’s recommendation that Hillary not be charged and prosecuted.

Level of Bureau morale now? Too low to measure.

How would you feel, if you’d spent months uncovering multiple breaches of the law, all of which your boss admitted were quite real—and then he turned around and said the suspect—a Presidential candidate—was innocent?

It’s your job to prove serious violations occurred, and you did, in a case that would have been the highlight of your career, to say nothing of supporting a little item called justice; but then your work was flushed down the drain.

The next time a case even vaguely approaching the magnitude of this one is tossed in your lap, how much commitment are you going to be able to marshal? You’ll know your facts and findings could well be deemed irrelevant, because the person at the top of your food chain is doing politics, not law. He’s essentially working for players who aren’t in your agency. He’s breaking the law, but you can’t touch him.

Your paycheck feeds your family and pays the rent. You want to do the right thing, but you’re trapped. You joined up for honor, but that ideal is off the table.

Your colleagues at work, who feel their own outrage, advise you to keep your mouth shut and move straight ahead, if you want to hold on to your job and grab a promotion somewhere out in the future. That’s what they’re doing.

So you’re living in a culture of corruption.

How does that sit with you?

You’re not naïve. For years you’ve known government is riddled with corruption and lies. But this time, it hits you. Personally. You’re paying the price. You did something honest and important, and suddenly it was transformed into nothing, and you have to pretend all is well.

You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on a felony charge, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your personal knowledge of how the system actually works.

You’re a federal agent, and once upon a time you thought you had signed on to work for the good of the Republic.

You’re learning, when the chips are down, you’re actually laboring for an extended crime family.

How does that sit? How does it feel?

Are you going to decide you were an idiot for believing in a ideal above and beyond gross personal advantage?

Are you now going to go over to the dark side, and look for ways to grease the wheels of your career?

Or are you, against long odds, somehow going to find a way to stick to your derided principles?

As you sit and watch the news of this Presidential campaign, night after night, that’s the question you ponder, trying to see a way through the darkness.

Where is the dawn?

Of course, you and a few of your colleagues, who were intimately involved in the Clinton investigation, could decide to go public. On the record. You could find a media outlet somewhere that would listen to you. You could turn over your notes of the Hillary interview, and you could swear on a stack of bibles that those notes are an accurate reflection of the proceeding. You could explain your other findings. Perhaps, in all her emails, you found criminal connections between Hillary’s State Department and the infamous Clinton Foundation. You could tell the whole truth. You could take that giant step. You could cause a national uproar. You could make your own federal case.

This, too, is going through your mind as you sit in the darkness.

Looking for a way out.

People have told you that, in life, some choices are hard.

But you didn’t really believe these choices would be yours.

Now they are.

You’re sitting in the dark, you’re flying solo.

Looking for that way out.

“I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

At the end of your academy training, at your graduation ceremony, you took that oath, and as at every graduation, by long-standing tradition, the oath was personally administered by, of all people…

The Director of the FBI.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

Jul11

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

One more clue that the fix is in

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.

We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.

Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.

Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.

The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.

The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”

There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.

There was no recording.

FBI agents merely took notes.

These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.

FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.

It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.

In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.

But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.

Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.

Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.

Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.

There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.

That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.

Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.

Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.

She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.

The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.

In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?

Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?

Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?

Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?

Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?

We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.

If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:

His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.

That’s what he did.

It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.

But not this time. Not with this Clinton.

This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.

Hillary hit the sweet spot.

Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.

Her dream, the country’s nightmare.

A gift from the FBI.

Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.

We only get the silence of the lambs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Clintons

Bill and his bimbos, Hill and her emails: vast security danger

Hillary dropping out of the race no longer a fantasy

Top 10 news stories the day after the election

Clinton Foundation key to giving Putin 20% of US uranium

Reverse engineering Hillary’s crimes: media have it backwards

Hillary: what drugs is she on?

Media lie about Hillary’s severe health condition

Zika, Florida, NSA Hillary emails, Obama signs Dark Act

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs