INSTEAD OF THE WATERGATE TAPES.ITS THE BIDENS HUNTER AND CHINA JOE UKRAINE 5 MILLION DOLLAR TAPES.

 INSTEAD OF THE WATERGATE TAPES.ITS THE BIDENS HUNTER AND CHINA JOE UKRAINE 5 MILLION DOLLAR TAPES.

WELL IT SEEMS THERE HAPPENS TO BE 15 TAPES OF HUNTER BIDEN AND 2 TAPES OF JOE BIDEN WHEELING DEALING FOR 5 MILLION DOLLARS FOR UKRAINE FAVOURS IN WASHINGTON. NOW WE KNOW WHY BIDEN IS DESTROYING AMERICAS MILITARY TO FEED LAP DOG ZELENSKI BILLION UPON BILLIONS OF CASH AND WEAPONS. ONLY FOR THE UKRAINIAN PUPPETS OR SOLDIERS TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF RUSSIA. NOW WE KNOW WHY THE WAR IS GOING ON SO LONG. UKRAINE HAS THE BLACK MAIL ON BIDENS. AND IF CHINA JOE WOULD NOT SEND CASH AND WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. OOPS THOSE TAPES WOULD BE LEAKED ANONAMOUSLY TO THE MEDIA.

SO TRUMP GOES TO COURT AT 3PM IN MIAMI. INNOCENTLY CHARGED FOR DOING NOTHING WRONG. WHILE OBAMA MAMA WHO FED IRAN A PLANE LOAD OF BILLIONS IN CASH. AND BIDEN IS A PUPPET TO UKRAINE FOR THE BILLIONS HIM AND HUNTER TOOK FOR GIVING UKRAINE FREE CASH AND WEAPONS UNDER THE GUISE OF HELPING UKRAINE WIN THE WAR AGAINST THE UKRAINE. SO TRUMP GETS NAILED FOR DOING NOTHING. WHILE OBAMA MAMA AND CHINA JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN GET AWAY WITH REAL CRIMINAL ACTS RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN SECRET. AMERICA IS A LIBERAL DICTATORSHIP OF LIES AND CORRUPTION.


Donald Trump set to appear in Miami court on charges he stole classified documents-The former president has described the prosecution as politically motivated and an attempt to stop him running for the White House again.Mark Stone-US correspondent @Stone_SkyNews-Tuesday 13 June 2023 07:18, UK

Donald Trump is set to appear in Miami court on charges he stole classified documents and lied to block efforts to get them back.Donald Trump has spent the night at his golf club in Doral just outside Miami ahead of his historic federal court appearance.The former president will appear at the Wilkie D. Ferguson Court House at 3pm (8pm UK time) on charges he stole classified documents and lied to block efforts to get them back.Trump touched down in his private plane on Monday afternoon.A small group of supporters gathered outside the Trump National Doral Miami golf resort, cheering as his motorcade drove past.He faces 37 felony counts over documents found at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home, as well as claims he obstructed justice and made false statements.Pictures released by the Department of Justice as part of its unsealed indictment showed boxes of documents stacked inside his Mar-a-Lago estate, including in a bathroom.Details on nuclear weapons programmes, potential vulnerabilities of the US and its allies, and plans for retaliatory military attacks were in some of the documents, according to prosecutors.Roughly 13,000 documents were seized in raids on the property nearly a year ago. One hundred of them were marked as classified.Prosecutors say Trump's hoarding of papers from his time as president jeopardised national security - and the Espionage Act charges carry the prospect of up to 20 years in jail.Writing on his Truth Social site before boarding his flight, he said: "I hope the entire country is watching what the radical left are doing to America."However some of Mr Trump's Republican challengers for the presidential nomination appear to be shifting their tone.Speaking to Fox News, Nikki Haley said: "If this indictment is true... President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security... This puts all of our military men and women in danger."It is the first federal indictment of a former president, but Mr Trump claims he is being persecuted in an attempt to stop him becoming president again in 2024.Polls suggest his supporters overwhelmingly believe the charges are politically motivated.In a weekend CBS News poll of Republican voters, just 12% said their biggest concern about the indictment was the fact that the documents posed a national security risk.More than three-quarters (76%) said their biggest concern was that the indictment is politically motivated.Protesters in Miami raised allegations about President Biden's mishandling of classified documents, which remain under investigation, and the Hilary Clinton email scandal.But speaking to Sky News, a former federal prosecutor who almost prosecuted Richard Nixon over Watergate, and declined to represent Donald Trump last year said there were distinct differences between the cases."The big difference is cooperation," Jon Sale said."When President Trump was served a subpoena last spring, if he had told his lawyer, 'Look, I want to turn over everything; I want to comply with the subpoena. Do a diligent search - everything we have, turn it over to the grand jury', then you and I wouldn't be here today."Miami police's chief said he was expecting up to 50,000 people on the streets for today's hearing and that downtown roads could be closed if necessary.The former president will be fingerprinted. He will have a mugshot taken but it will not be released and there will be no cameras of any sort in the courtroom itself. He will have the charges read out to him and enter a plea. The case will then be adjourned.Mr Trump, who turns 77 this week, is also due to go on trial next March over separate claims that he falsified business records to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity. And there's another case against him in Georgia for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Scheduling for the three trials could mean that this case is not completed before the November 2024 presidential election.

