Living and Raw Foods web site.  Educating the world about the power of living and raw plant based diet.  This site has the most resources online including articles, recipes, chat, information, personals and more!

Click this banner to check it out!
Click here to find out more!

The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: Prana ()
Date: July 17, 2018 09:41PM

There is so little positive spin on the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki on July 16, 2018. But here is some:

World Peace is Happening!!! American Intelligence Media

USA: ‘Trump is going in the right direction’ – Ron Paul on Helsinki summit

Rand Paul sides with Trump over US intel

Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a “Danger to America” or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers? Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now.


Some past Trump supporters have now broken with Trump (i.e. Fox News hosts): These Fox News Hosts Just Broke With Trump
Read more at []

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: July 17, 2018 11:16PM

Shame on Rand Paul. He is complicit in Trump's treason and is no patriot. NONE.

Rand Paul went silent when asked who he believes Russia or US Intel community.

November looks better and better everyday now, cant wait to see biggest landslide
in US History coming soon.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: Prana ()
Date: July 18, 2018 09:12PM

riverhousebill, I'm surprised you believe anything the intelligence community says here in the US.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: July 19, 2018 02:27AM

Yeah, I thought it was the liberals who hated the CIA, along with Ron Paul wanting to get rid of them way back.

Thanks for the Ron Paul and Rand Paul videos. Good to know they approve of what went down. Wow, Wolf Blitzer was sure rude to Rand Paul - weird when a TV News host gets all emotional and angry like that; the Libs have gone off the rails over Trump.

Here's Chris Wallace interviewing Putin - It's good.

Wow, Putin put Chris Wallace in his place for interrupting him so much.

Chris Wallace interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin


Wow -

"Why do so many people who oppose you end up dead.....why is it that so many people who were political enemies of Vladimir Putin are attacked?

"I'm sure Trump has many enemies...."

"But they don't end up dead."

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2018 02:49AM by Jennifer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: July 19, 2018 02:57AM

This was also interesting -

15 Things You Didn't Know About Vladimir Putin


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: July 19, 2018 03:26AM

riverhousebill, I'm surprised you believe anything the intelligence community says here in the US.

Prana Im surprised you bought the Mass Indictment story that never happened.

You have to takes sides here I think.

You believe Russia or the US?

Prana do you know I was part of the lawsuit against FBI Cointellpro? Judy Bari, Cherney, Earth First, We won largest judgment in history against FBI.

I have learned a few things about corrupt govt after dealing with Cointelpro direct, I buy U.S Intel on the Russia saga.

You can be sure there is a lot of things way outside of constitution with our Intelligence community

Both Countrys use snake tactic in my eyes with a few honest folks spread
about who are true patriots.

We will have to wait and see, Like the Buddha says Three things that can not be long hidden- The Moon, The Sun, The truth

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: July 20, 2018 01:39AM

I'm confused. Today the news said that now Trump says that Russia DID interfere in our 2016 Election.

But the other day Trump said the Russians did not interfere in the Election.

Isn't it the Republican position that Trump did not Collude with Russia and that the Russians did not interfere in the Election.

How did they interfere? There is no proof that the Russians did interfere, right?



But a couple points -

One - Some guest on a radio talk show was asked - Isn't it regular practice that countries interfere in each other's elections all the time?

So this guest said - yes, countries interfere in each other's elections all the time, it's a regular thing. Like Obama interfered in the Israel Election to defeat Netanyaho out and in the UK Brexit thing. (I'm paraphrasing all this)


Number two -

A caller on one of the talk shows today made the best point I've heard in all this Russian Interference in our Election/Trump-Russia Collusion in our Election thing -

Russia did not interfere in our Election and there was no Trump/Russia collusion to Win the Election because -

The Election itself is the poling, the voting and the counting, machines, etc. And there's no way that was fixed or interfered with.

So there could only be Interfering or Influencing in the Campaign Process. And that is not against the law.

This article says Collusion is not against the law -

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?


"Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality."

“Collusion” is not a cognizable federal offense. Politicians seek dirt on other candidates—the dirtier the better. That is what “opposition research” is all about.

