by Luke Rosiak


Then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe tasked the mistress of lead agent Peter Strzok to stay apprised of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private server — a decision that other bureau officials took issue with at the time, according to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s bombshell report.

McCabe was supposed to be insulated from the probe by two levels of management: Strzok worked for counterintelligence head Bill Priestap, who worked for national security head Michael Steinbach, who reported up to McCabe. However, Strzok communicated about the probe with his mistress, Lisa Page, who worked directly for McCabe and acted as a liaison for the Clinton investigation for the deputy director.

The report says:

Lisa Page, who was Special Counsel to McCabe, became involved in the Midyear investigation after McCabe became the Deputy Director in February 2016. Page told the OIG that part of her function was to serve as a liaison between the Midyear team and McCabe.

Page acknowledged that her role upset senior FBI officials, but told the OIG that McCabe relied on her to ensure that he had the information he needed to make decisions, without it being filtered through multiple layers of management.

Several witnesses told the OIG that Page circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or Steinbach’s knowledge. McCabe said that he was aware of complaints about Page, and that he valued her ability to “spot issues” and bring them to his attention when others did not.

McCabe has been the subject of concerns about political bias in the FBI’s handling of the case because of his family’s ties to the Clintons.  Around the time of the investigation, McCabe’s wife received $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. The money was for McCabe’s wife to run for state senate, an unusual amount of money for that office.
The IG report makes clear that McCabe intentionally essentially used Page as a mole to bypass multiple subordinates to feed him information about the probe.

It also contains an organizational chart detailing the chain of command on the Clinton emails investigation, annotated by The Daily Caller News Foundation here to highlight the way in which Page’s role was to be McCabe’s eyes and ears instead of relying on the normal channels.

Much of the most blatant anti-Trump rhetoric from FBI agents involved in the case has come from the text messages of Strzok and Page. Page made no secret where her allegiances lie, writing: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The two exchanged tens of thousands of texts about the matter.

Politics

Corrupt: McCabe Used Strzok’s Mistress To Keep Unauthorized Tabs on Clinton Probe

By Luke Rosiak
June 17, 2018 at 3:43pm

Then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe tasked the mistress of lead agent Peter Strzok to stay apprised of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private server — a decision that other bureau officials took issue with at the time, according to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s bombshell report.

McCabe was supposed to be insulated from the probe by two levels of management: Strzok worked for counterintelligence head Bill Priestap, who worked for national security head Michael Steinbach, who reported up to McCabe. However, Strzok communicated about the probe with his mistress, Lisa Page, who worked directly for McCabe and acted as a liaison for the Clinton investigation for the deputy director.

The report says:

Lisa Page, who was Special Counsel to McCabe, became involved in the Midyear investigation after McCabe became the Deputy Director in February 2016. Page told the OIG that part of her function was to serve as a liaison between the Midyear team and McCabe.

Page acknowledged that her role upset senior FBI officials, but told the OIG that McCabe relied on her to ensure that he had the information he needed to make decisions, without it being filtered through multiple layers of management.

TRENDING: Trump: I’m Cutting All Aid to Countries Abusing America’s Immigration System [Video]

Several witnesses told the OIG that Page circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or Steinbach’s knowledge. McCabe said that he was aware of complaints about Page, and that he valued her ability to “spot issues” and bring them to his attention when others did not.

McCabe has been the subject of concerns about political bias in the FBI’s handling of the case because of his family’s ties to the Clintons. Around the time of the investigation, McCabe’s wife received $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. The money was for McCabe’s wife to run for state senate, an unusual amount of money for that office.

The IG report makes clear that McCabe intentionally essentially used Page as a mole to bypass multiple subordinates to feed him information about the probe.

It also contains an organizational chart detailing the chain of command on the Clinton emails investigation, annotated by The Daily Caller News Foundation here to highlight the way in which Page’s role was to be McCabe’s eyes and ears instead of relying on the normal channels.

Much of the most blatant anti-Trump rhetoric from FBI agents involved in the case has come from the text messages of Strzok and Page. Page made no secret where her allegiances lie, writing: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok replied: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The two exchanged tens of thousands of texts about the matter.

Texts show that Page was conflicted about taking the job with McCabe, because she is a lawyer and he wanted her to be his “special assistant.”“ The Deputy Director picked ME to work for him,” Page wrote on Feb. 3. But “I’m a lawyer, it’s my identity.”

RELATED: Peter Strzok Loses Security Clearance as Conspiracy To Harm Trump Unravels

Strzok said it would be tough to get McCabe to call her his “special counsel.” But ultimately — with Page considering turning down the job if she could not get the title — that’s what happened. “Let [McCabe] take the lead on role and expectations.”