Did Joe Biden sell out America? 4 things to know about Democrats' claims-The FBI has been dragging its feet on the investigation into Joe Biden and his family's possible influence peddling. Here's what we're doing to get the facts-By Rep. James Comer | Fox News

PROGRAMMING ALERT: Watch House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer discuss this topic and more on "The Ingraham Angle" on Tuesday, June 13 at 10 pm ET.For the past year, the House Oversight Committee, where I serve as chairman, has been investigating the Biden family’s influence peddling schemes that generated millions of dollars for the Biden family. We are following the facts. We need to know whether these deals threaten national security and if President Joe Biden is compromised.The Oversight Committee has already obtained thousands of pages of financial records related to the Biden family and has traced millions of dollars from China and Romania to the Biden family and their associates. Americans are asking: What is the Biden family business? They don’t sell anything, they don’t have lucrative assets generating income, yet they receive millions from around the globe. What are they selling? Influence and access.President Biden has repeatedly lied to the American people about his family’s business dealings. Now, Americans are left wondering if Joe Biden was involved with them.EXCLUSIVE: PERSON ALLEGING BIDEN CRIMINAL BRIBERY SCHEME IS 'HIGHLY CREDIBLE' FBI SOURCE USED SINCE OBAMA ADMIN: SOURCEA highly credible whistleblower provided disclosures to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that the FBI has an unclassified, FBI-generated record known as an FD-1023 form.  The document memorializes a confidential human source’s conversations with a foreign national who claimed to have bribed then-Vice President Biden in exchange for certain actions.Last month, Sen. Grassley and I demanded the FBI produce this unclassified record and I issued a subpoena to obtain it. We need to know what, if anything, the FBI did to verify the serious allegations contained within this record. The American people need to know if President Biden sold out the United States to make money for himself.-President Joe Biden-President Joe Biden departs the White House on Jan. 19, 2023. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)-Unfortunately, the premier agency that is supposed to investigate crimes appears to have run defense for the Bidens. FBI Director Christopher Wray refused for weeks to acknowledge the existence of the FD-1023 form and failed to produce it. Once Director Wray finally confirmed the record’s existence, the FBI still failed to comply with a congressional subpoena. FBI WILLING TO ALLOW ALL HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO VIEW BIDEN DOC ALLEGING CRIMINAL SCHEME: SOURCE-We made it clear: If the FBI didn’t hand over this form, the House Oversight Committee would begin contempt of Congress proceedings. The FBI was finally forced to cooperate and is allowing all members of the House Oversight Committee to review the record in person and producing additional documents.Allowing all Oversight Committee members to review this record is a big victory and an important step toward conducting oversight of the FBI and holding it accountable to the American people. Congress must investigate the allegations contained in this record. REPUBLICAN SENATORS CALL FOR FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY'S RESIGNATION-Here is what we know:The FBI confirmed multiple times during our briefing that the information contained within the record is currently being used in an ongoing investigation.The confidential human source who provided information about then-Vice President Biden being involved in a criminal bribery scheme is a trusted, highly credible informant who has been used by the FBI for years and paid six figures.The allegations contained within the record track closely with the thousands of pages of financial records obtained by the Oversight Committee. The Bidens have a pattern of using their network of over 20 limited liability companies and complicated financial transactions to hide the sources of the money and evade detection.Disinformation from the left reinforces the need for the FBI to produce this unclassified FD-1023 record to the House Oversight Committee. Despite growing evidence, the White House and Democrats are lying to the American people about the allegations contained within this record and what was done with it. Let me set the record straight:First, Democrats are peddling conspiracy theories and alleging the FD-1023 record is based on secondhand hearsay. The FD-1023 record was generated by a trusted confidential source who was working with the FBI for over ten years.Second, Democrats claim that the record is part of the documents Rudy Giuliani provided the FBI in January 2020. That’s not true. The FD-1023 document stands on its own and contains information from the FBI’s confidential human source dating back to another FD-1023 generated in 2017.Third, the FD-1023 was generated by the FBI in June 2020 based on other FBI records dating back to 2017. The Department of Justice conducted an assessment on separate material provided to the Department in January 2020, and this assessment was closed in August 2020. Democrats are claiming the DOJ investigated the FD-1023 and then took no action, but the FBI has refused to answer what information was part of their assessment. How could the DOJ have conducted a credible, thorough investigation in four weeks?  It’s not possible.And last, let’s be very clear: The allegations in the record are not closed. FBI officials and former Attorney General William Barr have refuted Democrats’ lies that the Biden bribery investigation was closed. "On the contrary, it was sent to Delaware for further investigation," former Attorney General Barr said this week on the record.Republicans are going to follow the facts and ensure accountability for the American people.Americans have lost trust in the FBI’s ability to enforce the law impartially and demand answers, transparency, and accountability.The Oversight Committee will continue to follow the facts and ensure accountability for the American people. Democrats’ lies and deterrents will not distract us from this goal.Republican James Comer represents Kentucky's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives where he is chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Was Obama’s $1.7 billion cash deal with Iran prohibited by U.S. law? Analysis by Glenn Kessler-The Fact Checker-March 1, 2018 at 3:00 a.m. EST

