DOJ May Charge the Russian Hackers?

A story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) claims that Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors may charge actual Russians for the “hack” of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that occurred in early 2016. [emphasis added to quotes]

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.

As usual, these are anonymous sources allegedly in the know about what is supposed to be a sensitive investigation involving national security. As usual, if true, this must be another illegal leak from Jeff Sessions’s supposedly professional DOJ.

When, if ever, is Sessions going to act upon all these illegal leaks? When, if ever, is President Trump going to see to it that Sessions acts upon all these illegal leaks, or else?

The WSJ sources claim that

Prosecutors and agents have assembled evidence to charge the Russian officials and could bring a case next year. … Discussions about the case are in the early stages … If filed, the case would provide the clearest picture yet of the actors behind the DNC intrusion.

Some DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents are “eager” to file charges in this case, even though it’s “highly unlikely” that any Russian operatives will ever actually be arrested.

Apparently publicly identifying the alleged “actors” seems more important, for some unstated reason, than actually having a trial with the so-called evidence placed under public scrutiny for all to see and weigh its credibility.

This question remains: How can the DOJ, the FBI, or anyone else assemble evidence that proves Russians hacked the DNC when the server in question has never, ever, ever been forensically examined by the FBI or DOJ investigators?

We know this for absolute fact because former FBI head James Comey testified under oath that the server was not even examined by investigators. He wouldn’t lie under oath, would he?

By now, the chain of evidence would have been corrupted, so even if the server has subsequently been examined, of what use would any “evidence” be to a real investigation?

It’s certainly in the best interest of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to keep the meme going that Russians were the hackers. That narrative came, in the first place, from a contractor hired by the DNC, which simply later told the FBI that “the Russians done it!” Comey took them at their word, apparently. Server sight unseen.

Then-head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, called the contractor when this alleged hack occurred, instead of calling law enforcement. The contractor then installed software, supposedly to help find the hackers. At that point, any “evidence” on the server became corrupted. How easy is it to plant “evidence,” anyway?

Wikileaks has stated multiple times that Russians did not provide them with the allegedly hacked information that they published.

It’s easy to imagine why some in the FBI and DOJ (including the leakers to the WSJ) might want to publicly name some Russians, even if the FBI/DOJ know that nothing will come of it.

Maybe in fact because they know nothing will come of it.

If no Russians will ever be arrested, then no trial will ever take place. There will be no public exposure of the so-called evidence. We the People won’t be able to determine for ourselves how credible (or incredible) their “evidence” is.

Some cyber experts have already determined that there’s no way that foreign actors could have “hacked” the DNC server. According to these experts, the data was downloaded too quickly to have been stolen via a hack from a foreign country (or even from within our country). Instead, they have determined that the intrusion must have been an “inside job” where someone with access to the server downloaded data to an external device. This would be consistent with, say, disgraced employees who offloaded terabytes of information to a private server.

(For those previously made familiar with the cyber experts’ article that was published in The Nation in August, note the later addition of an editorial note backtracking, nearly apologizing, and trying to “explain” to their liberal readers–and the Deep State, too–why they dared to go against the “party line,” so to speak. It says volumes. It almost seems as if this may be why suddenly some in the FBI and DOJ want to publicly name some Russians, any Russians, just to debunk their former colleagues who originally questioned the thesis that the “Russians done it.”)

Imagine how easy it will be for experts to debunk the so-called evidence that the FBI and DOJ now apparently claim to have, if it’s exposed in a trial.

No, these Deep State actors want to name some Russians because that will lend credence to the meme that the Russians did it, which will lend credence to the meme that President Trump’s campaign “colluded” with the Russians. Their goal is not any trial or conviction.

The goal of the Deep State is to protect the guilty within their ranks (Uranium One? Collusion with the Clinton campaign?) and to provide grounds, no matter how specious, that may possibly be used to impeach President Trump.

For what it’s worth, RT has reported their own response to this bombshell news that the identities of the Russian hackers are known.

Maybe now would be a good time for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher to reveal his own evidence.


185 responses to “DOJ May Charge the Russian Hackers?


    “The most recent VIPS memo, released on July 24, whatever its technical merits, contributes to a much-needed critical discussion. Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’” …”

    I, for one, don’t trust them. They’re trying to undermine the duly elected sitting president of the United States. They’re trying to protect themselves, their actions in the past, and their turf from the swamp draining that this president has promised and intends to do. Crimes were committed during the previous administration. The Deep State either participated or looked the other way. They never expected Trump to win. He won. Thus, all the poisons lurking in the swamp mud were about to hatch out. The swamp creatures are trying to stop that from happening.

