Skip to content


Six Words From A Town Hall Attendee Stopped Pelosi Dead In Her Tracks

Citizen stuns Pelosi by asking how much money she’s worth while she’s slamming GOP tax cuts.

Martin Walsh by Martin Walsh

Nancy Pelosi was so stunned by a six word question from an attendee about the GOP tax cuts that she literally told the individual “We’re Not Talking About That!”

During a town hall event Tuesday in Phoenix, Arizona, the House Minority Leader was asked by an American at the event, “How much are you worth, Nancy?”

The remark was in response to Pelosi claiming the GOP tax cuts allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money was pathetic and unpatriotic.

“These are kitchen table issues for America’s families,” Pelosi said. “Most people are not in deadening poverty, but some are. Most people have to struggle to make ends meet.”

That’s when the attendee asked Pelosi to reveal how much she is worth, an effort to expose her wealthy status and how out-of-touch she is with the Americans she claims to represent.

“No, we’re not talking about that,” Pelosi replied. “I’m a mother of five, I can speak louder than anybody.”

According to federal records, Pelosi reported in 2016 that she had a net worth of $100,643,521 — making her the seventh richest member of Congress.

The wealthy California Democrat is in special company as she is only one of seven members of Congress who have an estimated wealth exceeding $100 million.

How can a public servant be worth more than $100 million?

Aside from Pelosi proving she doesn’t relate to real Americans and what they deal with on a daily basis, she is also statistically dead wrong about the GOP tax cuts.

A New York Times poll released on Monday found that 51 percent of Americans support the GOP tax cuts.

The polls strikes another major blow to Pelosi and Democrats who claim the Republican tax cuts are “unpatriotic,” similar to “Armageddon,” and will be “devastating to American workers.”

Pelosi’s comments prove how spoiled and out-of-touch she is with the everyday Americans she claims to represent.

Source: Daily Caller

Join the discussion…

  • Avatar

    Joe the Nobody2 hours ago

    Such an indignant pompous asshole. Never mind what I’m worth, I’d rather talk about crumbs…..100 million dollars of worth……absolute BS!!!!

  • 18

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Andy2 hours ago

    What values is Pelosi speaking about? I don’t remember my father saying he is working to support his neighbors. Giving was done at the church – NOT via the IRS.

  • 11

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    James Jones2 hours ago

    Pelosi needs to just go off into the sunset and forget her visions of grandeur! 100+ million dollars and in Congress all her life she’s skimming tax money plain and simple. We should demand her removal from Congress and strip all that money since they aren’t crumbs. All she does is talk.

  • 8

  • Reply
  • Share ›

  • Avatar

    The Hawk2 hours ago

    That sow wouldn’t know a value if it hit her between the eyes.

  • 5

  • Reply
  • Share ›
  • Avatar

    Tn troutmanan hour ago

    Wake up Registered Democrat voters!!!! Your Democratic leaders you have placed in high positions aren’t for YOU…They are devouring you and getting richer while you get poorer!! At least look at the facts!!!

  • 4

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Donald Walkeran hour ago

    But Yet ! The Dumb Asses in California keep her in Congress. Not that all Californians are Dumb Asses just 90%!. Just those who want the Easy Life . Welfare , Food Stamps, Free Health Care, Free Housing. ! 100 Million dollar Bitch working for the GOOD of California and the U.S? Thanks NANCY ! The SOCIALIST ,COMMUNIST ,DEMOCRATIC PARTY is PROUD of YOU

  • 2

  • Reply
  • Share ›


      kaids Donald Walkeran hour ago

      It’s her dumb ass district in San Francisco that keeps her in. We don’t all get to vote for her. Second, she doesn’t know the bible. She said God’s intention is not to have the poor? There are all kinds of verses in the bible about taking care of the poor.

      Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.

      DUH Pelosi – stop listening to those voices in your head. They’re leading you astray

    • Reply
    • Share ›


    lerose55an hour ago

    $100,643,521.00 AN THATS ALL SHE IS CLAIMING, ask her how much is hidden. Don’t forget this is just the number she is claiming. Ask her how much her husband is worth??? Pelosi is delusional. She makes no sense what so ever.

    She has no idea what living paycheck to paycheck is every week. Probably never has.
    When will Democrats Vote Pelosi & other long time Democrats like Schumer, Schiff, Ellison, Feinstein, Warren, Lewis, Ellison, Waters ect. out of office, they are not able to be open to new policies so they do what they do best obstruct, they are stuck in another era.
    25 Republicans are dropping out the next election. Out w/ the old in with the new.

  • 3

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    David Williams2 hours ago

    That Bat Sheeet Crazy old Skank is worth Millions & Millions & Millions 🙁

  • 2

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Jodi13 minutes ago

    Just think the democrats have been in charge of both houses and the presidency for for sixteen years but they are not to blame, the public is. Their in politics making the laws that govern what businesses do or are allowed to do but their not out running the businesses that have to follow the laws the make.

