Exposed: FBI Director James Comey’s Clinton Foundation Connection

WASHINGTON, D. C. – A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader – now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton – is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D. C. His personal and professional relationships – all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton – reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.
These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
Lockheed Martin
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.

This post was published at Lew Rockwell on October 31, 2016.

FORMER DEA PRESCRIPTION HEAD DROPS A BOMBSHELL – CONGRESS PROTECTS BIG PHARMA & FUELS OPIOID CRISIS

Congress would rather protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies than the health of those addicted to dangerous opioid drugs, says a former head of the DEA responsible for preventing abuse of medications.
Joseph Rannazzisi, former Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U. S. Drug Enforcement Agency, asserts Big Pharma and its lobbyists have a ‘stranglehold’ on legislators in Congress and have engineered the protection of a $9 billion per year industry over the health of American citizens, according to a report from the Guardian.
‘Congress would rather listen to people who had a profit motive rather than a public health and safety motive,’ he said, according to the outlet. ‘As long as the industry has this stranglehold through lobbyists, nothing’s going to change.’
Rannazzisi explained lobbyists have spent millions thwarting legislative and policy efforts to provide guidelines for reducing the prescribing of opioid medications closely related to heroin – and helped limit the DEA’s powers to discipline those who dispense unusually high dosages of the same.

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on OCTOBER 31, 2016.

Ukrainians “Shocked” At Vast Wealth Amassed By Their Corrupt Politicians

Ukraine is the latest country to discover that cronyism and corruption in politics pays – a lot – and is very unhappy about it.
As a result of an anti-corruption reform requiring senior Ukrainian officials to declare their wealth online, the local population has been been exposed to the vast difference between the fortunes of politicians and those they represent.
As Reuters reports, some declared millions of dollars in cash. Others said they owned fleets of luxury cars, expensive Swiss watches, diamond jewelry and large tracts of land – revelations that will crush public confidence in the authorities in Ukraine, where the average salary is just over $200 per month. Officials had until Sunday to upload details of their assets and income in 2015 to a publicly searchable database, part of an International Monetary Fund-backed drive to boost transparency and modernise Ukraine’s recession-hit economy.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 31, 2016.

Donna Brazile Shared More Debate Questions With Hillary

Over the past several weeks DNC Chair Donna Brazile has been pummeled in the media after Podesta’s emails revealed that she provided a debate question to Hillary in advance of a March 13, 2016 debate with Bernie Sanders.
Now, the latest WikiLeaks dump reveals that it wasn’t just a one-off thing. The following email from Brazile, sent one day prior to a March 6th debate with Bernie, shows yet another occasion of her providing an advanced peak at debate questions to the Hillary campaign. We can’t imagine that Bernie supporters are very happy that this is the person chosen to takeover the leadership position at the DNC after Schultz was pushed out for showing favoritism toward the Clinton campaign.


This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 31, 2016.

Podesta Part 24: Wikileaks Releases Another 2,620 Emails; Total Is Now 39,511

In the aftermath of one of the most memorable October shocks in presidential campaign history, and down the final stretch in the presidential race which has just over one week left, Wikileaks continues its ongoing broadside attack against the Clinton campaign with the relentless Podesta dump, by unveiling another 2,620 emails in the latest, Part 24 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 39,511.
The release comes hours after Wikileaks warned that it was launching its “Phase 3” of election coverage this week..
In the latest, Sunday set, of emails Doug Band commented on Teneo’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation, saying “if this story gets out, we are screwed,” we learned that Google’s Eric Schmidt wanted to be “head outside advisor” to the Clinton campaign, and a potential conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation assisting El Salvador in obtaining $50 million in cash.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 31, 2016.

