Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Clinton Foundation Targeted by FBI – About Time!

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics:

What goes around, comes around. The Democrats intend to turn-up the heat on the Impeachment of Trump. That is all they have to run on in the midterm elections in November. They voted against any tax reform and simply oppose anything offered by the other side. Politics has just degenerated into the obstruction and neither side seems willing to work together. With the Democrats trying to use the Impeachment Card to trump Trump, the game is now afoot and the niceties are off the table.

Now the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reportedly targeted the foundation of former President Bill Clinton on suspicion of political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. The allegations refer to the period from 2009 to 2013, when Hillary was US Secretary of State. A spokesman for Hillary Clinton told “The Hill” that the FBI investigation was “fraud.” This is really an insult to common sense. As soon as Hillary lost the election, all the foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, withdrew their “donation” for a smoke-screen charity.

The Clinton Global Initiative was their pretend centerpiece to which they claimed its goal “convenes global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.” This was their claimed effort to influence world leaders while, of course, raising cash for the Foundation from world leaders. As soon as Hillary lost the election, her position of “influence” came to an end. The Clintons began immediately laying off all staff as of April 15th, 2017. The Clinton Foundation said in a filing with the New York Department of Labor reporting it will layoff all staff citing the discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative.

It really would be nice to see this exposed for what it is. Bill sold Presidential Pardons to the highest bidder. Not only Marc Rich, but there were countless others. I knew of one kid in Federal Prison in Fort Dix, New Jersey who was bragging he would be released because his father paid the Clintons $250,000 for a Pardon. The corruption of the Clintons has been notorious and probably has never been surpassed by any political figure in the history of any nation.

Read More @ ArmstrongEconomics.com

Israeli Website Claims ISIS Commander Revealed As Mossad Agent

by Whitney Webb, Mint Press News:

Libyan security forces arrested a Daesh commander in the city of Benghazi — only to find out soon after that the man they had captured, Ephraim Benjamin, was also an agent of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. Was he working to defeat Daesh or to strengthen it?

There has long been speculation regarding ties between the Israeli government and the terror group Daesh, otherwise known as the Islamic State. Such speculation has been fueled by Israel’s reference to Daesh as a “useful tool” and its acknowledgment that it views a Syria under complete Daesh control as preferable to the continuation of the current Syrian government. It is supported as well by the extensive aid and even medical treatments that Daesh militants have received from Israel. However, allegations have recently emerged that could suggest that the connection is even deeper than previously believed.

According to a report from the Israeli website Inian Merkazi and Abna news agency, Libyan security forces arrested a Daesh commander in the city of Benghazi — only to find out soon after that the man they had captured, Ephraim Benjamin, was also an agent of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. Benjamin, who was known in Libya as Abu Hafs, had begun work in Libya after the 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya that ousted former leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Middle East Monitor reported that Hafs/Benjamin was said to have become a prominent imam in a Benghazi mosque, before becoming a Daesh leader who commanded more than 200 fighters. Middle East Monitor has since removed the report from its site.

Libyan authorities have allegedly accused Benjamin of gathering intelligence information on Daesh for Mossad and Middle East Monitor noted that some Libyan news outlets took to calling him the “Mossad shiekh.” Inian Merkazi suggested that Benjamin’s arrest showed that Mossad was influential in the rise of Daesh in the region, given that Benjamin began work in Libya in 2011 while Daesh did not begin operation in Libya until 2015.

However, MintPress News was unable to independently verify the claims of Inian Merkaz linking the Daesh commander to the Israeli Mossad.

Other regional media outlets, such as Masr Alarabia, have described Benjamin as being one of Mossad’s “Arabists” — Mossad agents with Arab features who fluently speak Arabic and use local dialects. Such “Arabists” have gained a reputation for infiltrating Palestinian protests and activist organizations, as well as assassinating prominent Palestinians who are vocally against the Israeli occupation.

However, now it appears that Mossad “Arabists” may be involved in more than the suppressing Palestinian dissent. Given that Israel has repeatedly stated it does not want Daesh to be defeated, it is clear that Benjamin, who allegedly commanded hundreds of men in Daesh, was not “gathering intelligence” in order to defeat Daesh but rather to strengthen it.