It is unclear why it was so important to McCabe that information about the Clinton probe not be “filtered through multiple layers of management,” the IG report said, but officials may have believed that it would be inappropriate or abnormal to share certain information with him.

The IG report said numerous people in the FBI were telling McCabe to recuse himself from the Clinton probe due to the appearance of conflict. McCabe resisted recusal and got into an “argument” and tense conversations with FBI officials.

FBI General Counsel James Baker “had a series of conversations with McCabe culminating in a ‘very intense’ conversation in which Baker told McCabe that he believed he needed to recuse himself and that it was better that he do it ‘than have the boss order him to do it.’ He said McCabe ‘was not happy about it’ and ‘had lots of questions’ and they had a ‘good argument back and forth,’” the report said.

Then-FBI Director James Comey said in the report that he would have taken McCabe off the investigation sooner had he known about the donations to McCabe’s wife.

McCabe has not addressed whether he knew that Page and Strzok were having an affair and whether that is why Page had such a knack to “spot issues” in the Clinton probe.

McCabe was fired in March 2018 for displayed what the IG called a “lack of candor” during interviews about his authorization of an FBI official to speak with The Wall Street Journal in October 2016 about the Clinton email investigation and is currently suing the government.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

by Anonymous

{Some interesting articles do claim that Asparagus has anticancer benefits here and here.  Although there is a shortage of scientific study on the vegetable, that's not to say that the notion is false simply because asparagus isn't effective against all forms of cancer. What drug is? Homeopathic cures are always worth investigating despite the negative din from the usual naysayers like Snopes, Hoaxslayer, etc, who among other things, enjoy protecting the drug empire and its billions. - The following claims for asparagus curing cancer are purely anecdotal and we make no claims as to their veracity.  However the medicinal benefits claimed in the links cited are trustworthy. - ED}

Several years ago I met a man seeking asparagus for a friend who had cancer.. He gave me a copy of an article,  entitled "Asparagus For Cancer" printed in the Cancer News Journal, December 1979. I will share it here, just as it was shared with me: I am a biochemist, and have specialized in the relation of diet to health or over 50 years. Several years ago, I learned of the discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. that asparagus might cure cancer.  Since then, I have worked with him on his project. We have accumulated a number of favorable case histories. Here are a few examples:

Case No. 1, A man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated. Within 1 year of starting the asparagus therapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a
schedule of strenuous exercise.

Case No. 2, A successful businessman, 68 years old, suffered from cancer of the bladder for 16 years.  After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he began taking asparagus. Within 3 months, examinations revealed that his bladder tumor had disappeared and that his kidneys were normal.

Case No. 3, On March 5th 1971, a man who had lung cancer was put on the operating table where they found lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable.The surgeon sewed him up and declared his case hopeless. On April 5th he heard about the Asparagus
therapy and immediately started taking it. By August, x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared. He is now back at his regular business routine.

Case No. 4, A woman had been troubled for a number of years with skin cancer. She developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by the acting specialist as advanced. Within 3 months after beginning asparagus therapy, the skin  specialist said her skin looked fine with no more skin lesions. This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney disease, which had started in 1949. She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability payments for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition. She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus treatment.

I was not surprised at this result as `The elements of materia medica', edited in1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania , stated that asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones. He even referred to experiments, in 1739, on the power of
asparagus in dissolving stones. Note the dates! We would have other case histories but the medical establishment has interfered with our obtaining some  of the records. I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large
number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy.

Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are believed to be active in controlling cell growth. For that reason, I believe asparagus can be said to contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer. That accounts for its action on cancer and
in acting as a general body tonic. In any event, regardless of theory, asparagus used as we suggest, is  a harmless substance. The FDA cannot prevent you  from using it and it may do you much good. It has  been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that
asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body's  most potent anti-carcinogens and antioxidants.

Just a side note... In case you are wondering why this has not been made public, there is no profit in curing cancer!

By Chris Agee


A recent report compiled by U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz makes public new allegations and contradicts previous statements regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s improper use of a private email server.

The scandal became a major campaign issue during her 2016 presidential bid and resulted in a federal investigation, which was the subject of the report released this week.

A number of high-ranking officials were named in the document and accused of some level of involvement in the scandal, including former President Barack Obama. Clinton served as secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office.

One of the major revelations in Horowitz’s report involves Obama’s apparent “direct contact” with Clinton through the private email account. He reportedly used an account with a pseudonymous email username.

“FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account,” a footnote in the 568-page report states.

TRENDING: ‘What Is… Jail?’: Winner of ‘Jeopardy’ Facing Prison for Hacking Email Accounts

The emails sent and received were not classified, according to the inspector general, and there was no indication the president purposely communicated with his secretary of state through an unsecured channel.