  • Reply
  • Share ›

AG Sessions Vows To End “Dangerous Trend” Of Legal Activism In Executive Branch

Sam Di Gangi by Sam Di Gangi

He pointed out that this got out of control under Obama.

There are so many problems left over from the Obama administration that it would be impossible for any one person to list them all. Thankfully, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is tackling one of the major ones.

As Breitbart News reports, the A.G. has pledged to end the dreadful “executive branch legal activism” that President Obama was known for. As DACA and other screeds of justice tell us, Obama was acting often more like a king than a president and those days are blessedly over. The actions of the former president was set to set a “dangerous trend” which is coming to a close with Mr. Trump in office.

Sessions said that under Obama’s rule, “I think the department [of Justice] did become too political. Essentially, it was executive branch legal activism. They would take cases or regulations or statutes and expand or redefine the meaning of words in them to advance the agenda that they thought ought to be advanced — an agenda that often had zero chance of passing Congress, where the elected representatives sit.

It remains no secret that both Bush and Obama were guilty of the sins described by Sessions. This made it really hard for the people and those who were voted to represent each state from having any say. This runs, of course, counter to everything that our representative Republic was meant to be.

Sessions added, “So you have an agenda, and you can’t get Congress to pass it, so you use unelected regulatory officials and lawyers to draft regulations and enforcement policies that carry out a political agenda that the people don’t favor.

He also said, “And I think that was a factor in this past [presidential] election, and it was an issue that was known to a lot of business and legal experts. They saw this as a dangerous trend.”

Regarding his last point, there is no doubt that the Attorney General is speaking the truth. While U.S. voters felt that no one would stand for them in this matter, it was then-candidate Donald Trump who boldly did. That is one very big reason why he won. It had nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton be a lady or the color or anyone’s skin.

Speaking about DACA, Sessions said, “[President Obama] said repeatedly that it was not legal, he couldn’t do it. Congress had took up an issue and it failed to pass. So they just did it anyway. But now when we tried … to withdraw the DACA policy … we’ve been sued and judges have stopped simple withdrawal of the policy.

The mainstream media creates this impression that the administration is being stopped by wonderful judges in robes of neutrality, when in fact these are [judicial] actions that go beyond the law in many instances and will not be sustained, will be overturned.” Sessions also told Breitbart News.

The whole interview is certainly worth the read. At last, something is being done about the pen replacing the scepter in the hand of a president who is pretending to be a king. The people again will be represented by those who they voted into office to do so, not by the whims of Obama or anyone else in the White House.

Sessions is quite correct that Mr. Trump is being stopped from acting legally, not illegally, by activist judges. What the White House aims to do is in line with Constitution, a document that has long been ignored at our own peril.

Some Article Comments from the website Article:

  • Avatar

    Mike Whitrock21 hours ago


  • 5

  • Reply
  • Share ›


      Ctaj Mike Whitrock16 hours ago

      That takes an impeachment process and 67 members of the Senate to convict. We need 16 more Republicans in the Senate, preferably not Establishment critters.

    • 1

    • Reply
    • Share ›


        Rufnuk Ctaj2 hours ago

        Congress needs to amend the laws so these activist, obstructionist judges can more easily be removed and charged. When their decisions are contrary to the Constitution they should be IMMEDIATELY dragged out in chains.

      • Reply
      • Share ›


          Ctaj Rufnukan hour ago

          I don’t think Congress has the authority to do that, as it would violate the Separation of Powers in the Constitution. The judiciary is a separate branch, and I could be wrong about this, but I think the only way to remove a judge from the federal judiciary is by the impeachment process. We’d have to amend the Constitution to change that, and it’s no small task to get 75% of the states to ratify it.

          But the Constitution left the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to Congress, so it can mean whatever they want it to mean. A majority of the House can impeach, and 67 votes in the Senate can convict to remove someone from office for buttering his bread on the wrong side, or wearing the wrong color tie, if it wants to. Impeachment is a political process, not a court of law. By law, Clinton was guilty as sin and the evidence proved it, but neither party wanted him removed from office. The Dems didn’t want to go down as the only party to have their President removed by impeachment, and the GOP preferred to have the badly damaged Clinton remain if office going into the next election, rather than have Al Gore replace him and go into the next election as an incumbent with a clean slate. (Had that happened, Gore probably would have won.)

          I’m not sure the political consequences would be beneficial, but if the GOP holds the House and gets 67 seats in the Senate in November (a real possibility), it could conceivably remove every judge in the federal judiciary appointed by a Democrat.