Given the reports of Benjamin’s arrest, last year’s strange-seeming statement by Israel’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Herzi Halevy, makes more sense. Halevy had stated that Israel does not want to see Daesh defeated and also had expressed concern about the recent offensives against Daesh territory, lamenting the “most difficult” situation the group had found itself in at the time. He further added that Israel would do “all we can so as to not find ourselves in such a situation” where Daesh faces defeat.

In light of Benjamin’s arrest, part of Halevy’s concern for Daesh may have been born out of the fear that a Daesh defeat could put the lives of Mossad agents, as well as years of their work within Daesh, at risk.

Read More @ MintPressNews.com

Flashback: When Obama-Era DOJ Killed the Clinton Foundation Probe, Some FBI Investigators Were Furious

by Guy Benson, Townhall:

On Friday, I addressed new reports that federal officials may be revisiting the Clinton email scandal — writing that while serious questions remain about some of the curious irregularities surrounding the original investigation (which resulted in no charges), Democrats may have a point when they suggest that President Trump’s ostentatious public demands for a new probe of ‘Crooked Hillary’ call into question the apolitical nature of the DOJ’s decisions.  Trump’s critics are leveling the same accusation over the revelation that the Clinton Foundation is also receiving renewed legal scrutiny.  In case you missed it last week, here are the basics of that development:

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes. The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said. One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable reaction to at least raise concerns over whether perhaps one politicized Justice Department has given way to a new politicized Justice Department, just with the partisanship reversed.  Are law enforcement officials again being pressured to serve the political agenda of the party in power?  That’s a fair worry; the president has not been subtle.  Conservatives who believe that President Obama and Loretta Lynch effectively rigged the system to protect Hillary through inappropriate public pronouncements and behind-the-scenes machinationsshouldn’t simply shrug off potential undue partisan influence just because the “right” sort of people are in the crosshairs this time.  Conversely, I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that the FBI or DOJ are simply catering to Trump’s Twitter tantrums with their fresh interest in the Clinton Foundation’s dealings.  It’s entirely possible that some investigators never forfeited or abandoned their conviction that something was criminally amiss within the Clintons’ “charitable” juggernaut of cash and influence (we’ve learned of some very questionable practices and outcomes over the years), which one watchdog described as a “slush fund.”  Remember this detail, reported by CNN in the summer of 2016?

That was in August of the election year.  A few months later came this Wall Street Journal scoop:

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case…Early this year, four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter…The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said. In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well. Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

Later in the story, a senior Obama-era DOJ official is quoted as being “very pissed off” that the FBI was pursuing the Clinton Foundation matter, with some agents alleging that they were given pretty obvious guidance to “stand down.” And thus, a battle of narratives raged: Some federal investigators believed that Justice Department higher-ups were at least steering them away from a politically sensitive case, if not playing defense for the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Others claimed that the nature of the prelimiary evidence against the Clintons was weak and didn’t justify expanding the investigation. Were these decisions made by career professionals and guided solely by the strength of the case? Or did Team Obama use those excuses as a cover for raw partisan power plays with a great deal at stake in the election? I don’t pretend to have any unique insights into the answers to those questions, but the American people deserve to know the truth.  I’ll leave you with two good pieces on the criminal referral letter sent by two Republican Senators to the Justice Department last week, suggesting that the foreign spy who was responsible for assembling the infamous and unverified Trump dossier (whose work was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC) lied to federal investigators:

Read More @ Townhall.com

It’s Time To Declassify These Deep, Dark Department Of Defense Secrets, President Trump! ‘Gravely Unwarranted Optimistic Findings’ Set Up Catastrophic ‘Game Changer’

by Dr. William Graham and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, All News Pipeline:

(ANP note: If you are ‘on the fence’ about EMP, please read this story and listen to the only video below featuring Dr. Peter Vincent Pry on the Jim Bakker show in which he tells us only 2 of the 6 US Congressional EMP Committee reports that he worked upon have been declassified. What info do the other 4 contain? Dr. Pry argues it’s now time for President Trump to declassify these reports.) 