In short, let’s stop talking about “collusion” and instead talk about real crimes that may, or may not, be proven—violations of election law, computer hacking, false statements and wire fraud.

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

‘Legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian’
Renato Mariotti is a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases. He is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.

Although “collusion” is a word that has been thrown around a lot lately, it doesn’t have any specific legal meaning. What matters legally is whether someone in the Trump campaign joined a conspiracy, aided and abetted a crime, or actively concealed a crime. None of these legal concepts is complicated. A conspiracy is just a legal term for an agreement to commit a crime.

So legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian—the American would need to work with a Russian to commit a crime, to aid a Russian in committing a crime or to conceal a crime committed by a Russian.

Finally, it is good to keep in mind that there is no crime of “collusion” in the federal code. The applicable crime is conspiracy under 18 USC Sec. 371. That would cover a conspiracy by two or more persons to violate a law of the United States or “to defraud the United States.”

If the Trump campaign conspired with or assisted the Russians in hacking the emails of John Podesta or the Democratic National Committee, the crime is clear. But beyond that, it is anything but clear. We do not have a federal statute punishing corrupt efforts to influence an election, unless done by particular prohibited acts such as vote buying or illegal political contributions. That is undoubtedly wise, because such a law would spur frequent criminal complaints against opponents by losers and even some winners of elections.

Collusion with the Russians in attempting to affect the outcome of the presidential election is a serious political scandal, but I must say it is not clear that it provides a basis for criminal prosecution. It may be that, like other investigations in the past, people may get in more trouble for false and misleading statements to investigators than for the underlying conduct.

(This articles gives specific examples of what situations would be illegal, but it's all projection and conjecture)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2018 02:15AM by Jennifer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: July 20, 2018 08:37AM

Best to leave this to the Lawyers for right opinion.

It’s long been an article of faith for Trump supporters, and for Trump himself, that collusion is not illegal as Jennifer has stated.
jennifer come out of the closet you love Trump!

The Department of Justice Thinks That Collusion Is a Crime

By Jeffrey ToobinApril 4, 2018

The special counsel in the Russia investigation, Robert Mueller, now has the authority, and the legal theory, to bring criminal charges for collusion.

Is collusion a crime? That is one of the central questions of the investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections. Even if it could be proved that Donald Trump and his supporters worked with the Russian government, or with Russian citizens, to win the Presidential race, would that activity have violated United States law? It’s long been an article of faith for Trump supporters, and for Trump himself, that collusion is not illegal. As the President told the Times in an interview last December, “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”
Now, it appears, Trump’s own Justice Department may have a different view. That conclusion appears in a document released earlier this week, in the course of pre-trial litigation in the case of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, on charges including money laundering. Lawyers for Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, asked that they be dismissed on the grounds that Robert Mueller, the special counsel, did not have the right to bring them; Manafort’s lawyers assert that the case—which centers on work that Manafort did for the pro-Russia government of Ukraine—was outside Mueller’s jurisdiction.
In response to this claim, Mueller filed a brief that laid out the basis for him to bring the case. As described in the brief, after Mueller was appointed, in May of last year, he asked Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General and Mueller’s supervisor, for specific authorization for the areas that he wanted to investigate. In a memorandum issued on August 2nd, Rosenstein spelled out the details of Mueller’s jurisdiction. He said that Mueller had the authority to investigate:
Allegations that Paul Manafort:
Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law;
Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.
The second point shows Mueller’s authority to bring the case that he did against Manafort, but the real news is in the first point. That statement could not be clearer that Mueller can examine whether a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians were “colluding,” and thus working together “in violation of United States law.” In other words, according to Rosenstein, collusion would be a crime.
Much of the rest of Rosenstein’s memorandum is redacted. Mueller clearly has the authority to investigate other individuals, but their identities, as well as their possible crimes, are not revealed. Mueller, however, in another part of his brief, makes clear that he has the authority to investigate obstruction of justice—including obstruction of his own investigation. This, too, is a crucial disclosure. But, if collusion is a crime, what crime is it? What criminal statutes forbid collusion? In an article for The New Yorker in December, I explored this subject, and raised several possibilities, including conspiracy to solicit illegal campaign contributions and conspiracy to engage in illegal computer hacking. But Mueller’s subsequent actions give a hint of his own interpretation of the subject. In February, he obtained an indictment of thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities for using social media to help Trump win the election. The key charge in the case, which is called conspiracy to defraud the United States, is spelled out this way in the indictment:
Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.
This case, of course, only deals with Russian defendants. But if Mueller were able to prove that Americans worked with the Russians in this kind of endeavor—that is, if he can prove that Americans colluded with the Russians—then he could bring a similar charge against them. On Tuesday night, the Washington Post reported that the President himself remains a subject of the special counsel’s investigation, meaning that his conduct is being scrutinized, but that no decision has been made about whether charges will be brought against him.
Nevertheless, Mueller now has the authority, and the legal theory, to bring criminal charges for collusion. The unanswered question is whether he has American defendants, too.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2018 08:42AM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: The Helsinki Putin summit / presser
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: July 21, 2018 02:14AM


