Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Obama & The Clintons Sold us Out – Uranium One

Judge Jeanine Pirro slammed the Obama administration’s sale of uranium to Russia at a time when the FBI was monitoring racketeering in the deal.

“Obama and the Clintons sold us out- our uranium and with it the security of our nation,” Pirro said on “Justice” Saturday.

This week a report broke that the FBI and Justice Department were investigating extortion, money laundering, bribery, and kickback schemes between Russia and the U.S. aimed at growing Russia’s nuclear industry in America. – Fox News Insider

 

Note:  Judge Jeanine will be the keynote speaker at the Alachua County Republican Party’s Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ on November 9th. Please see the link at the end of this post for more information. Tickets are still available –  Don’t miss it!

Below is the transcript of the judge’s opening statement from Saturday’s program:

Now, Obama and the Clintons sold us out, our uranium and with it, the security of our nation. Follow me, it’s 2008, the Russians frantic, desperate to buy uranium, the key ingredient to a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration, more than willing to accommodate. In fact, the whole upper tier of the Obama administration, those paragons of globalist virtue, approved the deal.

But this week we find out that as far back as 2009, the FBI and the Department of Justice had an active large-scale criminal investigation into Russia and Kremlin connected individuals scheming to access America’s uranium ranging from bribery, money laundering and kickback schemes. An FBI informant, an American businessman was wired and provided unmistakable evidence.

Now I told you a year ago, that Bill and Hillary were cashing in on her State Department job with their so-called charitable foundation. Instead it was an international money laundering operation, a veritable pay-to-play slush fund, funded not only by foreign countries, but by companies and individuals involved in this particular Uranium One scheme to the tune of a hundred and forty five million dollars. And guess what? The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose major contributions from entities involved in this Uranium One deal, violating not only Hillary’s promises to the Obama White House and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but evidencing her consciousness of guilt.

So why is this important? Folks, context is everything. The backdrop of the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to the Russians was Putin’s ongoing racketeering enterprise that the Obama inner circle knew about, and the FBI and our Department of Justice was actually monitoring and investigating and yes, subsequently allowed the transfer to Russia.

You know the players. Follow the names: The Department of Justice headed by Eric Holder in charge not only of this investigation, but also on the small committee that approved the sale to Russia, the case itself handled by Rod Rosenstein. You know him, the same man who told Jeff Sessions to recuse himself, get out of the way of the Russia investigation, so that Rosenstein could appoint Bob Mueller to try to connect Trump to Russia. And if that isn’t the irony of all ironies. The head of the FBI at the time, Bob Mueller, the man now appointed special counsel to connect Donald Trump to Russia. And the FBI agent handling the case, Andrew McCabe. He’s the man who was handling the email investigation of Hillary. And you may remember his wife got $675,000 from Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe, also connected to the Clinton Foundation, because she ran with Hillary in 2016. Now she lost, but under Virginia law she can keep whatever cash was left from that oh so generous contribution.

Now at the time of the approval of the transfer of our uranium to Russia, Republicans in Congress objected on the basis of our national security. They worried that Russia helped Iran build its nuclear reactor, and that the takeover of United States nuclear resources by a Russian government owned agency, would be against our national security interests. Why does this all matter? At the time that the Obama administration green-lighted this sale, Republicans in Congress objected. And they didn’t even know about the criminality and the money-laundering.

So you asked yourself: what happened to that criminal case? The criminal case was plea bargained to a lesser crime on Labor Day weekend. The sentence a slap on the wrist, meted out at Christmas time with none of the bells and whistles that normally accompany an international racketeering case. The informant now, who brought the case to the FBI’s attention, he is still gagged by Eric Holder and then Loretta Lynch via that non-disclosure agreement where the sanction is a criminal penalty. In other words he is barred from talking. Neither his attorney Victoria Toensing, nor I with a combination of 80 years of law enforcement experience, have ever heard of such a thing.

But think about it folks, it makes lots of sense. The country cannot know what Obama, Mueller, Holder, McCabe and Rosenstein knew and that is, the sale of our uranium and the cash that went to the Clintons and their foundation accompanied by a racketeering operation that was literally allowed to disappear before our eyes.

Now Congress wants to hear from this informant, and now, there are three things that must happen: Number one, Jeff Sessions needs to immediately release the informant from the non-disclosure agreement, number two, Andrew McCabe needs to be fired as number two in the FBI and number three Robert Mueller, instead of heading an investigation into determining whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia, should be the target of an investigation for his role in covering up the extortion scheme that allowed Russia to access America’s uranium.

And that’s my open. Tell me what you think on my Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages, hashtag: JudgeJeanine

http://www.blacktieandbluejeans.com/

Deep State Gone Wild: “J. Edgar” Comey Asserts Unprecedented FBI Supremacy

James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.