After President Trump announced his new National Security Strategy (on Dec. 18) — that for the first time gives deservedly high-priority to protecting the nation’s critical infrastructures from electromagnetic attack — the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) launched a media campaign promoting their bogus studies grossly underestimating threats from electromagnetic pulse (EMP). 

EPRI, the Edison Electric Institute and North American Electric Reliability Corporation are funded by electric utilities to serve their political interests. They churn-out “junk science” studies dismissing or minimizing electromagnetic pulse threats to avoid government regulation requiring EMP protection of electric grids. 

The Electric Power Research Institute falsely claims high-altitude electromagnetic pulse attack by a single nuclear weapon could not blackout all or most of the contiguous United States, only a few states would be effected, and few if any transformers would be damaged, giving hope for speedy recovery. 

These gravely unwarranted optimistic findings contradict long-standing electromagnetic pulse threat assessments by the Defense Department and recent threat assessments by the Congressional EMP Commission. The Electric Power Research Institute grossly underestimates electromagnetic pulse field strengths and overestimates grid survivability. 

The Electric Power Research Institute’s rosy view of EMP is not only technically unsound, but intellectually dishonest. Its two “EMP experts” — Rob Manning and Randy Horton — have no expertise in electromagnetic pulse phenomenology and effects; never worked professionally on electromagnetic pulse for the Defense Department, intelligence community, or any defense contractor; and either have not had access to classified information, or have ignored classified data contradicting their very benign misrepresentation of the electromagnetic pulse threat. 

Strangely for analysts seeking truth about EMP, Mr. Manning and Mr. Horton never asked the EMP Commission to review their work. Indeed, we had to write a letter to the Electric Power Research Institute for a briefing. The EMP Commission warned them their analysis is erroneous — and offered correction. 

EPRI ignored the EMP Commission’s offer to help and has proceeded to misinform policymakers and the public with “analysis” they know is wrong. 

You don’t have to be an EMP expert to know that EMP is an existential threat. 

Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com

California just mandated LGBT indoctrination of all children in public schools, and parents have no choice to opt out

by Ethan Huff, Natural News:

Several hundred new laws have come into effect in California as of the first of the year, and one of them shamelessly strips parents of elementary-age children of their right to opt out of brand new LGBT-promoting curriculum that’s now being taught throughout the state’s public schools.

Reports indicate that LGBT-inclusive textbooks are now being mandated for use at public elementary schools throughout the Golden State, where children as young and four or five will now be subjected to propaganda that promotes homosexuality, transgenderism, and whatever other sexual perversions (bestiality? pedophilia?) that liberalism might suddenly decide is normal for humans.

Based on the law’s verbiage, students will be subjected to LGBT-promoting curriculum in order to brainwash them into accepting any flavor of the sexual rainbow that a person might choose to adopt. By indoctrinating these little ones into total sexual acceptance, public school administrators will achieve the law’s goal of requiring “fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful” treatment of LGBT-identifying people, a.k.a. absolute acceptance of every type of sexuality.

Not only that, but the curriculum’s authors further took it upon themselves to assign gay and lesbian labels to various historical figures who never married, for instance, or who lived with someone of the same sex. In other words, every historical figure who didn’t overtly have a spouse of the opposite sex is assumed to be LGBT, and this is what California elementary school students will now be taught with no option for an exemption.

“We’re not trying to make anybody gay; we’re not saying there’s an agenda; we’re not saying that these people are better than other people; what we’re saying is this is another group of Americans and they face certain prejudices,” insists Mark Jarrett, one of the publishers of the new curriculum who portrays historical figures like Jane Adams, Emily Dickinson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and President James Buchanan as LGBT, even though there is no concrete historical evidence to suggest that any of these individuals self-identified as such.

LGBT mafia rewriting history as it corrupts the minds of young students

While Jarrett adamantly denies that he’s in any way trying to push revisionist LGBT history on young, impressionable minds, he’s doing precisely that with his textbooks. For instance, eighth graders will now be taught that legendary stagecoach driver Charlie Parkhurst “was a woman who identified as a man.” The textbooks also state that George Washington’s chief of staff, Baron Von Steuben, “may have been gay.”

Even famous poet Walt Whitman is maligned in Jarrett’s curriculum, with text stating that Whitman “was drawn to young men … but denied his same sex preferences in public.”