Nevertheless, Obama critics say the report appears to contradict statements both the president and then-White House press secretary Josh Earnest offered when the investigation got underway in 2015.

In a CBS interview, Obama said he learned of the email controversy at “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

Earnest issued a followup statement acknowledging that as “many people expected,” Obama “did over the course of his first several years in office, trade emails with the secretary of state.”

At the time, skeptics maintained that the difference between a secured “.gov” email address and Clinton’s “.com” domain should have been enough to raise a red flag for Obama. Earnest and others, however, continued to maintain the president did not have advanced knowledge of Clinton’s email situation.

Obama was cited in the inspector general’s report for reasons other than his email correspondences with Clinton.  As National Review noted, Obama made multiple appearances in the document.

His contribution to the controversy was largely limited to his assertion in a “60 Minutes” interview, that some in the intelligence community felt undermined their investigation.

“Former President Obama’s comments caused concern among FBI officials about the potential impact on the investigation,” the report states. “Former (Executive Assistant Director) John Giacalone told the OIG, ‘We open up criminal investigations. And you have the President of the United States saying this is just a mistake. … That’s a problem, right?'”

Others in the FBI had similar reactions, the inspector general reported.

“Former AD Randy Coleman expressed the same concern, stating, ‘(The FBI had) a group of guys in here, professionals, that are conducting an investigation. And the … President of the United States just came out and said there’s no there there,'” Horowitz wrote. “Coleman said that he would have expected someone in FBI or Department leadership to contact one of Obama’s national security officials, and ‘tell (him or her), hey knock it off.'”

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family.

by JD Heyes

For some reason, the American Medical Association — which was founded to promote the American medical community — wants to wade into one of the premier political battles of our day: Gun control.

The AMA has shifted at least some of its attention recently away from pushing Big Pharma meds that kill more than 100,000 Americans a year to jumping on the gun confiscation bandwagon pushed by the Marxist Left.

As reported by TownHall,

the organization last week approved a wide-ranging list of “common sense” gun control demands that include banning the sale of “all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.”

The list was okayed by the AMA’s House of Delegates, a pretend ‘legislative body’ that meets a couple times a year at overpriced venues to drink overpriced liquor and vote on medical and political ‘recommendations.

As TownHall noted further:

The lengthy list of gun policy changes also includes bans on the sale of firearms and ammunition to those under 21 years of age, prohibitions on the ownership and unsupervised use of firearms by those under 21, and the establishment of a national gun registry for all firearms and a gun licensing system for gun owners.

Also, the organization’s gun control proposals include a number of provisions ostensibly aimed at curbing domestic violence and abuse, including one recommendation for a new legal tool by which “family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel” can go to court in order to have a person’s guns confiscated “when there is a high or imminent risk for violence.” 

No ‘risk’ of having that authority abused, right?

According to a blog post introducing the ‘common sense’ proposals, the AMA appears to ignore a well-established  constitutional  requirement — due process — which must be engaged before a person’s property or belongings can be confiscated by authorities. 

Were this proposal to be implemented, it would mean the accused would not have an opportunity to defend himself or herself in court. Also, the proposals contain nothing in terms of how “risk for violence” would actually be defined, which means that even people without criminal records or any previous history of violence or abuse could feasibly have their firearms taken from them.

Who gets to decide?

The lack of defining parameters also extends to the AMA’s call for confiscating “high-capacity magazines” and “armor-piercing bullets.” (Related: Prescription drugs far more dangerous to Americans than guns.)

Typically, “high-capacity” has meant those that can hold 10 or more bullets, though New York state defines the term as a magazine capable of holding only seven or more rounds. Lawmakers in that state, by the way, never really said how they determined what the “safe” or “appropriate” level of bullets was in order to ‘allow’ state residents the ‘right’ to defend themselves and family. For instance, no one really knows how they arrived at seven bullets rather than five, or 11, or eight or…well, you get the idea.

The AMA’s guidelines also do not provide any definition of “armor-piercing,” and while that may seem rather obvious, remember that these demands were written up by Leftist anti-gunners, so the term could mean something completely different.

And if the term is applied too broadly, then it could apply to any bullet capable of piercing Kevlar-based body armor, which would encompass nearly every rifle round above .22 caliber.

One thing to remember as well is that these proposals are not being made as a symbolic gesture. The Big Pharma-linked AMA is making them with the intent of presenting them to lawmakers all over the country and in Washington, D.C. and getting them implemented.

“People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,” said AMA Immediate Past President David Barb, MD. 

Yes, well, they’re dying more often in vehicles and from prescription drugs, but no one’s calling for them to be banned.

Read more about Big Pharma’s death toll at PharmaDeathClock.com.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

TownHall.com

NaturalNews.com

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).