The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn’s alleged involvement with Russia–a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of “FBI senior leadership” unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.

The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that it wasn’t obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced soon.

“We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role,” Comey said. “After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed.”

According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney General of a matter because of his or her “acting” status nor to use the expectation of a recusal as a basis for withholding information.

“This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you’d expect from the supposedly by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI,” one of those officials told Breitbart News. Continue reading at breitbart.com.

L.A. Times Stunned by Diversity of Volunteers at Trump H.Q.

trump-hq

Adelle Nazarian / Breitbart News

by Adelle Nazarian

The Los Angeles Times paid a visit to Donald Trump’s Southern California headquarters in Long Beach on Monday and was stunned by the diversity of volunteers who are committed to seeing him win the Golden State and the presidency.

“It was as if the whole thing had been staged, in Cambodia Town, no less, to belie the notion that Trump’s appeal is largely limited to older white males,” the Times‘s Steve Lopez wrote. In Long Beach, one of America’s most diverse cities, that same diversity was reflected in Trump’s supporters at his Southern California headquarters.

Lopez spoke with a woman and millennials of Filipino descent, a Mexican-American, and a Jewish man, and saw the “names of volunteers from the African-American, Hispanic and Asian communities” written on blackboards adorning the names of volunteers. He noted that “two middle-aged white people [also] joined the party.”

Trump’s grand opening for his headquarters took place this past Saturday, and Breitbart News was there to cover it. As Lopez was told, there were hundreds of people there over the course of the opening; many of them were able to enjoy a performance that was put on by dancers from the Khmer Arts Cultural Center, known as a traditional Cambodian “blessing dance;” something Lopez wrote he would have paid to see.

Lopez wrote that an unnamed Mexican-American Trump volunteer told him that “there are too many illegals here… and they dirty the place up and they take jobs and do things hey shouldn’t.” Lopez noted that once he found out he was with the Times, the man said “the only thing the Times is any good for is to wrap fish in it,” before walking away (Bold type: mine).  Continue reading at breitbart.com.

 

Win or Lose, We Will Never Surrender

Blue State BluesEarlier this week, Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller suggested that Republican leaders might offer a “negotiated surrender” to Hillary Clinton as part of a trade: one Supreme Court pick, some rudimentary entitlement reform, and a double-A shortstop to be named later, or something.

Viewed charitably, Weinstein seems to be arguing that a surrender would keep Congress in Republican hands, and preserve a conservatism of sorts. What he fails to understand is that Democrats are hell-bent on maximizing power, and destroying conservatism.

The New York Times, increasingly less coy about its left-wing agenda, proclaimed last week: “Democrats, Looking Past Mere Victory, Hope to End the Trump Movement.” Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe tweeted last month: “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.” Continue reading at breitbart.com.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement May 21st, 2016

On Saturday’s Justice With Judge Jeanine, Judge Pirro weighs in on which presidential candidate would keep us safer. Of course she uses  Hillary Clinton’s unsecure emails and her mishandling and lying about the Benghazi attack as predictors:

Here is the full video and the complete transcript of her opening statement:

Hello and welcome to Justice. I’m Judge Jeanine Pirro. Thanks for being with us tonight. Now my opening statement:

You know, there’s only one person who can keep Americans safe and although it may have happened in the other, in another part of the world, it has crystallized an issue confronting us. And will ultimately determine who moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2017. The ripples from the crash of EgyptAir flight 804, have reached our shores and teed up the question: Who will keep us safe? Take a listen to the contenders.

Chris Cuomo on CNN: “Do you think that Donald Trump is qualified to be President?”
Hillary Clinton: “No I do not.”

Donald Trump on Fox News: “She is so ill-equipped to be the president.”

Now to be clear, the cause of the flight’s demise is yet undetermined, but each of the contenders has said the probable causes terrorism. Trump tweets at 6:27 a.m., hours after the plane vanishes: “Looks like yet another terrorist attack.” More than seven hours after Trump’s tweet, Hillary says: “It does appear that it was an act of terrorism.” Now I suspect the seven hour, more than seven hour difference, reflects either Hillary’s need to sleep late, or to gauge the political winds.

Now economy is the number one issue, terror number two, but I would venture a guess, even more important than money for most, is safety. So who will keep us safer? The polls, almost even a week ago, show most trust Donald Trump to do a better job than Hillary on terrorism. But each one of them says that we’re safer with him or her. So where’s the truth? Let’s take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

In spite their protestations, the world is a more dangerous place since Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to power. The so-called Arab Spring sold as a refreshing movement toward democracy was nothing more than a volcanic eruption leaving a vacuum that barbaric mediaeval Islamists ran to fill.