Here’s What’s Booming: $6.6 Billion Plowed into 2016 Election

Who are the top 10 donor families? ‘Familiar names…’ For the most cynical among us, democracy in the US is just a codified peaceful way of swapping out the figureheads at the top. For the less cynical, there is a lot more at stake, and they’re willing to plow huge amounts of money into these elections so that this money will help them accomplish their goals afterwards.
Putting money to work in politics is easy in the US. It’s considered a legitimate investment with some sort of return. You have to be really careless, totally uninformed, and completely devoid of common sense to commit illegal acts of corruption because there are a million ways to do this legally. And the amounts changing hands are enormous.
Nearly $6.6 billion: that’s how much candidates, parties, and outside groups are raising and spending in trying to move things their way in the 2016 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics estimates on its website, OpenSecrets.org. It’s a new record. It’s up by $86.5 million, adjusted for inflation, from the 2012 presidential cycle, which had also been a record.

This post was published at Wolf Street on October 30, 2016.

What We’ll Get: the Best Politicians $6.6 Billion Can Buy

Money Boom: Record Amounts Plowed into 2016 Election
For the most cynical among us, democracy in the US is just a codified peaceful way of swapping out the figureheads at the top. For the less cynical, there is a lot more at stake, and they’re willing to plow huge amounts of money into these elections so that this money will help them accomplish their goals afterwards.
Putting money to work in politics is easy in the US. It’s considered a legitimate investment with some sort of return. You have to be really careless, totally uninformed, and completely devoid of common sense to commit illegal acts of corruption because there are a million ways to do this legally. And the amounts changing hands are enormous.
Nearly $6.6 billion: that’s how much candidates, parties, and outside groups are raising and spending in trying to move things their way in the 2016 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics estimates on its website, OpenSecrets.org. It’s a new record. It’s up by $86.5 million, adjusted for inflation, from the 2012 presidential cycle, which had also been a record.
Alas, it’s not over, and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) hasn’t reported all the data yet, and some money doesn’t get reported at all. We’ll get to that in a moment. Hence the report: ‘The cost could be much higher – this is a conservative estimate.’

This post was published at Wolf Street by Wolf Richter ‘ October 30, 2016.

Could Venezuela Become The Next Syria?

Speaking of poor policymaking, hyperinflation and violence – Venezuela is sliding closer and closer to the brink of collapse, with some sobering consequences.
This was among the topics of conversation this week at the Mining & Investment Latin America Summit in Lima, Peru. While there, I had dinner with a couple of Canadian lawyers who represented a few Latin American oil producers, some of them based in Venezuela.
Things have gone from bad to worse, they informed me. Since 2013, when Nicols Maduro took power after the death of Hugo Chvez, the socialist country has struggled with skyrocketing inflation, food and medicine shortages, a shrinking economy and rising violence and corruption. (Its capital city of Caracas recently overtook San Pedro Sula, Honduras, for having the world’s highest homicide rate.)
These have only intensified since oil prices fell by half more than two years ago, as oil accounts for 95 percent of Venezuela’s export earnings.

This post was published at Zero Hedge by Frank Holmes, originally posted ValueWalk.com Oct 30, 2016.

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BLACKED OUT DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROTESTS

A small Standing Rock Sioux site in North Dakota called the Sacred Stone Camp has been propelled into the national news narrative following their stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Due in part to independent media coverage of the ongoing standoff, the Sacred Stone camp has grown into a formidable opposition against the $3.8 billion, 1,200-mile long pipeline.
Due to misinformation coming from law-enforcement, political favoritism toward the pipeline builders, and the media’s blatant reluctance to report on the pipeline, it’s hard to tell truth from fiction. Anti-Media, along with our partners in the independent media and our embedded journalist at the opposition encampment, have been covering the unfolding standoff continuously. Here are five things you need to know.
1. Who is opposing the pipeline – and why
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is leading the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. They have been joined by the largest tribal coalition in over 100 years in their stand against the pipeline. The coalition is also comprised of activists, allies, and environmentalists, collectively known as ‘water protectors,’ at the Sacred Stone Camp, an encampment close to the location where the pipeline is planned to cross the Missouri River in North Dakota. According to the Sacred Stone camp website, they are opposing the pipeline because ‘[t]he Dakota Access threatens everything from farming and drinking water to entire ecosystems, wildlife and food sources surrounding the Missouri.’

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on OCTOBER 28, 2016.