None of this is in any way historically accurate, of course. Back in the old days before terms like gay and lesbian even existed as an “identity,” many men and women alike fostered deep relationships with people of the same sex that were not necessarily sexual in nature, but that were still meaningful.

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

GOLD CONTINUES TO REBOUND DESPITE CONSTANT CARTEL WHACKING: GOLD DOWN $1.40

by Harvey Organ, Harvey Organ Blog:

SILVER IS DOWN 11 CENTS. GOLD WITNESSES ANOTHER BIG 6,000 PLUS GOLD EFP/SILVER HAS 1723 EFP NOTICES/GOOD NUMBER OF SWAMP STORIES TONIGHT

Glad to be back as I was in Israel over the holidays.

I will resume my normal detailed commentary

 

GOLD: $1319.50 DOWN $1.40

Silver: $17.12 DOWN 11 cents

Closing access prices:

Gold $1320.50

silver: $17.11

SHANGHAI GOLD FIX: FIRST FIX 10 15 PM EST (2:15 SHANGHAI LOCAL TIME)

SECOND FIX: 2:15 AM EST (6:15 SHANGHAI LOCAL TIME)

SHANGHAI FIRST GOLD FIX: $1323.92 DOLLARS PER OZ

NY PRICE OF GOLD AT EXACT SAME TIME: $1320.00

PREMIUM FIRST FIX: $3.92

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SECOND SHANGHAI GOLD FIX: $1323.92

NY GOLD PRICE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME: $1318.25

Premium of Shanghai 2nd fix/NY:$5.67

SHANGHAI REJECTS NY /LONDON PRICING OF GOLD

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LONDON FIRST GOLD FIX: 5:30 am est $1380.80

NY PRICING AT THE EXACT SAME TIME: $1318.75

LONDON SECOND GOLD FIX 10 AM: $1268.85

NY PRICING AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. 1268.50??

For comex gold:

JANUARY/

NUMBER OF NOTICES FILED TODAY FOR JANUARY CONTRACT: 0 NOTICE(S) FOR nil OZ.

TOTAL NOTICES SO FAR: 242 FOR 24200 OZ (0.7527 TONNES),

For silver:

jANUARY

0 NOTICE(S) FILED TODAY FOR

nil OZ/

Total number of notices filed so far this month: 507 for 2,535,000 oz

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bitcoin: BID $15,392/OFFER $15,512 DOWN $1155 (morning)

 Bitcoin: BID   14,763/OFFER  $14,871 DOWN  $1800(CLOSING)

 

end

Let us have a look at the data for today

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In silver, the total open interest  ROSE BY TINY  165 contracts from 194,264 RISING TO 194,429 WITH FRIDAY’S TINY 4 CENT RISE IN SILVER PRICING.  WE HAD ZERO COMEX LIQUIDATION BUT WITHOUT A DOUBT WE WITNESSED ANOTHER MAJOR BANK SHORT- COVERING OPERATION. NOT ONLY THAT , WE WERE AGAIN NOTIFIED THAT WE HAD ANOTHER HUGE SIZED NUMBER OF COMEX LONGS TRANSFERRING THEIR CONTRACTS TO LONDON THROUGH THE EFP ROUTE: A CONSIDERABLE 1721 EFP’S FOR MARCH (AND ZERO FOR OTHER MONTHS) AND THUS TOTAL ISSUANCE OF 1721 CONTRACTS. HOWEVER THE MOVEMENT ACROSS TO LONDON IS NOT AS SEVERE AS IN GOLD AS THERE SEEMS TO BE A MAJOR PLAYER TAKING ON THE BANKS AT THE COMEX. STILL, WITH THE TRANSFER OF 1721 CONTRACTS, WHAT THE CME IS STATING IS THAT THERE IS NO SILVER (OR GOLD) TO BE DELIVERED UPON AT THE COMEX AS THEY MUST EXPORT THEIR OBLIGATION TO LONDON. YESTERDAY WITNESSED  EFP’S FOR SILVER ISSUED. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE CAN BE A DELAY OF 24 HRS IN THE ISSUING OF EFP’S. I BELIEVE THAT WE MUST HAVE HAD SOME MAJOR BANKER SHORT COVERING AGAIN TODAY.