    The Nation editors point out there’s no evidence that Russians did it. So does, amazingly enough, the New York Times. So now the Deep State intends to throw out some “evidence” in the form of “charges” against Russian officials that they KNOW will never stand trial. It’s expected that Russians would deny any charges, even if they’re true (which in this case I don’t believe they are), but the Deep State knows how easy it will be to just blow off their denials and say, “Well, of course they’re going to deny it. They’re Russians. It’s what they do.”

  2. More articles to consider in determining what’s known so far with regard to “evidence” of this “hack.” These are the pros and cons, in response to the VIPS Memo to the president:

    I haven’t read or analyzed these all myself yet. What I can tell you, and it’s just common sense but I do have some experience with computers, is that nothing exists on a computer that cannot be modified. That includes “metadata” or “tracks” or identifications, etc. Ones and zeroes, folks. They can be changed. Easily, in some cases. It’s harder in others but it’s possible. Do we really believe that our own government cyber folks CAN’T do it?

    Let’s see an example.

    Journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by someone in Obama’s administration, using a government computer.

    The intruder(s) even PUT A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT on her machine, presumably so that at some point, if necessary, they could CHARGE HER with stealing and/or possessing a classified document. They also modified the HISTORY of events on her computer.

    Fortunately for Sharyl she’s not only a very smart person but she also has good, intelligent contacts who are forensic cyber experts who were able to track down the computer used by the hacker, which was at some government office, during Obama’s administration, and track what was done to her computer.

    If they can do this to Sharyl, for their own Deep State reasons, then why couldn’t they as well “reverse engineer” a “hack” at the DNC to make it look like whatever they wanted to make it look like?

    Remember, these people are holdovers from the same Deep State that expected us to buy as “real” the fake digitally created “birth certificate” of Barack Obama. btw, the “software” that hackers all over the world use was CREATED BY our own Deep State.


    More BS from LV. Now the sheriff claims that the hard drive that’s missing from Paddock’s laptop might even have been removed “years ago.” Seriously. He said that. But the man carried around a laptop without a hard drive in it? I saw Tucker Carlson last night and he had a long segment on it, about the ever-changing story. Now, apparently, they’re saying that two off-duty LV cops were IN THE HALL with Campos and presumably the maintenance man BEFORE the shooting took place. So now that makes four people standing outside in the hall, who apparently just let Paddock (or someone) fire at will out the windows. And then, of course, there’s the news that some LEO shot off his gun one or more times in the room that wasn’t the one Paddock was lying dead in. No reason given for why the cop shot. Interestingly enough, on Carlson’s show a lawyer stated that he’s been given access to the crime scene, which immediately made me wonder whether this admission about the friendly fire in the adjacent room was made 30 days after the fact ONLY BECAUSE this lawyer noticed the bullet holes. He said that the FBI has ALL the evidence. ALL the bullets. Everything. He’s not been given access to it. He filed one of two lawsuits against the LV authorities. News agencies have also filed suit to get access to police reports, etc. Shall be interesting what comes of all that. Also reported is that Paddock’s girlfriend is suspected of hiding information, will be interviewed again this week, and that the sheriff made some comment about Paddock’s brother Eric “digging” himself into a hole by talking. Sheriff sat for an interview, fwiw: In two parts. He was interviewed for 2 hours but some parts weren’t recorded, interestingly enough. I haven’t had time to watch it yet.


      About what Carlson said last night. But Trump’s reaction is kind of bizarre. He said Comey was a disaster. But the LV thing happened under Trump. The FBI reports to Trump. He should order Sessions to take control and get this solved.

    • Wondering still what LV was all about. Who planned it and carried it out.? Why? Didn’t buy this from minute one. It makes no sense. None of it.

      I found other’s ‘wonderings’ amusing, however:
      The definition of paddock.
      The English translation of campos.
      Jesus showing up to save the day.
      The Twin Towers present and involved at the scene.
      The All Seeing Eye flashing at the scene.
      And so many other things…

      • Yep. I noticed the “paddock” angle right off. Sheep in a pen, waiting for slaughter. That’s another thing mentioned on Carlson’s show: the fact that many people said there was nowhere to go, because the many exits were mostly, for some reason and probably against safety laws, barricaded shut. They’re evil SOBs. Far too often (and we noticed this a lot during the last administration), they get their jollies by signaling what they’re up to. The snarky symbolism. “Campos de tiro” is a shooting range. All the fake players.