Week in Review: October 29, 2016

Obamacare premiums are exploding, just as mises.org has long predicted. Another disastrous example of politicians discarding basic common sense in passing through legislation to address a problem they themselves have created. Unfortunately there is little hope of politicians learning from their mistakes, as they continue to push through bill, after bill, after bill that expands their influence at the expense of the market and human freedom. No wonder public faith in elections is collapsing as the reach of the state grows larger. Hopefully this growing distrust can spur a libertarian populist awakening, leading to the spread of the ideas that make civilization prosperous.
The Mises Institute will further discuss the collapsing public trust in politics next weekend during our Dallas-Ft. Worth, Mises Circle. You can join Jeff Deist, Lew Rockwell, Robert Murphy and our other great speakers in person, or follow the event live at Mises.org/live.
On Mises Weekends, Jeff is joined by Nomi Prins, a prolific writer and speaker on the subjects of central banking, financial markets, and Wall Street cronyism. She is a former managing director at Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns, but left investment banking to speak out against what she perceives as global financial malfeasance by commercial, investment, and central banks. Nomi is a dedicated progressive who supported Bernie Sanders, but she’s also a harsh critic of the Fed and sympathetic to Austrian depictions of malinvestment and artificially-created bubbles.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on October 29, 2016.

‘They Got In There And Totally Took It Over’ – The Tea Party, Black Lives Matter and the 99% Protesters Have All Been Absorbed By The Establishment

If there’s one thing that the rise of Donald Trump and Britain’s Brexit has proven, it’s that the people have had it with the establishment. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, you are likely sick and tired of the outright corruption prevalent in every aspect of the system.
Over the last decade we have seen several movements try to take the initiative to create real, lasting change by upending the business-as-usual behavior of entrenched politicians, corporate lobbyists and mainstream media. All have thus far failed and were eventually absorbed by the power structure.

This post was published at shtfplan on October 28th, 2016.

5 Things You Need To Know About The Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

A small Standing Rock Sioux site in North Dakota called the Sacred Stone Camp has been propelled into the national news narrative following their stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Due in part to independent media coverage of the ongoing standoff, the Sacred Stone camp has grown into a formidable opposition against the $3.8 billion, 1,200-mile long pipeline.
Due to misinformation coming from law-enforcement, political favoritism toward the pipeline builders, and the media’s blatant reluctance to report on the pipeline, it’s hard to tell truth from fiction. Anti-Media, along with our partners in the independent media and our embedded journalist at the opposition encampment, have been covering the unfolding standoff continuously. Here are five things you need to know.
1. Who is opposing the pipeline – and why
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is leading the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. They have been joined by the largest tribal coalition in over 100 years in their stand against the pipeline. The coalition is also comprised of activists, allies, and environmentalists, collectively known as ‘water protectors,’ at the Sacred Stone Camp, an encampment close to the location where the pipeline is planned to cross the Missouri River in North Dakota. According to the Sacred Stone camp website, they are opposing the pipeline because ‘[t]he Dakota Access threatens everything from farming and drinking water to entire ecosystems, wildlife and food sources surrounding the Missouri.’

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 28, 2016.

“Meet The Grifters In Chief” – WSJ Lashes Out At Hillary Scandals

While the majority of the mainstream media is content to suckle at the teat of the Clinton/Establishment machine – despite the tsunami of ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ of the deep state corruption – The Wall Street Journal appears to have decided that honesty is the best policy… perhaps concerned for its reputation once this short-sighted farce is over.
First, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel appears to have taken a stand for honest reportage in her latest op-ed, lashing out at the “griefters-in-chief” stating The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment.
In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.
This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 28, 2016.

Clinton Foundation Corrupt to Core

In a 2011 memo, an aide to Bill Clinton laid out the unethical relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Bill’s sudden wealth. Bill’s personal interests were linked as was Hillary selling influence. The memo details how some foundation donors paid Clinton to speak and provide consulting services.

This post was published at Armstrong Economics on Oct 28, 2016.

Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation Donors And Bill’s “For-Profit” Activities

We have written frequently in recent weeks about a feud that erupted between Chelsea Clinton and Doug Band back in 2011 after Chelsea raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest between Band’s firm, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the State Department (see here, here, here and here). The feud ultimately resulted in Band being forced to draft a memo spelling out, in vivid detail, the many entangled relationships between himself, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Fortunately, today’s Wikileaks dump included that memo which reveals, for the first time, the precise financial flows between the Clinton Foundation, Band’s firm Teneo Consulting, and the Clinton family’s private business endeavors.
The memo starts with a brief background on Teneo, which was created in June 2011, shortly after Declan Kelly resigned from his position as “United States Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland,” a position to which he was appointed by Secretary Clinton.
In June 2009, DK Consulting was founded by Declan Kelley. Mr. Kelly served as COO of FTI Consulting until June 2009, when he stepped down and established DK Consulting. At that time, he also became the United States Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland. Pursuant to the terms of his exit agreement with FTI and consistent with the ethics agreement of his uncompensated special government employee appointment at the State Department, Mr. Kelly retained and continued to provide services to three paying clients (Coke, Dow, and UBS) and one pro bono client (Allstate). In late 2009, Declan retained me as a consultant to DK Consulting to help support the needs of these clients.
In May 2011, Mr. Kelly resigned his Envoy position at the State Department. In June 2011, Mr. Kelly and I founded Teneo Strategies; simultaneously, Mr. Kelly closed DK Consulting and shifted its clients to Teneo.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 27, 2016.

Globalization Faces Challenges

For much of the second half of the 20th Century, and even into the new millennium, ‘Globalization’ was the dominant theme used to describe the drift of the world economy. It was widely considered both natural and inevitable that the world economy would continue to integrate and that national boundaries would become less constraining to commerce and culture. And with the exception of the eternal ‘anti-globalization’ protesters, who robotically appeared at large gatherings of world leaders, the benefits of globalization were widely lauded by politicians, corporate leaders and rank and file citizens alike. But a casual glance at the world headlines of 2016 suggests that the belief in globalization has crested, and is now in retreat. What are the consequences of this change?
International trade has existed for millennia. But few modern historians would characterize the trade caravans that crossed the Himalayas and the Sahara as sources of international conflict. Rather, they are widely seen as a useful means to bring goods that were plentiful from one region to other regions where they were scarce. Along the way, routes like the Silk Road in Asia created a great number of positive secondary benefits in culture and politics. But relatively modern developments such as ocean-going sailing ships, modern navigation, and steam and diesel power, have greatly increased the size and scope of trade. Globalism was also boosted rapidly by technological advances in communications, including intercontinental jet travel, fax machines, satellite telephones, the Internet, real time money transfers and massive investment flows to international and emerging markets.
Since the end of WWII, the establishment of international reserve currencies and the rise of supranational organizations, such as the United Nations, The World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, has saddled trade with more political baggage. The rise of bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade negotiations, which are often shadowy and bureaucratic affairs conducted behind closed doors, have further eroded support for trade. Oftentimes these efforts have resulted in deals that clearly favor politically connected players and have given rise to justified accusations of cronyism. By opening larger markets and reducing costs, certain corporations have amassed shocking wealth. The benefits to workers are far more diffuse and difficult to quantify.
The Harvard Business Review of May 13, 2016 published an article by Branko Milanovic about the unequal distribution of wealth generated by globalism. Milanovic comments that, since the mid-1980s, globalism has resulted in the ‘greatest reshuffle of personal incomes since the Industrial Revolution. It’s also the first time that global inequality has declined in the past two hundred years.’ Milanovic points to two main conclusions. First, he highlights the massive percentage gain in wages in Asia, particularly among the middle classes. In some cases, percentage wage gains in the Asian middle class have eclipsed the percentage gains experienced by the top one percent in the richer Western economies.
In stark contrast, the U. S. and Western lower and middle classes have enjoyed almost no percentage wage increases, while their top one percent was the only group to experience significant income gains, based on available household surveys from 1988 to 2008. A recent unpublished paper by John E. Roemer, a political scientist at Yale, suggests that the diminishing of global inequality made possible by trade is far less potent politically than the relative increases in national inequality. In other words, the benefits of globalism are obscured while the costs are highly visible.