          That said, Madison wrote that if one political faction controls all three branches of government, that’s the very definition of tyranny. I don’t think the people will support that, even if I would. When it happens, as it did in 2009-2010, the people generally respond by returning the opposing faction to power in at least one branch in the next election.

        • Reply
        • Share ›


      Kenneth Mauax Mike Whitrock20 hours ago

      I’d love to see that but unfortunately judges are protected by judicial immunity meaning they cannot be prosecuted unless they are dismissed from the bench and that is EVEN HARDER to accomplish

    • 1

    • Reply
    • Share ›


        Andy Kenneth Mauax19 hours ago

        Technically, Congress could disband every single court, except for the Supreme Court. It’s radical, but they do have the power in the Constitution. If they did so, in order to dump all of the bad judges, then the opposition party could do the same when they gained super majority status.

      • 3

      • Reply
      • Share ›


          KathiB. Andy5 hours ago

          Congress can also STOP PAYING the activist judges….they’d probably leave on their own.

          ALL Obama appointees need to be PURGED from ANY position in our government. Trump is doing all he can to un-do Obama’s executive orders.

        • 1

        • Reply
        • Share ›


    Charlotte K. Poirier14 hours ago


  • 2

  • Reply
  • Share ›


    Christian Gains18 hours ago

    “We the People…” had BEST NOT get complacent, thinking that Sessions & Trump have GOT IT!!! SORRY, but those Judges aren’t going to sit back & not “be active”…Mike Whitrock…I’m not SURE whether they CAN or not…It MIGHT take the SCOTUS to get the Constitutional LAW re-established AS THE LAW of our LAND!!!

  • 2

  • Reply
  • Share ›


“No Doubt”: Liberal Justice Pushes Partisan Agenda, Issues Absurd Claim About 2016 Election


A few months ago, while speaking at a Columbia University Women’s Conference, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg claimed she has “no doubt” that sexism played a role in President Donald Trump’s victory. This is because, according to her, a male Democratic candidate would’ve been treated differently than Clinton.

Specifically, when asked by CBS’ Charlie Rose if sexism played a role in the 2016 election, Justice Ginsburg replied, “I have no doubt that it did.”

When Rose followed-up and asked if she thought the sexism played a decisive role, she told him, “there [are] so many things that might have been decisive, but that was a major, major factor.”

To clarify, she added, “I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by even the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign, and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized. I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer it the same way I did: Yes, sexism played a prominent part.”

Ginsburg’s comment, however, is absolutely absurd and utterly reprehensible. First, it’s absurd because if Clinton was a male but had all of the exact same baggage, she still would not have won the election. People didn’t oppose Clinton because she was a woman, they opposed because she supported terrible policies and has a questionable past.

Second, it’s reprehensible because it’s a blatant attack on Trump’s supporters. By blaming sexism for Clinton’s loss, she’s basically calling that a lot of Trump’s supporters sexist, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

In addition to being absurd and reprehensible, her comment also makes it clear that she seriously needs to retire. This is because, if she either can’t figure out why the Democrats actually lost the election or continues to push a partisan, anti-Trump agenda, then she shouldn’t be deciding the fate of others.

This isn’t the first time that Ginsburg has blamed sexism for the Democratic Party’s 2016 election loss. She made a similar comment shortly after President Trump won.

Although ridiculous, Ginsburg’s comments are sadly not very surprising seeing as she’s been an extremely outspoken critic of the president. During his campaign, for instance, she stated, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”

To clarify, she added, “he is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

Outraged by her unfair criticism, President Trump tweeted, “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot — resign!”

Unfortunately, Ginsburg isn’t alone in her belief that prejudice is why the Democratic Party lost the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton also made the same claim in her new book about her defeat.

“Why am I seen as such a divisive figure and, say, Joe Biden and John Kerry aren’t?…What makes me such a lightning rod for fury? I’m really asking. I’m at a loss,” wrote Clinton in the book.

“I suspect that for many of us—more than we might think—it feels somehow off to picture a woman president sitting in the Oval Office or the Situation Room,” she continued.

“It’s discordant to tune into a political rally and hear a woman’s voice booming (‘screaming,’ ‘screeching’) forth,” she added, noting, “even the simple act of a woman standing up and speaking to a crowd is relatively new.”

In addition to Ginsburg and Clinton, ESPN’s Jemele Hill, a controversial liberal who co-hosts “SportsCenter,” appeared on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation” with Rev. Al Sharpton, another controversial liberal, several days ago and also made a similar claim.

The ESPN co-host’s comments about the president were prompted by Sharpton asking, “how do you feel when you heard the president in a State of the Union address still take a shot at people that are standing up about injustices?”

In response, she quite absurdly replied, “I wasn’t surprised and I think this is going to…probably [be] a constant thing for the president because it’s a very easy dog whistle, it’s low hanging fruit, it’s what I like to call ‘racial pornography,’ because it’s a way to stoke his base.”

