“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.”–William Shakespeare
It appears the truth is emerging from beneath the murky layers of the DNC-Hillary Clinton swamp. Recent revelations confirming that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign paid millions though a law firm for the infamous “golden showers” dossier—the salacious piece best described as “creative writing” that consequently led to the wiretapping of President Trump and those in his circle–coupled with recently published excerpts of former DNC interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile’s new book, Hack, have all but confirmed that these Democratic bottom-feeders stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, in addition to having spent a year or more aiming to discredit the Trump Administration.
Despite my delight that such evidence of conspiracy, grafting, election fraud, etcetera, at the hands of select Democrats is rising to the surface, why now? What caused the anchor that’s kept such information tethered to the floor of deluge to become dislodged? On the precipice of indictments being issued in the Trump-Russia inquiry headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, we’re suddenly presented with proof as to who held the purse-strings behind the dossier that initiated this witch hunt. Did Donna Brazile suddenly awaken from her coma of self-deceit and delusion and experience a proverbial crisis of conscience? Is she attempting to repent for having contributed to Bernie Sanders’ loss of the Democratic Party’s endorsement during the 2016 election simply because such support came at a price only Clinton could afford to pay?
Did the poison-infused apple offered to her by the dubious DNC—the sinful piece of fruit she willingly bit into–suddenly lose its toxicity? Or are these revelations and autobiographical musings strategic; part of a ploy to potentially mitigate the damage caused by a corrupt Party?
The stratagems behind the foregoing schemes were complex. In the case of the former, in Spring 2016, the DNC assumed payments for opposition research against the Republican Party compiled by Fusion GPS that had been initiated by the Washington Free Beacon. Post-DNC, however, the project narrowed in scope, focusing on the Trump campaign and Russia. Employing a former British spy to gather intel, Christopher Steele, who later confessed that much of the sensationalist account hadn’t been confirmed, it’s since been proven that even the most rudimentary background “facts” pertaining to Russia cited in the dossier are categorically incorrect. Moreover, most, if not all, of the claims contained therein aren’t merely patently false, but outright outlandish.
Ridiculous contents notwithstanding, this “opposition research” was enough to convince certain government entities under the Obama Administration to launch an investigation into then-candidate Trump’s “relationship” (and “relations”) with Russia. Fast forward to current, following the arrest of Trump associate Paul Manafort, Democrats and anti-Trumpers wait with baited breath to see who’ll be the next target for indictment based on a lineup of suspects identified under Robert Mueller’s directive.
Notably, the Manafort indictment only cites alleged acts that had occurred well-before his brief tenure with the Trump campaign; however, perhaps the most critical piece of information ascertained from these charges is the role of the Podesta brothers in Manafort’s criminal misdeeds. Thus, John Podesta’s role in the Justice Department’s investigation pertaining to Trump’s “crimes”—Hillary Clinton’s confidante and campaign manager—has been brought into the forefront.
Yet while Mueller is doggedly determined to convict Trump et al. in both the courts and the court of public opinion, it appears that there is no known statute relating to collusion and elections. Simply put—even if Trump and his associates had conspired with the Russians to “steal” the presidential election, since there exists no statutory law, therefore, no crime has been committed. Further, former Trump advisor George Papadopoulos pled guilty to one charge–having violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, or lying to the government—the same “crime” Martha Stewart was convicted of. The takeaway: although both men might be guilty, it appears neither man’s acts of malfeasance are directly (or indirectly) related to President Trump or his campaign.
If Mueller’s authority to investigate “[a]ny links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as assigned to him by his buddy, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, isn’t horrifying enough given Mr. Mueller’s position in the notorious Uranium One deal investigation, Breitbart News has reported that according to sources, Trump-appointed AG Jeff Sessions has recently stated he’ll need to further recuse himself from any matters related to the above-mentioned deal. Therefore, despite Mueller’s ethical conflicts, Mr. Sessions appears to have suggested once again that he’s compromised when it comes to the term “Russia,” and thus cannot adequately perform his duties as attorney general.
At current, the Trump-Russia “collusion” investigation appears to mimic Dante’s Inferno in terms of graduating circles of unethical behavior at the hands of Mueller, a man who has been accused of entrapment and the “overzealous” pursuit of those he classifies as “villains,” and prima facie corruption amidst those in-charge of pursuing “justice” based on his instruction.
Along the lines of the adage, “Justice is blind,” it appears what’s blatant—that the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign have both illegally profited from the recent election in myriad ways–is being ignored and/or avoided by mainstream media at-large. It seems entities such as CNN, well-known for their biased reporting against Trump, would rather re-direct their dwindling audience’s attention to nonsense polls that suggest Trump’s approval ratings are low. Yet those who report on actual investigatory news such as Tucker Carlson are being served with “cease and desist” letters on behalf of those who believe that by retaining large law firms to threaten and disparage, the truth will somehow dissipate.