This post was published at Euro Pac on October 26, 2016.

The ‘Real’ Reasons People Will Vote For Trump

Someone close to me, who is voting for Hillary, sent me this article recently, thinking it did a great job of characterizing Trump voters as real people. And I was so mortified and incensed reading it, that I felt it necessary to respond with my own thoughts on this election, and who I will be voting for.
The article is a perfect example of virtue signaling as it relates to this election. Nowhere in the article does John Biggs, the author, indicate that he has actually spoken with any Trump voter who actually has anything positive to say about Trump himself or his proposed policies. Instead, the quotes are merely meant to symbolize angry conservatives who are voting against Hillary moreso than they are voting for Trump. It seems this Ohio native turned Brooklyn hipster has taken but one glance at the odds and surmised that since he believes Hillary is going to win, and since he has such a large following, it is his duty to begin reaching out to Trump voters to bridge the partisan divide. It seems as if he wants to unite everyone under a nation of corruption and crime for the leaders, but not for the general population. Seeing as how I regularly communicate with Trump voters, I felt it my duty to respond, and will preserve the anonymity of my contributors by speaking through my own voice.
However, it is important to give some background on myself, my voting record, and who I will be voting for. Since I have been eligible to vote, I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for President. I am firmly convinced that the differences between the two parties are merely superficial, as they are both committed to deficit spending, endless wars, welfare handouts, and corporate bailouts/kickbacks, which are the real issues plaguing the country today. Most recently, in 2012, I voted for Gary Johnson, as I was very impressed with his campaign and platform. At the time, Charlie at Single Dude Travel did an excellent job of characterizing what it means to vote for a third party, and not be a part of the two-party scam:

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 25, 2016.

Bill Clinton Era SEC Chair Tells Elizabeth Warren to Muzzle Herself

Yesterday, former SEC Chair Arthur Levitt penned an OpEd for the Wall Street Journal, effectively telling Senator Elizabeth Warren to stop criticizing Mary Jo White in public. White is the current Chair of the SEC that Senator Warren publicly asked President Obama to fire this month for her bad leadership.
Senator Warren is a genuine champion of the investing public and understands how the SEC has become a lapdog to Wall Street under White’s inept leadership. Levitt is part of the Bill Clinton machine that de-regulated Wall Street and turned it into a massive looting racket in the 1990s through today. It’s important to take note of Levitt’s effort to muzzle Warren in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Expect to see more of this coming from a lot more of Wall Street’s cronies.
Arthur Levitt was appointed as SEC Chair by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Levitt served until 2001, making him the longest serving SEC Chair. Levitt had previously been Sandy Weill’s business partner in a Wall Street brokerage firm. In 1998, when Weill wanted to create Citigroup by merging his Travelers Group, which owned an insurance company, brokerage firm and investment bank, with Citibank, an insured depository bank – an illegal merger at the time under the Glass-Steagall Act – Levitt and his other cronies in the Bill Clinton administration eagerly got the ball rolling.

This post was published at Wall Street On Parade By Pam Martens and Russ Marte.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR SALE? LEAKED EMAIL SHOWS HILLARY CAMP ANSWERING WEALTHY DONOR’S QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW EXECUTIVE ORDERS WORK

If you already thought the Executive Order system falls somewhere between problematic and completely unconstitutional, this takes it to a whole new, never before seen level of corruption.
Thanks to all the leaks, America now knows our government is essentially one giant pay-for-play operation. That’s how it works. That’s how the DNC works. That’s how the Clinton Foundation works.
But how far does that go?
How about bypassing Congress entirely with money in the most literal sense possible.
This leaked email chain hints at something that kind of makes votes and lobbyists and, well, all of it rather pointless.
If someone’s wealthy enough, can they straight up buy an executive order?
These days, the president uses Executive Orders to bypass Congress, even though there is no constitutional provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. It’s a system that’s been heavily abused in the past but now, apparently, it’s for sale.

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on OCTOBER 24, 2016.