    • About the hard drive… you may recall, I came home from work on Monday and came on board. While I was sifting through the comments I was also listening to a live conference with the Sheriff and I reported the Sheriff just said, ” we found all sorts of electronics and a server which is being scrubbed as I speak…”

      • Yeah. I remember that, too. Scrubbed. What a stupid way to put it. Not examined. Scrubbed. You don’t “scrub” something for evidence. Of course, maybe he’s not very technologically savvy and didn’t know the correct word. There’s always that. Like Still said in the video you linked, first off the sheriff seemed like a stand-up guy. Later, once beady-eyed FBI agent got to him, he was shaking like a leaf as he was made to parrot the party line. Maybe the FBI said they’d “scrub” the electronics and HE thought that meant get the evidence off it. Silly him.

    • Here’s the scoop on the LV investigation. btw, the Jason and Laura posted the live video of being prevented from attending the open presser that day.

    • RIP

      Orville Almon, the lawyer representing the Route 91 music festival and Jason Aldean, the singer onstage when the Las Vegas shooting began, has been found dead. He was 66.

      • Seriously? This is getting very creepy. What are the odds that so many connected to that incident have died in a month under such unusual circumstances? This is like Hillary’s dead pool.

    • Testimony Live on Tape

    • I’m watching those videos of the interview of the sheriff. My thoughts:

      Sheriff says although he originally said Paddock must have had help, so far they’ve not found anybody who helped Paddock. He lost a significant amount of his wealth since Sept. 2015. Interviewer says the first day, Paddock sounded like a “spook” or a “spy.” He had knowledge of guns. Had guns. Had his own plane. Sheriff says he wouldn’t call him that but he was just “working in the shadows.” Previously, he’d said Paddock wasn’t on their radar or anybody else’s, which sounds odd given the huge number of transactions that Paddock made that had to be reported to the government. (Sounds as if the interviewer was fed the questions to “answer” all the “conspiracy theories.”)

      Sheriff says FBI profilers said Paddock was narcissistic, depressed, status-driven, liked to be “recognized” a certain way at the casino and by his family, but that image was starting to “decline.” He doesn’t know what “set him off” so that he bought more guns in 10/2016. (A year ago?)

      They’re still interviewing girlfriend. Sheriff uses terminology about “what made him snap” but points out the discrepancy here in that it took Paddock a long time to plan, so it was a slow snap. Interviewer says Paddock used “diabolical” detail for his plans. (imho, it makes no sense, with regard to Paddock “snapping” because he started to lose money and thus status, but then he scopes out music concerts that have nothing to do with revenge against those taking his money or dissing him.)

      In reviewing hotel video, it showed Paddock (allegedly) was “never in the company of another individual” (right) nor did he ever get taped carrying large bags. Sheriff says Paddock’s shooting showed no particular expertise; he was just spraying (according to the interviewer).

      Sheriff admits the people in the venue were “corralled” by “security fencing.”

      Sheriff calls Paddock “psychotic” and “crazed” and yet earlier he said Paddock had carefully planned the logistics. He says it was “easy” for Paddock to “disassociate” from the victims due to the distance from hotel to venue. He says investigators, in general, believe the girlfriend had no inkling but personally it’s hard for him to believe Paddock could amass all those guns and nobody like her knew. (Yeah, me, too.)

      She’s not in custody but is being watched. He thinks the brother is “manic.” (The one who gave press conferences.) He does say the brother is continuing to talk and “dig a hole.”

      I find it hard to believe that there’s not video of Paddock bringing in the bags, if that’s what the sheriff expects us to believe. He says he doesn’t know what the people at the casino saw (but what people saw shouldn’t be necessary to know because HOW did Paddock get all the bags past the video cameras?

      Sheriff says MGM didn’t do anything wrong. He says the cops responded quickly and “saved a lot of lives.” Huh? He says he was “transparent” originally with the intent of “calming people’s fears.” He has said something like this many times; it’s almost as if he’s saying they will say whatever they need to to “calm people’s fears.” It doesn’t calm mine to know that they gave false information before and may still be giving false information now.