But a couple points -

One - Some guest on a radio talk show was asked - Isn't it regular practice that countries interfere in each other's elections all the time?

So this guest said - yes, countries interfere in each other's elections all the time, it's a regular thing. Like Obama interfered in the Israel Election to defeat Netanyaho out and in the UK Brexit thing. (I'm paraphrasing all this)

I looked it up and yes, the US and other countries interfere in each other's elections as a matter of practice -

Foreign electoral intervention


Foreign electoral interventions are attempts by governments, covertly or overtly, to influence elections in another country. There are many ways that nations have accomplished regime change abroad, and electoral intervention is only one of those methods.

Theoretical and empirical research on the effect of foreign electoral intervention is weak overall; however, a number of such studies have been conducted.[1] One study indicated that the country intervening in most foreign elections is the United States with 81 interventions, followed by Russia (including the former Soviet Union) with 36 interventions from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. [2][3][4]

(There's a list of which countries interfered in which elections)

Israeli elections

2016 election (U.S.)
During the administration of President Barack Obama, the U.S. State Department sent $350,000 to an Israeli organization, OneVoice, which used the funds to try to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[30]

1996 election (U.S.)
U.S. President Bill Clinton later acknowledged that, in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Clinton interfered on behalf of Shimon Perez against Benjamin Netanyahu. Clinton later said that he “tried to do it in a way that didn't overtly involve me”.[31]


US Interfered in Elections of at Least 85 Countries Worldwide Since 1945

America has a long history of meddling in the elections of foreign countries, new research shows




Again with the Lib Hypocrisy, because Obama interfered in the elections of other countries -

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples

Why such silence from the media that obsesses over alleged Russian interference in our elections?


While the media obsess over an alleged Russian conspiracy to collude with Donald Trump to affect America’s 2016 presidential election, what about Obama’s interference in the elections of other countries? Most Americans have no idea that President Obama meddled in elections all over the world. And apparently, the media decided there’s no reason for Americans to know about this illegal activity.

Indeed, in 2016, the Los Angeles Times did a story on how America has interfered with other nation’s elections in the past, but they stopped short of mentioning the various foreign elections Obama tried to influence. But the same article reports that Obama “slapped Russia with new penalties for meddling in the U.S. Presidential election… by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.” Hypocrisy check, anyone?

Since that article appeared last December, it has essentially become fake news. The Republican National Committee was never successfully hacked into and evidence is mounting that the DNC was not hacked by Russia. Not only has Wiki Leaks itself insisted Russia was not the source, but a number of cyber security experts, including McAfee antivirus developer John McAfee, disputes this. McAfee says the hack on the DNC “used a piece of malware a year and half old” and was “not an organized hack and certainly not a nation-state that did this.” Moreover, the DNC has never allowed the FBI or any government agency to analyze the computers in question.

Nevertheless, Obama, operating on unconfirmed evidence, abruptly imposed new sanctions on Russia. Many observers believe he did so in order to set the stage for the left to initiate its phony Russian-Trump collusion narrative to be used to remove Trump from office or to defeat him in 2020.