ACCUMULATION FOR EFP’S/SILVER/ STARTING FROM FIRST DAY NOTICE/FOR MONTH OF JANUARY:

17,931 CONTRACTS (FOR 6 TRADING DAYS TOTAL 17,931 CONTRACTS OR 89.66 MILLION OZ: AVERAGE PER DAY: 2988 CONTRACTS OR 14.94 MILLION OZ/DAY)

RESULT: A SMALL SIZED GAIN IN OI COMEX DESPITE THE TINY 4 CENT RISE IN SILVER PRICE WHICH USUALLY INDICATES HUGE BANKER SHORT-COVERING. WE ALSO HAD A FAIR SIZED  EFP ISSUANCE OF 1721 CONTRACTS WHICH EXITED OUT OF THE SILVER COMEX AND TRANSFERRED THEIR OI TO LONDON AS FORWARDS.  FROM THE CME DATA 1721 EFP’S WERE ISSUED FOR TODAY (FOR MARCH EFP’S AND NONE FOR ALL OTHER MONTHS) FOR A DELIVERABLE FORWARD CONTRACT OVER IN LONDON WITH A FIAT BONUS. WE REALLY GAINED 1886 OI CONTRACTS i.e. 1721 open interest contracts headed for London (EFP’s) TOGETHER WITH A INCREASE OF 165 OI COMEX CONTRACTS. AND ALL OF THIS HAPPENED WITH THE TINY RISE IN PRICE OF SILVER BY 4 CENTS AND A CLOSING PRICE OF $17.23 WITH RESPECT TO FRIDAY’S TRADING. YET WE STILL HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF SILVER STANDING AT THE COMEX.

In ounces AT THE COMEX, the OI is still represented by just UNDER 1 BILLION oz i.e. 0.9720 BILLION TO BE EXACT or 139% of annual global silver production (ex Russia & ex China).

FOR THE NEW FRONT JANUARY MONTH/ THEY FILED: 0 NOTICE(S) FOR NIL OZ OF SILVER

In gold, the open interest ROSE BY AN HUGE SIZED 9,128 CONTRACTS UP TO 551,441 WITH THE SMALL RISE IN PRICE OF GOLD WITH FRIDAY’S TRADING ($1.40). IN ANOTHER HUGE DEVELOPMENT, WE RECEIVED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF GOLD EFP’S ISSUED YESTERDAY FOR TODAY AND IT TOTALED A GOOD SIZED  6115 CONTRACTS OF WHICH THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY SAW 6115 CONTRACTS AND APRIL SAW THE ISSUANCE OF 0 CONTRACTS.  The new OI for the gold complex rests at 551,441.DEMAND FOR GOLD INTENSIFIES GREATLY AS WE CONTINUE TO WITNESS A HUGE NUMBER OF EFP TRANSFERS TOGETHER WITH THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN GOLD COMEX OI  TOGETHER WITH  THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GOLD OUNCES STANDING FOR JANUARY. EVEN THOUGH THE BANKERS ISSUED THESE MONSTROUS EFPS, THE OBLIGATION STILL RESTS WITH THE BANKERS TO SUPPLY METAL BUT IT TRANSFERS THE RISK TO A LONDON BANKER OBLIGATION AND NOT A NEW YORK COMEX OBLIGATION. LONGS RECEIVE A FIAT BONUS TOGETHER WITH A LONG LONDON FORWARD. THUS, BY THESE ACTIONS, THE BANKERS AT THE COMEX HAVE JUST STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO APPRECIABLE METAL!! THIS IS A MASSIVE FRAUD: THEY CANNOT SUPPLY ANY METAL TO OUR COMEX LONGS BUT THEY ARE QUITE WILLING TO SUPPLY MASSIVE NON BACKED GOLD (AND SILVER) PAPER KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE NO METAL TO SATISFY OUR LONGS. LONDON IS NOW SEVERELY BACKWARD IN BOTH GOLD AND SILVER (BIG RISE IN BOTH GOFO AND SIFO) AND WE ARE WITNESSING DELAYS IN ACTUAL DELIVERIES. IN ESSENCE WE HAVE ANOTHER HUMONGOUS GAIN OF 15,243 OI CONTRACTS: 9.128 OI CONTRACTS INCREASED AT THE COMEX AND A GOOD SIZED 6115 OI CONTRACTS WHICH NAVIGATED OVER TO LONDON.