      He says the “times” didn’t change but the “script” of what happened at those times did. WHAT? Strange word to use–SCRIPT. Again, he says the timeline “per se” didn’t change but the “events associated with the timeline” did. Again, WHAT?

      He says a minute here or there doesn’t make a difference. I believe it does to the people shot at or shot during that minute. The fact remains that they didn’t try to stop the shooting for an hour after responding, and we still aren’t sure when the shooting began and ended and who was or wasn’t outside the room at the time. Or when the cops were called by MGM. And they still don’t explain how the cops didn’t know the room number IF Campos called it in.

      Sheriff “believes” that “the suspect” (doesn’t say Paddock) believed that “the wolf was at the door” and “took his own life.” Does he KNOW that or just believe it? Who was the wolf?

      At 19:01 they go through the timeline. Sheriff believes NY Times “timeline” they put together using videos, with a few minor differences (not pointed out by him, though).

      There were individual shots at first; might have been the shots at the fuel tanks. He thinks Campos being in the hall caused him to shoot at the crowd. (So what lives were saved by the wolf at the door?) He thinks Paddock paused between “bursts” to access the crowd, see where they were running. Says Paddock probably had mechanical problems with guns, changing guns, watching the monitors, checking the hallway. Interviewer asked him to walk him through Campos’s arrival:

      They got an electronic notification of an open door. (He says a hotel room door, if it’s left open a certain amount of time.)

      Campos sent to assess. He takes stairwell to 32nd floor. He had been checking another open door on a different floor. He finds the door blocked.

      Campos goes up the steps to next higher floor, takes elevator back down to 32nd floor.

      Campos “had encountered the suspect.” “He received a leg wound.” (Now sheriff seems nervous. Breathing deeply. Choosing words carefully. Where did Campos “encounter” the suspect? Did he SEE him? How did he “receive a leg wound?” Not detailed.)

      Campos “attempted to contact his dispatch.” (The log record for 9:59 p.m. was when Campos had called in the stairwell blockage, not the shooting. There were subsequent minutes where Campos had to go up, take elevator back down, walk down hallway, receive his wound.)

      He repeats that Campos “attempts to go through his radio” and then he also “confirms” his communication to dispatch via cell phone. (So which was the audio we heard of the call to dispatch–cell phone or radio?)

      Sheriff says Campos said “hey, I’ve been shot at[no he doesn’t] and “I believe there’s an individual in a certain room, shooting, out … you know, active shooter.”

      Sheriff says Campos “doesn’t know whether it’s out into the festival or whether it’s just strictly at him (Campos).” He says he’s dealing with an individual “in the hallway.” (Does he mean Campos is in the hallway or Paddock is, too? You be the judge.)

      He says subsequently Campos and the engineer hear shots being fired. Then he says police officers arriving hear shots, too. But then he backtracks and says the cops who arrived didn’t hear shots because “the suspect had stopped firing.”

      He says there was a volley back into the hallway at Campos (but he doesn’t mention the engineer) in between, among all that shooting. He says what was put in the log at 21:59 was the call about the blocked door. He says the cops didn’t know shots were fired until around 10:05 and he seems to say that wasn’t in the log at the hotel but they figured out the time from other calls made, computer-aided dispatch, body-worn cameras, other people’s observations like Uber and taxis. He doesn’t say there’s any record of Campos’s two calls to dispatch in the hotel. It sounds like it wasn’t written into their log, which is why the only call logged from Campos about the blocked door was mistaken as the time Campos called in the shooting. (It seems more and more as if he didn’t call it in. Was that audio they released faked after the fact?)

      Most firing by the suspect was about 10:05. (But that of course doesn’t match the NY Times timeline. It went on for a long time.)

      He talks about the two officers that were in the hotel for some other reason, how they “become aware of a possible active shooter” and they got phone calls from “security” of something happening on one of the upper floors. They figure out the floor when they get up there. NOTE that Campos supposedly had already told security dispatch the ROOM and the FLOOR, according to the audio they released. So why, then, didn’t the officers KNOW the room already?

      He says they got there within 10 minutes of the shooting starting. He doesn’t say which dispatch contacted them (cops or hotel). He says they encountered the same blocked stair door! So why didn’t they already know about that, either, if Campos had called THAT in, too, and it was logged? (It sounds to me as if these cops had no communication at all with the hotel dispatch office.)