Meddling in other’s elections is a violation of international law. In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this with a resolution stating: “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal […] affairs of any other State.” And the International Court of Justice also considers such intervention to be illegal. More importantly, U.S. law prohibits the use of tax dollars to influence foreign elections.

Nevertheless, the violation of both American and international law did not stop Obama from intervening repeatedly in the elections of other nations. Moreover, most of Obama’s meddling was known by many foreign correspondents and if it was reported at all, it was downplayed. Most certainly, the media did not condemn it nor drop hints about impeaching Obama.

So let’s get this straight. The media is hysterical about a flimsy conspiracy theory that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election but was mostly silent about Obama’s efforts to control the outcome of elections in at least six countries during his tenure. Media bias, anyone? Let’s review the examples we know about:


Investigative reporter Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily broke this story when he visited Kenya and was able to confirm that Obama, as a U.S. Senator, illegally used a taxpayer-financed trip to campaign for far-left presidential candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya’s 2006 elections.

Odinga, according to the BBC, was distantly related to Obama and both families belonged to the Luo tribe. Indeed, both of their fathers served in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s. According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya’s growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would “rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions.” The secret agreement also called for the creation of Muslim “madrassa classes,” a crackdown on Christian evangelical events and gospel programs, and legal protections for Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism.

Obama’s cheerleading for anti-American Odinga (who named his son after Fidel Castro) “was more than reckless,” wrote former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, “it was borderline criminal (and that’s being generous).” McCarthy also said Obama’s intervention was an “outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, [referring to the Logan Act] probably, federal law.”

By 2010, this tribal connection resulted in President Obama quietly transferring millions of U.S. tax dollars to Odinga’s government, including $2 million to convince Kenyan voters to vote for a new constitution. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the new constitution would force Kenyans to be “subjected to these [Islamic] tribunals merely by virtue of what religious community they were born into…” Some members of Congress actually called for an investigation but, typically, nothing ever came of it. By the end of 2010, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to Kenya from a myriad of U.S. agencies such as USAID, all with the likely intent of boosting the popularity of the Odinga regime.


During Israel’s 2015 elections, the Obama administration — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — illegally intervened when they attempted to defeat the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups. The Obama administration detested Netanyahu due to his refusal to cave into Palestinian demands, a group that even refused to recognize the existence of Israel.

Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”

An investigation by the U.S. Senate found that the “State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that resources built with government grants would be deployed for political purposes.” As with most investigations of Obama scandals, emails documenting this illegal election activity were destroyed. And, as usual, no one was held accountable.


The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained government documents that “show the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing, billionaire philanthropist George Soros.” Indeed, Obama’s ambassador to Macedonia, Jeff Baily, worked to funnel millions of dollars from the State Department and USAID to groups created by Soros which were, according to JW, working to overthrow the conservative government.

More details about this intervention were exposed by Victor Gaetan in a series of exposés in The American Spectator. Gaetan has confirmed that Soros, in conjuction with the Obama administration, “financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power.” Incredibly, Obama’s USAID “selected Soros’ Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayers’ dollars earmarked for oxymoronic ‘democracy building,’ an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later.”

This funding was directed to a coalition of socialist groups that work in conjunction with the Social Democrat Union of Macedonia (SDSM), a socialist party with close ties to Soros. The intervention is, incredibly, still ongoing with the result being chaos and disruptive street demonstrations. Gaetan’s investigative work also indicates that Obama’s agencies intervened politically with a number of other Balkan counties, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece. It appears the Trump administration knows little about such interventions since many leftist Obama-appointed ambassadors continue to hold on to their positions. And USAID funds continue to pour into leftist political groups in the Balkans as if Trump never came to power. Indeed, as one Macedonia Member of Parliament quoted by Gaetan said, “Under Obama’s ideological programs, it [USAID] became the super crack of the left.”


In 2011, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not only interfered politically in Libya but militarily as well, by orchestrating a series of policies designed to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. While it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi a U.S. ally, he was cooperating with the U.S.A. in fighting Islamic extremists and had turned over all his WMDs to American officials. Western investment was flowing into Libya, the country was becoming more westernized and, most certainly, it was no longer a threat to the USA.