FRIDAY, WE HAD 17,213 EFP’S ISSUED.

ACCUMULATION OF EFP’S/ GOLD(EXCHANGE FOR PHYSICAL) FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY STARTING WITH FIRST DAY NOTICE: 57,605 CONTRACTS OR 5.760 MILLION OZ OR 179.16 TONNES (6 TRADING DAYS AND THUS AVERAGING: 9,600.8 EFP CONTRACTS PER TRADING DAY OR 960,000 OZ/DAY)

Result: A STRONG SIZED INCREASE IN OI WITH THE SMALL SIZED RISE IN PRICE IN GOLD TRADING ON YESTERDAY ($1.40). WE HAD ANOTHER FAIR SIZED NUMBER OF COMEX LONG TRANSFERRING TO LONDON THROUGH THE EFP ROUTE: 6115. THERE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT SEEM TO BE MUCH PHYSICAL GOLD AT THE COMEX AND YET WE ALSO OBSERVED A HUGE DELIVERY MONTH FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER. I GUESS IT EXPLAINS THE HUGE ISSUANCE OF EFP’S…THERE IS HARDLY ANY GOLD PRESENT AT THE GOLD COMEX FOR DELIVERY PURPOSES. IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 6115 EFP CONTRACTS ISSUED, WE HAD A NET GAIN IN OPEN INTEREST OF 15,243 contracts:

6115 CONTRACTS MOVE TO LONDON AND  9128 CONTRACTS INCREASED AT THE COMEX. (in tonnes, the gain in total oi equates to 47.40 TONNES)

we had: 0 notice(s) filed upon for NIL oz of gold.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

With respect to our two criminal funds, the GLD and the SLV:

GLD: with gold up for 11 consecutive days, we still have no changes in gold inventory

Today, with gold down a tiny $1.40 after rising for 12 straight days, gold inventory declines by a huge 1.44 tonnes today/

Inventory rests tonight: 834.86 tonnes.

SLV/ 

NO CHANGES IN SILVER INVENTORY AT THE SLV/

INVENTORY RESTS AT 318.423 MILLION OZ/

end

First, here is an outline of what will be discusse
d tonight:

1. Today, we had the open interest in silver ROSE BY A SMALL 165 contracts from 194,264 UP TO 194,429 (AND now A LITTLE FURTHER FROM THE NEW COMEX RECORD SET ON FRIDAY/APRIL 21/2017 AT 234,787) DESPITE THE TINY RISE IN PRICE OF SILVER TO THE TUNE OF 4 CENTS  ON FRIDAY.  WE HAD WITHOUT A DOUBT ANOTHER MAJOR SHORT COVERING FROM OUR BANKERS AS THEY HAVE CAPITULATED. NOT ONLY THAT BUT OUR BANKERS USED THEIR EMERGENCY PROCEDURE TO ISSUE ANOTHER 1721 PRIVATE EFP’S FOR MARCH (WE DO NOT GET A LOOK AT THESE CONTRACTS AS IT IS PRIVATE BUT THE CFTC DOES AUDIT THEM).  EFP’S GIVE OUR COMEX LONGS A FIAT BONUS PLUS A DELIVERABLE PRODUCT OVER IN LONDON. WE HAD NO COMEX SILVER COMEX LIQUIDATION. BUT, IF WE TAKE THE SMALL OI GAIN AT THE COMEX OF 165 CONTRACTS TO THE 1721 OI TRANSFERRED TO LONDON THROUGH EFP’S WE OBTAIN A GAIN OF 1886 OPEN INTEREST CONTRACTS DESPITE THE MAJOR BANKER SHORT COVERING. WE STILL HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF SILVER OUNCES THAT ARE STANDING FOR METAL IN JANUARY (SEE BELOW). THE NET GAIN TODAY IN OZ: 9.43 MILLION OZ!!!