Comments like this are, unfortunately, not uncommon from Hill. Several months ago, for instance, she engaged in a lengthy tirade about Trump while arguing with several people on Twitter.

Hill’s rant against the President began with the tweet: “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.”

When someone, presumably white, pushed back against her tweet, she replied, “the height of white privilege is being able to ignore his white supremacy, because it’s no threat to you. Well, it’s a threat to me.”

In a series of follow-up tweets, Hill added, “Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime. His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period…He has surrounded himself with white supremacists — no they are not ‘alt-right’ — and you want me to believe he isn’t a white supremacist?”

Despite what many on the left claim, President Trump did not win the election due to prejudice. Instead, it’s quite clear that he won because he did a better job of connecting with voters and campaigned on issues that people in key parts of the country truly cared about.

@quote popular vote?  Hillary only won CA, NY, IL. by popular so called vote.  Everyone else knows she and her party were cheating with multiple fraud voting in many states etc..

They rigged the poles in their favor and it’s proven that they did!!!

Obama election’s same way, rigged system!!

Comments are at the bottom of the website Article.

Click here and scroll to the bottom of  the article to read the comments.

Anthony Cesario by Anthony Cesario


FBI informant: Barack Obama was briefed twice on Uranium One – did nothing


In the furor about the infamous House Intelligence Committee memo — and the subsequent revelation that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was pranked by two Russian comedians who claimed to have compromising photographs of President Donald Trump — the Uranium One scandal has received less media attention as of late. In the background, however, the wheels unraveling the scandal continue to turn.

An FBI informant testified before the Senate Judiciary, House Oversight, and House Intelligence Committees for four hours on Wednesday, sharing key information about Hillary Clinton’s pay-to-play schemes with the Russians, that, according to the informant, former President Barack Obama knew all about.

The Testimony

William Campbell owns an energy company and was apparently a long-time informant for the FBI and CIA. Campbell told congressional investigators that Russia “attempted to hide its ongoing aid to help sustain Iran’s nuclear industry” — a program that the United States was adamantly against — while the Obama administration was approving the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium mining rights to Russia.

“For several years my relationship with the CIA consisted of being debriefed after foreign travel,” Campbell said. “Gradually, the relationship evolved into the CIA tasking me to travel to specific countries to obtain specific information.”

He continued:

In the 1990s, I developed a working relationship with Kazakhstan and Russia in their nuclear energy industries. When I told the CIA of this development, I was turned over to FBI counterintelligence agents.

According to Campbell, he told the FBI that “the Russians expressed a sense of urgency to secure new U.S. uranium business because they knew that the two-decades-old ‘Megatons to Megawatts’ program would cease in 2013.” He continued:

Then Russia would no longer be guaranteed a market to sell recycled nuclear warhead materials as peaceful reactor fuel in the United States. I gathered evidence for the FBI by moving closer and closer to the Russians’ key nuclear industry players, including those inside the United States and high-ranking Russian officials who would visit.

All of this information was reportedly shared with the FBI, Department of Treasury, Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice. Additionally, according to Campbell, his findings were personally reported to former President Obama in his daily briefings at least twice.

The Result

Campbell also told the congressional committees that the Russians boasted to him that former President Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had so much influence in the Obama White House that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) would approve Russia’s purchase.

That boast came true; Hillary Clinton herself, along with former Attorney General Eric Holder, sat on the committee that helped secure the deal, which gave Russia control of nearly a quarter of U.S. uranium.

Campbell claimed in his testimony that he tried to stop the deal, but the Obama administration ignored his warnings, pressing forward with the Uranium One deal and the now-infamous agreement with Iran.

“I was speechless and angry in October 2010 when CFIUS approved the Uranium One sale to Rosatom. I was deeply worried that TLI [Transport Logistics International] continued to transport sensitive uranium despite the fact that it had been compromised by the bribery scheme,” Campbell said. He continued:

I expressed these concerns repeatedly to my FBI handlers. The response I got was that “politics” was somehow involved. I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: “Ask your politics.”

Campbell was reportedly was paid large amounts of money by the FBI for his work, but signed a nondisclosure agreement that prevented him from coming forward earlier.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated that agreement late in 2017 at the request of Campbell’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, which allowed Campbell to testify before Congress.

Because of Sessions’ actions, Campbell can now share what he knows about the scandal with the world, and maybe — just maybe — someone from the Obama administration will finally be held accountable for this disgusting deal.


Report: Obama-era cash traced to Iran-backed terrorists in disturbing development




$1.7 billion that the Obama administration sent to Iran two years ago found its way into the hands of Iran-backed terrorists, The Washington Times reports.