This will be an unusual fact check. Essentially, we are fact-checking The Fact Checker.Like many things these days, it all started with a tweet. President Trump tweeted about the $1.7 billion in cash that the Obama administration sent to Iran and wondered why there had not been an investigation.So we tweeted in response:Then Omri Ceren, managing director of the Israel Project, tweeted that we were wrong:So we asked for evidence of his tweet and said we would examine it. (He sent this article.) The dust-up also merited an article in the Tablet, suggesting The Fact Checker had fallen for Obama administration spin.We went into this exercise with an open mind, and here’s what we discovered.The Facts-Contrary to Trump’s tweet, this $1.7 billion transaction was investigated by Congress. We reviewed transcripts of congressional testimony, a Treasury inspector general’s report and various letters between lawmakers and the Obama administration; we also interviewed national-security lawyers and former Obama administration officials.The situation certainly looks unusual on its face. On Jan. 17, 2016, the day after four American detainees, including The Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian, were released, a jumbo jet carrying $400 million in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies landed in Tehran. That money purportedly was partial payment of an outstanding claim by Iran for U.S. military equipment that was never delivered. Soon after, $1.3 billion in cash followed.The cash transaction was controversial even within the administration. The Wall Street Journal reported that the head of the Justice Department’s national-security division objected that it would look like a ransom payment. State Department officials insisted the negotiations over the claims and detainees were not connected but came together at the same time, with the cash payment used as “leverage” to ensure the release of detainees.Now to the substance of our inquiry: Was it against the law to transfer the money to Iran until accounts were settled regarding victims of terrorism? Before the 1979 revolution, Iran under the shah was reputedly the biggest buyer of U.S. military equipment, depositing funds for potential deals in a Defense Department account. When Iran seized U.S. Embassy staffers as hostages, the military sales account was frozen. The issue — and other outstanding claims — has been litigated ever since through a claims tribunal established in The Hague. Some of the money in the account was used to pay American companies whose contracts were canceled, but by 2000, about $400 million was left in what was known as the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Trust Fund account.That is when the families of victims of Iranian-linked terrorism who had won court cases stepped in. They were unable to force Iran to pay the judgments, but Stephen Flatow, the father of a woman killed in a 1995 militant attack in Gaza, discovered the FMS trust fund and sought payment from it.Congress passed a law in 2000 under which the U.S. Treasury could pay compensatory judgments (plus a portion of punitive damages) issued for claims against Iran (as well as Cuba). All told, about $400 million was paid out in relation to court judgments against Iran covered by the law and subsequent legislation in 2002 — about the equivalent of what was in the FMS trust fund. That is because the amount in the FMS trust fund essentially provided a cap on what would be paid out to those judgment holders who were eligible for compensation under the law. (The family of Alisa Flatow, for instance, received $26 million, which was used to establish a scholarship fund.)The law, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA), said that upon payment, the claims of those individual judgment holders were “subrogated” to the United States. That means the claims of those individuals essentially became the claims of the United States government vis-a-vis the foreign state — in this case, Iran.This is the actual text, with the key portions highlighted: “(c) SUBROGATION. — Upon payment under subsection (a) with respect to payments in connection with a Foreign Military Sales Program account, the United States shall be fully subrogated, to the extent of the payments, to all rights of the person paid under that subsection against the debtor foreign state. The President shall pursue these subrogated rights as claims or offsets of the United States in appropriate ways, including any negotiation process which precedes the normalization of relations between the foreign state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and the United States, except that no funds shall be paid to Iran, or released to Iran, from property blocked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until such subrogated claims have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”When lawmakers quizzed State Department lawyer Lisa Grosh in 2016, they were clearly puzzled by this provision, and you can see the two sides talking past each other.THEN-REP. MICK MULVANEY (R-S.C.): “At the end of that after the subrogation, they are not Iran’s funds anymore; they are the United States government’s funds, aren’t they?”  