As NR wrote, “all that vanished when Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice ordered the bombings that turned Libya into a terrorist paradise.” One explanation for the abrupt attack on Libya was that Gaddafi was a rival to the Saudis over the leadership of the Islamic faith and since the Saudis had contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton had, as usual, a money motive to intervene in Libya.

The opposition to Gaddafi’s regime was led by the Libyan Transitional National Council, whose leaders include many radical Muslims such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Belhaj also headed an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Nevertheless, Obama spent at least $1 billion to fund a military operation to topple Gaddafi, with American soldiers actually fighting alongside jihadist-dominated rebel groups. Moreover, the Washington Times reported that the “CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council,” again, a group dominated by radical jihadists. Under Obama, Libya was transformed from a moderate Islamic regime which posed no threat to the USA, to a violent wasteland dominated by various ISIS and al-Qaeda linked militias.


Shortly after Obama was elected, leftist Honduran president Manual Zelaya attempted to illegally amend the Honduran Constitution so as to allow himself to serve as President longer than one term. Incredibly, Zelaya and a mob broke into a military installation where blank ballots were stored and tried to hold a constitutional referendum without the support of the election authorities. As a result, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, he was forcefully removed from office as Honduran law calls for.

Obama attacked Zelaya’s removal, falsely calling it a “coup d’état” and a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Obama backed Zelaya’s reinstatement in order to please Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who, like Fidel Castro, was an ally of Zelaya. Instead of supporting the right of Hondurans to remove their president for unconstitutional actions, Obama tried to pressure Honduras into reinstating Zelaya by freezing all non-humanitarian aid. That didn’t happen and Zelaya went into exile.

Eventually, new elections were held and a new president elected, but there’s little doubt that the Obama administration meddled in the Honduran political process in an effort to support the hard left in that country. Indeed, when Obama announced that he supported the return of Zelaya from exile, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced “Now that everything is in place for Zelaya’s return, there are no more false reasons for the Obama administration to continue its pressure tactics against those in Honduras who opposed Zelaya’s attacks on their country’s constitution and the rule of law.”


Like Libya, the Obama administration encouraged opposition to President Hosni Mubarak and intervened in elections to ensure that a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, was elected president. Obama’s State Department even gave political training to MB leaders. Again, similar to Gadhafi, Mubarak was relatively secular and Egypt was becoming increasingly westernized. He was an ally of the U.S.A. and an opponent of radical jihadists.

And the Obama administration was open about its efforts. The Los Angeles Times reported that the “Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned islamist organization…” The MB’s mission statement states, “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Sounds like a group Obama would support. Indeed, one of the Egyptian MB leaders, Gehad el-Haddad, was actually on the Clinton Foundation payroll while working to help bring the MB to power. Once Morsi appeared to win what was likely a rigged election, Obama poured in $1.5 billion in foreign aid.

The Egyptian people were so upset with Obama’s intervention, they forcefully removed Morsi and installed a pro-American moderate Muslim named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as president. Morsi was then arrested by the Egyptian military for treason. But even after that, as reported by Western Journalism, Obama’s “State Department hosts Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders” in order to “work against this world-be reformer’s government.”

So there you have it. Surprisingly, a group of Senators led by Mike Lee (R-Utah) has sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, demanding that he conduct a full scale investigation into the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist political movements around the world. As reported in the Washington Free Beacon, Senator Lee said the letter was written because “over the past few months, elected officials and political leaders of foreign nations have been coming to me with disappointing news and reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries” which included “diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activity, and the U.S. Government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles.”

On the House side, a group of Congressmen led by Republican Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), visited the Balkans last month to investigate such blatant political manipulation but have yet to report on their findings.

Tillerson needs to clean house and expedite the appointment of new Ambassadors before Obama holdovers do any further damage. At the very least, he should cut off all funds to foreign political groups and seriously consider prosecuting State Department/USAID employees found to be involved with illegal political activity.

Options: ReplyQuote

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Navigate Living and Raw Foods below:

Search Living and Raw Foods below:

Search for:

Eat more raw fruits and vegetables

Living and Raw Foods Button
All Rights Reserved


Privacy Policy Statement

Eat more Raw Fruits and Vegetables