Over the two years since the money was transferred, Iran has used the cash to fund terror groups such as Hezbollah as well as Houthi rebels in Yemen. That’s right — U.S. taxpayers financed terrorism at the behest of the Obama administration.


The money was delivered in three separate payloads to Iran in January and February of 2016, allegedly to settle a decades-old arms deal.

This is hardly an isolated example of Obama’s indulgences in favor of Iran. Politico reported in December that the Obama administration blocked criminal investigations of Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to push the Iran deal through. Obama’s record on Iran looks instead like a pattern of appeasement.


Obama millions went to terrorists


The $1.7 billion in cash the Obama administration delivered to Iran in 2016 has been criticized by conservatives including President Trump, who claims the money was used to arm terrorists.

According to sources in the U.S. government, he’s correct.


The Times reports:

The American money sent by the Obama administration was first flown to Switzerland aboard an unmarked chartered aircraft, and then converted into euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. An Iranian transport aircraft flew the cash to Iran in January and February 2016 in three shipments. The first aircraft arrived in Tehran on Jan. 16, 2016, with $400 million piled on wooden pallets. Two other aircraft shipments of cash were sent on Jan. 22, 2016, and Feb. 5, 2016, totaling $1.3 billion.

U.S. intelligence officials have traced some of that money to multiple groups in Iran’s covert, far-flung terror network. The Washington Times details how Iran has used the cash to pay Lebanon-based terror group Hezbollah and to arm Houthi rebels in Yemen, where the Islamic regime is waging a proxy war with its chief regional enemy, Saudi Arabia.

Iran has also used the money to pay the Quds Force, a special forces unit and primary foreign intelligence branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Obama cash

The Obama administration then said that the money was sent to Iran as payment for an outstanding debt on a decades-old arbitration claim. The initial $400 million delivered to Tehran in January of 2016 was reportedly in return for an arms purchase made by Iran in the 1970s that never went through.

Shah Pahlavi’s government bought American planes in the 1970s, but the deal went awry when the Revolution occurred in 1979. The Obama administration claimed it was paying that outstanding debt, with an additional $1.3 billion in interest delivered in two additional installments in January and February.

Critics noted the timing of the $400 million initial payment and the release of four American hostages, provoking speculation that Obama was paying a ransom. The administration later acknowledged that the money was withheld as leverage to push for the hostages’ release.

President Trump has criticized the Obama administration for helping to arm terrorists.





“The enormous financial windfall the Iranian regime received because of the deal—access to more than $100 billion, including $1.8 billion in cash—has not been used to better the lives of the Iranian people. Instead, it has served as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression, and to further line the pockets of corrupt regime leaders”, reads the White House’s statement on Iran.

President Trump is correct. Obama had good reason to knew this cash would end up in the hands of terrorists.


Iran’s connections with terror groups are not a secret. And recent reports demonstrate how the Obama administration deliberately blocked the Justice Department’s investigations into Hezbollah’s criminal activities.

Regardless of intent, there is no doubt that Obama aided terrorists with these cash transfers. This either completely misguided policy or a failed attempt at appeasement.



Obama Cover-up for Hillary Clinton Was Worse Than Collusion


Who in his administration conspired to withhold damaging facts about failed Democrat candidate’s mishandling of classified info?

by Charles Ortel | Updated 04 Feb 2018 at 10:31 AM

Records available through the FBI Vault prove beyond any doubt that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her inner circle of trusted aides, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, were subjects of a formal investigation into the mishandling of classified information, beginning July 10, 2015.

Yes, you read the above correctly: A formal FBI investigation commenced well before any 2016 Democratic presidential debates and primaries.

Yet how many times did Clinton and her political and media allies claim that, whatever may have been happening, the review of her private servers and unsecured devices during her years as America’s chief diplomat was nothing more than a “normal security review,” not an “investigation”? Or, as then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed then-FBI Director James Comey to describe it, just a “matter”?

A 17-part treasure trove of documents concerning Clinton is linked here and includes much that we should all consider, starting with Part One, a 35-page summary of the contents.

For example, in Part Six, starting on Page 11, we learn that a senior State Department informant walked into the Washington, D.C., FBI field office on Jan. 27, 2016, upset that Comey never acknowledged receipt of crucial evidence the confidential witness had earlier provided.

Days later, Andrew McCabe was appointed deputy director of the FBI by then-President Barack Obama and tasked with oversight of the investigation into mishandling classified information by Clinton, Abedin, Mills and other key aides.

Then, we learn on Oct. 30, 2016, through a different FBI Vault disclosure, that the Department of State had found by February 2016 more than 2,000 examples of mishandled classified information during Clinton’s tenure there (see Pages 12 and 13 of the preceding link):

In February 2016, the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 20,940 emails contain information that is presently classified.

Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the confidential level, 65 contain information classified at the secret level, and 22 contain information classified at the top-secret level.