      Sheriff says again they had no idea what floor. WHY NOT? This Knapp guy is not very astute, to not question this stuff. 12 minutes later the other cops arrived via elevators. By then “the suspect” had stopped firing. They cleared the other rooms, and made a plan to breach the room. Normally, they’d take all the time they needed but in this case they decided to breach the door in case he was reloading. (This took them an hour, though!)

      Was asked why Paddock committed suicide. Now the sheriff isn’t sure if Paddock, after all, did have a plan to escape. Paddock researched police tactics on his computer. They found that out from his computer. (The one with no hard drive?) Paddock had equipment for “survive-ability” in the room and had his car with explosives in it. These questions may never be answered. The explosives weren’t rigged.

      Asked what about reports of shooters at other hotels. He says they make assumptions that there will be other locations; they train for this. It’s intended to confuse first responders. They did have officers respond from all directions. They were also ‘forming teams’ to address other possible events. They got multiple calls from people when perhaps they saw people who had run away from the concert event and were covered in blood so people mistakenly believed the shooting was at their location, too. (Very curious that he talks about “training” and makes it sound almost as if this was a drill of some kind.)

      The cops were “able to quickly dispel those” other reports. (This doesn’t make a lot of sense.) He was asked what about the videos about gunshots at the Bellagio and glass broken there. He says there were no other gunshots there.

      He originally had wrongly said that no cops fired their weapons, but now he’s admitting an “accidental discharge” happened in the room. What it sounds like he’s saying happened: They breached the first door and found Paddock dead. The door from that room to another room was locked or blocked somehow (a bedroom? This is the room that had the other window broken out. Now how could that be? How could that room be locked and couldn’t be opened from Paddock’s room? Why would Paddock have locked or blocked the door to the other room that he allegedly was firing from? This would be the room that that Australian guy claimed was his own room? How did Paddock shoot from that room if the door was locked?)

      Anyway, the cops did a second explosive breach. That’s new, too. They had to blow open the door to that second room, where someone had broken the window and presumably was firing from within. When they blew that door, a cop accidentally fired his weapon. Hmm, hmm, and hmm.

      Who locked the door? Why would a cop “accidentally” fire into the room when the door was breached? Was there somebody in there? Did he THINK he saw somebody in there? Was there another shooter they’re not telling us about? Was that shooter dead, too?

      End of that first video. I’ll watch and report on the second later on.

  4. So the DOJ may charge the Russians…

    Sounds like the narrative is is being legitimized via the WSJ.

    • Uh, huh. It was strange reading. I don’t think the entire article is available unless you have a subscription. They updated it online, but I don’t know what they changed. It sounds as if there’s an argument going on within the FBI/DOJ about whether or not to charge Russians. Of course, the people who care about the TRUTH probably are the ones dragging feet on it and not accepting this so-called assembled “evidence.” The pro-charges people are probably those, like Mueller and Comey, who NEED to get something out there in the media to ANSWER the questions raised by the Nation and the NY Times, concerning a lack of any EVIDENCE that the DNC was hacked by Russians, but also to somehow counteract the report by those cyber experts (former Deep State people themselves) who say that it’s IMPOSSIBLE from a computer forensic standpoint for the “hack” to have happened the way the “intelligence community” wants us to believe. Wasn’t it true that they actually never did say for sure that’s what happened. They actually put a caveat at the top of the report saying it’s only speculation or their supposed “best guess?” It’s all BS.

  5. I’ll give my take on the DNC hack, the missing State emails, the secret server, the cloth and bleachbit, the smashed blackberries, the Awan family spies and business in Congress, Weiner’s conviction, Seth Rich, the wikileaks, the unmasking and the whole kittenkaboodle:

    The former President of the United States was/is a treasonous traitor and the proof is THEREIN.

    • Of course, and maybe that’s why they’re protecting it all–to protect him and preserve this myth of the first “black” president. Boy. Did you see how the released info from the JFK files is revealing some very interesting (and damaging) stuff about MLK? Yikes! For those who put stock in the Trump dossier, this MLK dossier is right up there alongside it. Will be interesting to see if those who believe the Trump dossier accept this MLK stuff, too. (They won’t.)

  6. The Strange Death of Ron Brown.

    Jason, Joe and Jack Cashill ~

    • jack cashwell, great resource ….a journalist/writer who really does search for truth.
      Here’s one that does as well. This video has already been scrubbed from some places, so save it somewhere. I believe this one is very telling on the security guard dude campos that was supposedly hurt. Some very telling evidence.