RESULT: A SMALL SIZED INCREASE IN SILVER OI AT THE COMEX WITH THE TINY SIZED RISE OF 4 CENTS IN PRICE (WITH RESPECT TO YESTERDAY’S TRADING). BUT WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER 1721 EFP’S ISSUED TRANSFERRING COMEX LONGS OVER TO LONDON. TOGETHER WITH THE GOOD  SIZED AMOUNT OF SILVER OUNCES STANDING FOR JANUARY, DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL SILVER INTENSIFIES AS WE WITNESS MAJOR BANK SHORT COVERING ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASES IN GOFO AND SIFO RATES INDICATING SCARCITY.

(report Harvey)

.

2.a) The Shanghai and London gold fix report

(Harvey)

2 b) Gold/silver trading overnight Europe, Goldcore

(Mark O’Byrne/zerohedge

and in NY: Bloomberg

3. ASIAN AFFAIRS

i)Late SUNDAY night/MONDAY morning: Shanghai closed UP 17.73 points or 0.53% /Hang Sang CLOSED UP 84.89 pts or 0.28% / The Nikkei closed UP 208.20 POINTS OR 0.89%/Australia’s all ordinaires CLOSED UP 0.11%/Chinese yuan (ONSHORE) closed UP at 6.4974/Oil UP to 61.90 dollars per barrel for WTI and 67.85 for Brent. Stocks in Europe OPENED MOSTLY GREEN.   ONSHORE YUAN CLOSED UP AGAINST THE DOLLAR AT 6.4974. OFFSHORE YUAN CLOSED UP AGAINST  THE ONSHORE YUAN AT 6.4943 //ONSHORE YUAN  STRONGER AGAINST THE DOLLAR/OFF SHORE STRONGER TO THE DOLLAR/. THE DOLLAR (INDEX) IS  STRONGER AGAINST ALL MAJOR CURRENCIES. CHINA IS  HAPPY TODAY.(GOOD MARKETS)

Read More @ HarveyOrganBlog.com

WikiLeaks: John Podesta Was Briefed On “Gross Negligence” Before FBI Removed Phrase From Clinton Exoneration

from ZeroHedge:

Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, John Podesta, received an email from an advisor which brought up the phrase “gross negligence” in regards to the FBI’s email investigation before the FBI agent in charge of the probe removed the phrase from her exoneration statement, according to WikiLeaks. 

  Podesta Emails # 45924  (WikiLeaks)
Podesta Emails # 45924  (WikiLeaks)

 

In a March 2016 email from former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy to Clinton campaign chairman Podesta’s Gmail account, Flournoy included links to two articles concerning the FBI email investigation; one from the Washington Post which minimized Clinton’s actions, and a legal analysis from retired D.C. attorney Paul Mirengoff in which he suggests Clinton was “grossly negligent or worse” and may be in serious hot water. (h/t Mike)

  Screen capture, powerlineblog.com
Screen capture, powerlineblog.com

From Mirengoff in Powerline Blog:  

First, let’s again examine the statutory language:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The only other question I perceive that stands in the way of Clinton having violated Section 793(f) is whether it was through gross negligence that she permitted the information relating to the national defense to to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to someone who shouldn’t have gotten it.

It was not ordinary negligence that caused Clinton to permit highly sensitive information to be removed from its proper place and onto Clinton’s private email servers. This strikes me as gross negligence at a minimum. Clinton herself had warned others about the prospect of private email accounts being hacked.

Nor was it ordinary negligence to deliver highly sensitive information to someone lacking a security clearance (in this case, an inveterate gossip). Such imprudence, again, seems grossly negligent or worse. –Powerline Blog

While Mirengoff’s assessment was that Hillary Clinton engaged in grossly negligent behavior, Tina Flournoy did not agree – citing the Washington Post article minimizing Clinton’s actions:

“The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.” –Tina Flournoy to John Podesta (WikiLeaks)