Madam Secretary, you cannot deny it was you who lobbied for the overthrow of Libyan president Gaddafi, creating a descent into chaos and a welcome mat to terrorists. It was you, Madam Secretary, who didn’t protect ambassador Chris Stevens. Instead, responding to your so called friend’s plea for more security by actually reducing his security. And it was you, who left Americans at that consulate when the Brits left, and the Red Cross left because everybody else knew it was too dangerous. It was you who lied about a video when you told your own daughter that same night that it was an al-Qaida like attack in Benghazi. And you have audacity to say to the parents of those killed, are basically liars when they repeated what you said. But then again, you talk a big game about terrorism:

Hillary Clinton on CNN: “Once again shines a very bright light on the threats that we face from organized terror groups. ISIS of course, but then there are other networks of terrorists that have to be hunted down and defeated.”

You’re going to hunt them down? Hillary, how long do your hunts take? Who’s been brought to justice in the attack in Benghazi? And your doublespeak for the last seven and a half years. When a shooter yells Allah Akbar, and kills Americans at Fort Hood, we’re supposed to call it workplace violence. And after Benghazi the word Islamic is removed from the term Islamic extremists because we don’t want to inflame their anger as if they already want to kill us.

By the way Hillary, why haven’t you taken a clear position on the release of those 28 sealed pages in the 911 Commission report that discusses Saudi Arabia’s role? Could it be because the Persian Gulf states notorious for their own human rights violations and their leaders reportedly donated as much as a hundred million dollars to your family’s so-called charity? Question: Why would these Arabs give money to the Clintons, instead of helping those in their own countries. After all, Hillary, charity doesn’t begin at the Clinton Foundation, it begins at home.

And, you’re gonna keep us safe? Your old State Department’s refugee program can’t even vet refugees coming here. And what’s that, all those are only words? You have everyone so fearful of being called an Islamophobe, that ordinary Americans didn’t report suspicious deliveries at the home of the Islamic terrorists who killed 14 in San Bernardino.

And you’re gonna keep us safe Hillary? Hell, you can’t even keep top secret intelligence on your BlackBerry without Russia, China and a Romanian hacker accessing it. So how can you keep us safe when you speak a different language from ordinary Americans? How can you keep us safe, when you can’t even say who the enemy is? It’s not violent extremists, it’s not terrorists, its Islamic extremists, its Islamic terrorists. And you can’t mouth the words. Say it. Say it. But you won’t. This isn’t a parlor game, and not one for the faint of heart. So, go back to bed Hillary, there’s someone else who’s going to protect us.

And that’s my open. Tell me what you think of my Facebook page or Twitter hashtag Judge Jeanine.

Clinton Asked if She Would See the Benghazi Movie – Her Answer: “Too Busy!”

Still playing:  Regal Gainesville Cinema Stadium 14  Butler Plaza

Sunday, on CNN, Jake Tapper asked Hillary if she is planning to see the Benghazi movie:

Jake Tapper: A new movie opened this weekend. It’s called 13 Hours the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. It’s a cinematic version of a book, a nonfiction book telling the story of the six private security contractors who defended the US consulate in Benghazi Libya from an attack by Islamic militants are you planning to see it at all?

Mrs. Clinton: I’m just too busy campaigning. Um, I am still very focused on making sure we do everything we can, as I did when I was Secretary of State, as I testified to, over 11 hours, to make sure that, uh, nothing like that happens again insofar as we are able to prevent it and that’s my focus when it comes to, uh, the continuing obligation that the United States government has whenever we send anyone into harm’s way.

Asleep at the Switch? Hillary Late Returning to Debate

From Latest Political News:

During the ABC News Democratic Debate on Saturday night, party frontrunner Hillary Clinton was apparently not alerted as to when to return to the debate stage after the event’s first commercial break. While debate moderators David Muir and Martha Raddatz of ABC News attempted to continue the conversation, only Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley were on the stage.

Muir made note coming back from commercial that Clinton was missing; as the opening question turned to Senator Sanders, a rousing applause — perhaps one of sarcasm? — rippled through the crowd as Clinton returned to her podium. Clinton simply said into the microphone, “Sorry”.

“We believe Secretary Clinton will be coming around the corner any minute,” stalled the moderator Muir. The question for Sanders dealt with the rising salaries of corporate CEOs, but Clinton’s late arrival on stage stole the focus of the moment.

One can only wonder why Ms. Clinton was so late returning from the break. Did she simply forget, was it a residual effect of her previous illness and concussion or maybe Bill Belichick let the air out of her tires. Perhaps Muir should have used the phrase coming around rather than coming around the corner.

View moreLoading ...