Thereafter, at an undetermined date prior to October 2016, the FBI received further clarification concerning the scope of the apparent mishandling (see Page 14 of the preceding link):

The FBI sought a determination by the relevant original classification authorities as to whether certain of the 30,490 emails contained classified information at the time they were sent.

In response to the FBI’s requests for classification determinations, the relevant original classification authorities determined that 81 email chains, which the FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on the Clinton email server, contained classified information ranging from the confidential to top-secret/Special Account Program levels at the time they were sent between 2009 and 2013.

To recap, the State Department concluded by February 2016 that classified information resided in more than 2,000 Clinton emails that were stored on a private server located in the Chappaqua, New York, mansion she shares with former President Bill Clinton, conveniently and completely outside of mandatory government security control for years.

The FBI subsequently concluded that a significant number of Clinton’s declared emails were classified at the time they had been sent.

Rather than inform American voters before the election, the Obama administration seems to have done its level best to bury these important facts. And they may have been aided in this cover-up by senior executives within the FBI, government employees the public expects to be scrupulously nonpartisan.

Related: Here’s Why There May Be No More Free Passes for the Clinton Foundation

When will those within government tell the American people the whole truth about Clinton’s stewardship of classified information while working as secretary of state?

And, even more to the point, can the FBI or Department of Justice management — “swamp central” — be trusted to investigate themselves?

Charles Ortel, a retired investment banker, concentrates on exposing complex frauds in his new career as an investigator, writer and commentator. Since August 2017, he has been hosting the Sunday with Charles podcast and covering the Clinton Foundation case in depth, using publicly available source materials.

Some Article Comments copied from the webpage article below:

  • Tom Steele

  • While this may seem absolutely astonishing it is certainly readily explainable. Had they actually pursued prosecutions consistent with what the evidence proved they would have also caught up President Obama. He had sent HRC a number (no one knows how many) of emails containing confidential to top secret information UNDER AN ALIAS ACCOUNT that went through her server and were thus unprotected. Prosecutions were never going to happen and that’s why he started going public saying that while she might have been a little careless she really hadn’t done anything wrong. Can you believe that we actually elected a person who would do stuff like this?




    • <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default]” NS = “” />


      Tom Steele






  • Chris


    No big surprise to anyone with a functioning brain. We knew Hillary was lying to us every time she opened her mouth. And most importantly, our Nobel Laureate (for doing nothing) president covered for her, protected her…and lied for her! I’m still waiting for some intrepid reporter to put a microphone in front of Obama and ask him why he used a pseudonym while communicating with Hillary on a private server he claimed to know nothing about!




    • scodougle



      Obama wasn’t protecting her. He was protecting himself. This entire story is really about a sitting President using willing political appointees at the FBI and DOJ to cover up his own crimes. This didn’t include the women and men agents at the field level – in fact, I’ve heard that the New York office was going to leak the information about Weiner’s laptop having emails in October of 2016, and that is supposedly why Comey made the announcement that the investigation was “re-opened” after sitting on the information for several weeks, hoping to get past Hillary’s expected coronation. Of course, he closed the “investigation” just a few days later saying “Nothing there”.




  • njbobf


    Can you believe that regardless of what the evidence shows, nearly half the country won’t believe it or give it a pass?




  • jeff tarttLeader


    Bottom line: The ex-president is involved in a criminal act. It is almost impossible to expect that fact to hit a judges desk. Trust me, I would LOVE to have all those involved brought to justice, but reality dictates it will NEVER happen. It’s disgusting to think that we mere citizens must obey the law while those in power continue to break it.




    • scodougle

      jeff tartt


      These are some of the precise reasons this nation began. Our founding fathers were adamant that justice be blind specifically because those in power in England could avoid justice and basically do whatever they wanted.




    • Melvin E. HollidayContributor

      jeff tartt


      Isn’t this the same President that produced a fake, forged birth certificate and claimed it was his while the rest of America remained silent and our law maker and breakers continued giving him an open leash to destroy everything in America we hold dear and it continues today while most of America seems uninterested about what is actually happening to our country and our Constitution and its laws. This is all very difficult for me to swallow coming from a man that doesn’t have an American Social Security card in his name and if he does then his name isn’t Barack Obama.



      1 Like

    • jeff tarttLeader

      Melvin E. Holliday


      Well, we know his name is Barry, the media and others tried to hide the name change. I know, his “stepfather” was named Obama. Gander your glims on this fact folks. After joining the Islamic Religion, one must conform to it’s principles. Changing one’s name is part of that process.



  • Myles L White


    She felt untouchable, and therefore complacent! Got away with so many lies over so many years. People need to quit being lazy and do what they can to fix this system.





    Click above and scroll to the bottom of the page….

    A year after Obama, Dems still looking for replacement!