  7. Thank you Papoose.

  8. Crooked Hillary!! Perfect name for her.

  9. ~ Schrödinger’s cat Harry Tuttle • …. EYES WIDE OPEN!!!

    …Cheap labor & Cheap votes

    Steve got it in one !!!

    Stop the R O T … & Crucify the Traitorous Elite !!!


  10. ~ Smerf
    I love Trump. He brings hope for my children.
    The world is changing…
    I feel it in the water…
    I feel it in the earth…
    I smell it in the air…

    ~ Anteater Yars Revenge
    MAGA is actually pronounced MA-HA, from the Yiddish for
    ‘We’re In!’ a reference to the Israel First Trump Administration, ???

  11. ….sick trash …. just 2 far gone…

  12. this is 2 SAVE ….US ALL…. the HIT is IN FIGHT BACK PLEASE!

  13. OUR SICK ….. FOOLISH WORLD …. ! SEE IT HERE! ….W T F * CK ???????


      Some links from our research on Alwaleed:
      “Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch is partnered in multiple media ventures with Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaweed Bin Talal, including an Arabic religious TV network with a direct tie to Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin.

      Both Prince Alwaweed Bin Talal and Murdoch’s Fox News network have become vocal critics of GOP Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. …”

      “Remember Tony Rezko? A Saudi national. Tony Rezko had direct contact to Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia. Obama charmed Rezko as Senator, letting Rezko set up illegal real-estate scams in Obama’s Chicago district. Obama got major kick-backs from the illegal Rezko land deals. He also got major donations from his new Sugar Daddy, Prince Alwaleed. Alwaleed was ripe for the plucking, because Alwaleed has been trying to buy up America and control certain businesses, including the media. For example, Alwaleed has millions of shares in Fox News (among other media stations). He bragged about telling Fox to change their tune on Obama or else he’d pull his stock. …”

      ““Did radical Muslims help send Obama to Harvard?”

      “In an appearance on the New York-produced “Inside City Hall” television show, octogenarian Harlem lawyer Percy Sutton – whose clients included Malcolm X – explained that Islamic radical Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, … , asked him to write a letter of recommendation to Harvard Law School for then relatively unknown Barack Obama.

      In the video, Sutton says he was introduced to Obama by al-Mansour, a Saudi citizen, who “was then raising money” for Obama.

      Sutton described al-Mansour as being from Texas, saying al-Mansour was the “principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men,” most likely Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.” …”

      That one had been disappeared. Redirected when I selected the link from comments here.

      “Moreover, on November 23, 2008 Geithner, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke agreed to add another $20 billion taxpayer-gilded bailout to Citibank’s previous $25 billion bailout—and offer $306 billion in new loans to cover Citi’s losses on soured real estate debts and securities.

      Only three days earlier Citigroup uber-shareolder Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a godfather of Islamic finance, had announced plans to up his stake in America’s largest (failing and “underpriced”) bank from 4% to 5%. On March 20, 2006, the Saudi Kingdom Holding Co. CEO was “honored for humanitarian contribution to Islam” at a “glittering gala to celebrate excellence in Islamic Finance” that also featured terror-financier and Dallah al-Baraka founder and president Saleh Abdullah Kamel. …”

      “And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)

      It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)

      The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968.” …”

      “In the mid-1970s al-Mansour met Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Tatal, who today is best known for having offered a $10 million donation toward 9/11 relief efforts in 2001 — an offer that was rejected by New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani when the prince suggested that the terrorist attacks were an indication that America “should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause.” Al-Mansour’s relationship with the prince eventually led to al-Mansour’s hiring as attorney to King Saud. He has since been an adviser to Saudi billionaires who fund the spread of Wahhabi extremism in America. …”

      “Huma’s brother has “worked with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on a program of “spreading Islam to the west.” More intriguing is the fact that the Abedin family left Michigan for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, around 1977, which is the same year that the Muslim Sisterhood was formed.” …”

      “Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and his Kingdom Holding Co. bought $500 million of General Motors Co . shares through the automaker’s initial public offering last week. …”

      He’s been arrested in the Saudi purge. Couldn’t happen to a better guy, imho. I believe the guy who may have helped send Barry to college would be this prince’s father, of the same name; not sure, but think so. He’s in his sixties, so close in age to Barry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s