Speaking of law firms, it’s recently come to light that the wily DNC, well aware of transparency laws related to political campaigns, used Perkins Coie, the legal home of attorney Mark Eilas’, to remit payment to Fusion GPS. What’s ironic, however, is that the DNC doesn’t seem to recall who authorized almost $10 million in payments to Perkins Coie during the operative time period. Exactly why did those parties to this transaction come clean? Because Fusion and Perkins Coie both had enough sense to know that the risk of attempting to quash any subpoena issued for Fusion’s bank records was too great. Not all of the judiciary is Obama-appointed, so once the penumbras of the Fourth Amendment had all been exhausted, they’d have to produce them anyway.
And this leads us to Donna Brazile’s chicanery. According to Brazile’s narrative, it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz who permitted the DNC to go broke. Somehow, Wasserman Schultz was cunning and savvy enough to single-handedly make spending decisions which consequently resulted in an opportunity for Clinton’s campaign to pay off the DNC’s almost $20 million in debt. Hence, one might conclude Hillary was a sort of loan shark, using her name and connections to “save” the DNC from imminent financial threat. But, being a diehard fan of The Sopranos and Scorsese’s mob flicks, these types of lenders don’t simply “give” money away. In turn for this sum, Clinton’s campaign was granted operating control over the committee’s finances, strategy and any funds raised.
Working in the legal field, I’ve learned that assessing source credibility is critical. Ms. Brazile’s Sterling silver reputation is definitely smudged with fingerprints, having leaked debate questions ahead of time to Clinton, a decision that cost Brazile her contract as a CNN contributor. However, if her account isn’t convincing enough, just days ago, NBC news acquired a Memorandum of Understanding that all but implicates Hillary Clinton’s campaign of breaking campaign contribution laws, as well as potentially violating those related to campaign finance reporting. Moreover, the Memo confirms that the DNC permitted Clinton to steal the election from her competitor, Bernie Sanders.
Dated August 2015 entitled “Joint Fundraising Agreement,” the following summarizes the intent of the 3-page Memo:
“HFA [Hillary for America] is prepared to raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory [Victory Fund.] In return for this financial support, HFA requires the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds.”
It then proceeds to detail the agreed upon payment schedule, as well as itemize the HFA’s terms, including, but not limited to, granting HFA control over the Party’s staffing and budgeting decisions, data, and analytics. Therefore, this Agreement unequivocally stripped the DNC of its impartiality towards potential candidates. Further, it blatantly allowed Hillary and her posse to act as puppeteers, and granted them access to every aspect of committee business—inclusive of its spending.
One might conclude that Donna’s version of events is a contrived “apology” to Bernie Sanders—the Democratic candidate she enabled the DNC to steal the primary from, or perhaps Brazile’s attempt to vindicate herself while creating a diversion from her individual role in the fall of the Democratic Party post-election. But reading in-between the lines of Brazile’s curious martyrdom, is Brazile’s intimation that it was her predecessor, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who managed DNC funds, intel that coincidently found its way to the press? The timing of the same released on the heels of House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy questioning why Democratic committee members are feigning amnesiac as to who authorized millions in payments to a law firm that was tied to the questionable opposition research at the center of this stratosphere of political and legal insanity? Isn’t it suspicious that Brazile elucidates Wasserman Schultz as the proverbial “fall guy” just following what are likely the first of those in a series of Mueller indictments, specifically given the unearthed connection of the Podesta brothers’ PR firm to Manafort’s purported criminal enterprise?
And then another idea crossed my mind—what if, in an act of desperation during this notably dire period in its already-debauched history, the Democrats are hoping that Donna Brazile’s book will promote Bernie Sanders as presidential material in the slightest of all chances that impeachment proceedings advance against Trump?
Although Brazile’s book is incriminating to both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, conversely, it presents Sanders in a most favorable light, depicting the socialist-senator-who’s-never-worked-a-real-job as the most empathetic of victims. A man who believes everything from education to health care should be given away “free” to all, without offering any plan as to how this is financially feasible or whom would be liable for the inevitable cost, Sanders’ idyllic vision was stolen from Americans by his own party competitor.
That said, introducing Saint Sanders–the candidate Donna the Martyr Saint couldn’t save from the perils of the Democrats under the tutelage of its evil controller, Hillary Clinton. You see, the Democrats are learning, slowly but surely. The epiphany that Hillary is abominable has finally struck; the realization that she is their Judas is a fact that like energy, cannot be destroyed.
Problem is, there isn’t much sympathy left for this devil. The Democrats have washed their hands and sealed their fate.
At some point in the near future, Mueller will either be removed from his special counsel post by Congress or by his own recusal. Trump wasn’t so intimidated by the threat of being found “guilty” of illegally acting with the Russians as not to fire Mueller’s FBI comrade, James Comey. Like attorney Vincent Bugliosi wrote, “And The Sea Will Tell,” and this sea of shadiness polluted by years of Democratic nepotism will speak, followed by the drowning of those who’ve remained afloat, by their own doing.
Given its egregious error in judgment having kept Bernie on the bench, and complete ignorance as to why the American voters chose Trump over the Democrats’ pick to “quarterback,” it really isn’t much of a stretch to think the DNC is simply substituting Saint Sanders for Clinton in a final Hail Mary effort. Their only other option is conceding to the obvious: The Democrats have lost the game, fair and square.