    More than a year after former President Obama left the White House, the Democratic party is still trying to fill the void and find a leader who can take on President Trump.

    “There’s a definite yearning for ‘Who’s my next great love?’” Democratic strategist Patti Solis Doyle said in describing her party. “And the problem is we’re not really loving anyone we see. So we’re looking for someone we’re not expecting.”

    When Oprah Winfrey delivered a powerful speech at the Golden Globes last month, she provided a jolt of excitement to a party still reeling from a stunning 2016 election defeat. And some Democrats fell in love with the idea that the television personality could become their next standard bearer.

    They gloated about the prospects on cable news. Donors phones began to light up. A draft Oprah 2020 effort was quickly launched.

    Still, as primary season inches closer, the party’s desire to find anyone who could lead the “resist” movement to the Trump administration and its policies is on full display.

    David Wade, the Democratic strategist who served as a longtime senior aide to former Democratic nominee John Kerry, called it “the era of Democratic speed dating.”

    “It seems like every week, Democrats are swiping right on political Tinder trying to find the perfect match to send their hearts aflutter,” Wade said.bbbbbbbb

    But politics is like real life, you can’t force these things, it just has to happen and it usually happens when you least suspect it.”

    Solis Doyle said Trump is the main reason Democrats are anxious.

    “People are clamoring so early just because Trump is so bad,” she said. “So we keep looking for that person. ‘Who’s gonna be the best to battle Trump? Who’s charismatic enough? Who can go one-on-one with him in a debate?’”

    Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said it’s not uncommon for the party not in office to search for the right party leader — particularly with more than two years until the Iowa caucuses.

    “But when there is no clear dominant pack of candidates, or the most prominent candidates all come with baggage, then this kind of show-and-tell becomes more pronounced,” Zelizer said.

    Trump has also upended the idea of who can run for president, leaving people wondering whether the next party leader will not come from the Senate or a governor’s mansion — but from the entertainment industry or business.

    It’s also possible that the Democratic flames for Winfrey or Rep. Kennedy, who is relatively unknown, shows some weakness.

    Zelizer cautioned that the flirtations are “a sign that not everything is right with Democrats as they get ready for 2018 and 2020.

    “Once dominant candidates are in the mix, these kind of pop-up appearances are interesting, but much less serious,” he said.

    Still, the courting of candidates can be a wild ride as recent history has proven, Wade said. “Democrats spent eight years pining for the next Bill Clinton, flirted with really bad boyfriends like John Edwards, and then ended up swooning for Barack Obama, the farthest thing from President Clinton.”

    Solis Doyle, who served as campaign manager for Hillary Clinton‘s 2008 presidential bid, suggested that Democrats just can’t wait to get to 2020, something on display during this week’s State of the Union, where Democratic politicians mostly had to sit there and take it as Trump gave his address flanked by the GOP leaders in Congress.

    She acknowledged liking the speech Kennedy gave in response to the address. “By contrast, I thought he was great. I thought that giving the response in front of an audience was brilliant.”

    Still, Solis Doyle added, “But one Democratic response does not a savior make.”

    “We’re shopping. We’re shopping. We’re shopping. But it’s fair to say no one has captured our hearts yet,” she said.



    BREAKING: Obama Sabotaged Trump’s White House Transition. This is Confirmed.


    Obama tried to take down President Trump from the inside, and now we have proof! His loyalists spies must be removed from all levels of the federal government immediately.

    A New York Times report revealed Obama White House officials did indeed wage a vile campaign to leak classified intelligence about Donald Trump’s associates having any type of contact with Russia. Leaking classified reports is illegal, so these individuals must be rooted out, identified, and arrested on federal charges.

    Liberals and the mainstream media mocked President Trump’s allegations that Barack Obama loyalists still inside the administration were behind the leaks and were actively trying to undermine him. As usual, our president was right!

    The covert campaign to leak classified material on Trump’s associates involved decreasing the classification rating on reports about Russia so they could be shared throughout the various agencies, The Daily Caller reports.

    According to the source behind the newspaper’s report, Obama’s cronies launched their campaign out of fear. The source alleged the classification on the intelligence reports were changed and shared in an effort to ensure President Trump would not be able to keep the details private.

    This action is despicable. Nothing in any of the leaks that have surfaced have shown even the tiniest bit of illegal behavior. Michael Flynn was ousted not because he did something improper, but because he answered a question about talking to the Russians about sanctions literally, as any military man would.

    These leaks were clearly orchestrated by Obama loyalists, and it is probably a safe assumption that Obama was made aware of what was going on, but just distancing himself to keep his hands clean.

    This all comes down to the Russians making a mountain out of a mole hill. Many of these men had governmental duties or businesses that required interaction with these entities, but that does not mean they were specifically discussing rigging an election. There simply is no proof they did anything of the sort.