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

CIA had an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977

from Failed Evolution:

oel Whitney is a co-founder of the magazine Guernica, a magazine of global arts and politics, and has written for many publications, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. His book Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World’s Best Writers describes how the CIA contributed funds to numerous respected magazines during the Cold War, including the Paris Review, to subtly promote anti-communist views. In their conversation, Whitney tells Robert Scheer about the ties the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom had with literary magazines. He talks about the CIA’s attempt during the Cold War to have at least one agent in every major news organization in order to get stories killed if they were too critical or get them to run if they were favorable to the agency. And they discuss the overstatement of the immediate risks and dangers of communist regimes during the Cold War, which, initially, led many people to support the Vietnam War.

globinfo freexchange

James Jesus Angleton was part of this post-OSS group that understood how important spying and covert ops had been in World War II. And from there, he makes all kinds of terrible mistakes. He and his group believed essentially that they needed to do better propaganda than the Soviets did, and one of the ways that they thought they could do it better was to do it subtly and, you could say, secretly. 

So, when this program is threatened with exposure in ‘64, ‘65, ‘66 and ‘67 through various sources like Ramparts and The New York Times, this privilege of secrecy that they enjoyed was not something that they were willing to give up. So you have something that is described as relatively benign, this funding of culture through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a funding of student movements through the National Student Association, the funding of labor unions that would be less communist-influenced than the communist-dominated ones that they presumed were out there. These were seen as benign answers. They were reactions to Soviet penetration. So, secrecy is a key to making them work.

So, even if you want to make the argument that, for instance, the Congress for Cultural Freedom never censored its magazines–which I think has been severely disproved; they did censor. Even if you wanted to say that they published all sorts of great writers–which clearly they did; that was part of the subtlety of it and part of the brilliance of it, and part of the soft-power charm of it. Even if you wanted to say all that, when the secrecy is exposed by honest accounting in the media, the fourth estate, the adversarial media of American bragging around the world, they are so attached to their secrecy, and so upset, the CIA group led by people like Angleton, that they commit something that is about as anti-American as anything in our system. Which is: more secrecy, more media penetration to the point of penetrating, first, the anti-Vietnam War press; second, the student, the college student newspapers and press; the alternative, so-called, press. Which essentially is a license to do what they did later. So, where Ramparts was penetrated, leads to Operation Chaos, presumably; that leads to Operation Mockingbird in the seventies.

By the time we have Carl Bernstein reporting on Operation Mockingbird, and John Crewdson reporting on its international equivalent in the New York Times–Bernstein in Rolling Stone–you essentially see the CIA trying to have at least one agent at every major news and media organization it can do in the world.

Read More @ FailedEvolution.com

Christopher Steele Referred for Criminal Investigation

from TRU News:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the committee’s second-ranking Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have referred former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, author of the Fusion GPS dossier on President Donald Trump, for criminal investigation by the FBI and Justice Department.

The referral and accompanying evidence submitted to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray are classified and were delivered via the Senate Security Office, meaning their contents aren’t readily known. Grassley’s office would only say the referral is with regard to “false statements investigators have reason to believe Steele made about the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.”

 The top two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have referred former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, author of the Fusion GPS dossier on President Donald Trump, for a criminal investigation by the Justice Department and FBI.
The top two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have referred former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, author of the Fusion GPS dossier on President Donald Trump, for a criminal investigation by the Justice Department and FBI.

The referral is not based on the perceived veracity of the contents of the dossier, but rather statements Steele himself made to investigators about his dealings with dossier and the liberal mainstream media. The referral is not a criminal charge, but rather a request for additional investigation, and is routine whenever the Judiciary Committee comes across evidence a crime may have been committed.

In a statement following the referral, Grassley said:

I don’t take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation. But, as I would with any credible evidence of a crime unearthed in the course of our investigations, I feel obliged to pass that information along to the Justice Department for appropriate review. Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI. If the same actions have different outcomes, and those differences seem to correspond to partisan political interests, then the public will naturally suspect that law enforcement decisions are not on the up-and-up. Maybe there is some innocent explanation for the inconsistencies we have seen, but it seems unlikely. In any event, it’s up to the Justice Department to figure that out.

Graham said he believes a special counsel is necessary in the case, based on how Steele “conducted himself in distributing information contained in the dossier,” and with how many “stop signs” the Justice Department “ignored in its use of the dossier.” He said he hopes he Justice Department carefully reviews the letter and takes appropriate action.

Read More @ TRUNews.com