GROSH: “No, the funds have remained in the trust fund as Iranian moneys in the trust fund. The United States Congress appropriated $400 million to be paid to these individuals —”MULVANEY: “Instead of taking the money out of the FMS trust fund, but by doing so we thus own the $400 million.”GROSH: “No, that’s incorrect, I’m sorry.”Here’s the explanation: Just because there are $400 million in subrogated claims, it does not mean that Iran actually must return that money to the United States. The text of the law provides for a lot of wiggle room: U.S. officials “shall pursue these subrogated rights as claims or offsets of the United States in appropriate ways, including any negotiation process … until such subrogated claims have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.” Obama officials say that is what happened, with the final amount of the settlement — $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest — taking into account the subrogated claims.John B. Bellinger, chief State Department lawyer under Condoleezza Rice and before that legal adviser to the National Security Council for President George W. Bush, reviewed the law and the congressional exchange over the clause at our request.“The VTVPA does not say that the USG could never release the FMS funds to Iran; it says the funds could not be released to Iran ‘until such subrogated claims have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States,’” he said. “I assume that when the Obama administration paid the FMS funds plus interest to Iran, they concluded that this VTVPA provision was satisfied.”The Treasury inspector general (IG) examined the payments and reported on Nov. 10, 2016 that it had received verbal assurance from the Justice Department “that the settlement comports with the VTVPA.” In its semiannual report to Congress in March 2017, the IG said the payment was made “after receiving necessary information and authorizations from the-Departments of Justice and State.”The Tablet article raised questions about the size of the interest penalty — $1.3 billion — and called on Treasury to release all documents related to the payment of the claim, such as the computation of the amount of interest allegedly owed. (The Treasury IG report indicated that the State Department relied on a calculation involving the annual prime lending rate and simple interest method, which seems out of the ordinary.) We made a request to Treasury for the information, but a Treasury spokesman declined to provide it because of the ongoing litigation between the United States and Iran.Obama administration officials had claimed that without a deal with Iran, The Hague tribunal might have imposed an even higher interest penalty on the United States.Bellinger agreed that that was a concern. “There was a significant risk, based on its judgments in recent years, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal would have issued a decision awarding a larger amount to Iran,” he said. “If the tribunal had done that, and the U.S. government was then unwilling or unable to pay the award, the U.S. would have violated its obligations under the Algiers Accords.” He said “it was prudent to settle the claims, even if it required the U.S. to take the highly unpalatable action of making a payment to Iran.” (The Algiers Accords were agreements signed by the United States and Iran in January 1981 to resolve the Iran hostage crisis.)The State Department has noted that under The Hague process, Iran has paid out more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies. With a few exceptions, the major outstanding claims concern Iran against the United States, heightening the sensitivity of U.S. officials about discussing the issue. Much as Trump dislikes Obama’s dealings with Iran, releasing the documents now might raise the cost to U.S. taxpayers later.As for why the transfer was made in cash, given that the previous claims reached through The Hague tribunal were paid via wire, U.S. officials have cited the impact of increasingly tough sanctions imposed on Iran. If time was of the essence, cash was the best way to go.The Pinocchio Test-Regular readers know we have been willing to award ourselves Pinocchios if we get something incorrect.