    Hillary Clinton communicated with foreign leaders constantly, via her supposed charitable foundation and at luxurious fundraising events. Democrats did not have a problem with Hillary’s mingling with foreign dignitaries or her improper sharing of classified information, which hampered our national security.

    The same report went on to say the intelligence officials have zero evidence any of President Trump’s advisers coordinated with any Russian government officials in an effort to influence the election. Heck, they don’t even have any solid evidence the Russians even mingled in American politics by hacking DNC emails.

    Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Reince Priebus the New York Times story was total “bullsh*t.” Something sure does smell bad, but it definitely might not be the report!

    Click here to get my DAILY Trump email newsletter free!!

    BREAKING: Trump Goes NUCLEAR on Obama’s “Secret” Project, Heads Are Rolling


    In January, the media reported the State Department’s “mass exodus,” saying the staff didn’t “want to stick around for the Trump era.” Another media lie, but here’s the truth!

    This report was vastly exaggerated as only four employees resigned. It is also normal for a handful of people to resign as a new administration comes in, but now there is an actual mass exodus, with Rex Tillerson, as secretary of state, firing many from the seventh floor, via Independent Journal Review.

    I’m so glad Tillerson wasted no time in draining the swamp. The seventh floor in the State Department is very powerful and includes the counselor offices as well as the deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

    This floor is the one that has been calling itself the infamous “shadow government” and was recently in the midst of the Hillary Clinton scandal under former Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.

    In October, during the election between Trump and Clinton, Kennedy reportedly tried to sway the FBI into minimizing “the classified nature of the Clinton emails in order to protect State interests and those of Clinton.”

    Kennedy, of course, was one of the four officials to resign after Trump came into the White House. He saw the writing on the wall, but Tillerson also had to deal with those who were left behind. This is a clear message to the rest of the government — the Trump administration is here, and no corruption will be tolerated.

    The people were fired right after President Donald Trump started blaming administration leaks on government officials, whom he supposed were trying to block the appointment of his “own people.” I agree — the corrupt are trying to keep their agents in the alcoves to disrupt Trump.

    R.C. Hammond, a spokesperson for the State Department, made a statement on the matter, “The State Department is supported by a very talented group of individuals, both Republicans and Democrats. We are appreciative to any American who dedicates their talents to public service.”

    Hammond mentioned they are busy at work trying “to build out our team,” which is connected to the firings.

    Trump has always been adamant about replacing those who were on staff when Obama was president because of the corruption and the scandals that followed the former administration like the plague. Our president wants people he can count on, not those still loyal to Obama.

    It is currently unknown who Tillerson will pick to replace the fired individuals, but I’m sure he’ll take Trump’s approach of finding only the very best for the position. This is a great start to draining the swamp and making America great again. And if anyone can do it, it’s the Trump administration.

    Click here to get my DAILY Trump email newsletter free!!

    Obama Rallies His Army Of Illegal Immigrants, Plans NASTY Surprise 3 Days Before Trump Takes Office


    What a jerk!

    By Prissy Holly

    With just a little over 50 days remaining before his presidency is completed, Barrack Obama is pulling out all the stops to screw America over one final time. As a blatant slap in the face to Donald Trump and all law-abiding citizens, this president is leaving another fecal stain on our country, utilizing his army of illegal immigrants to smack Trump where it hurts, just 3 days before he’s sworn into office on January 20.

    One of the platforms that Trump ran on during the entire election was bringing jobs back to America, while deporting illegals back to their home country, who frequently rip away jobs from American citizens. But Obama has just imposed a last-minute regulation that will take hundreds of thousands of jobs away from law-abiding American citizens and giving them to illegals, by expanding the H-1b outsourcing program. To add further insult to injury, this nasty gift will go into effect just 3 days before Donald Trump is sworn into office in January.

    This regulation will drastically increase the inflow of these workers, which will allow them to obtain permanent Green Cards, eventually providing a path for citizenship for not just them, but their families also.

    There’s no doubt that Obama is doing this to thumb his nose at Trump, who pledged back in March to end the H-1b outsourcing program. But thanks to Obama’s child-like antics, Trump will have even more of Obama’s deplorable legacy to undo once he takes office.

    If Trump is unable to undo this regulation expansion quickly, it will have major implications for Americans for years to come, as 100,000 of these types of workers will continue to flood into our country on an annual basis, snatching up potentially millions of jobs from Americans.

    For the past 8 years we’ve been ruled by treasonous asshat who has only had the best interests of illegals and his Muslim buddies in mind. It will be so refreshing to finally have a president in office who loves our country, and will work to establish policies to put Americans first. I’m sure we’ll see more tantrum-throwing on the part of Obama however, as we move closer to the glorious day when he finally vacates our White House in a little over 50 days.

    H/T [Breitbart Federal]