HOW CORRUPT CONGRESS AND OUR GOV.HAVE BECOME!

Stone said he was aware that Podesta also had business ties to Russia, and that
journalists were beginning to look into those. That’s what prompted the tweet, he said.
Indeed, earlier that year, media accounts (http://observer.com/2016/04/panamapapers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/) based on the so-called Panama Papers
(https://panamapapers.icij.org/) reported that Podesta’s company, the Podesta Group,
had been hired to lobby on behalf of one of Russia’s biggest financial institutions. And
in October, the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-podesta-andthe-russians-1477262565) published an opinion piece on business ties between
Podesta and a Russia-backed investment firm.
In an Oct. 19 story for Breitbart, (http://www.breitbart.com/hillaryclinton/2016/10/19/stone-wikileaks-mike-morell-russia/) Stone said Podesta’s
business ties to Russia were the motivation for the tweet.Memo: Aug. 31, 2016
From: Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
To: Roger Stone
RE: John Podesta Ties to Russia
PODESTA
NEW YORK – A much overlooked report by CNN published on Aug. 19,
2016, highlighting that the FBI had begun an investigation of former Trump
campaign chairman Paul Manafort for his involvement in Ukraine,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trumpukraine/index.html CNN also reported the FBI was also investigating the
Podesta Group to the Ukrainian government and the alleged corruption by
the party of the former president Victor Yanukovych.
The Podesta Group is widely known to Washington insiders as the lobbying
and public relations firm run by Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton
campaign chairman John Podesta – the former chief of staff for President
Bill Clinton, who founded in 2003 the Center for American Progress, which
functions in D.C. as a George Soros-funded liberal think tank that continues
to exert public policy influence on both the Obama administration and the
Clinton presidential campaign.
FBI investigates Podesta Group’s Russian ties
CNN further reported on Aug. 19 the Podesta Group had issued a statement
affirming the firm has retained the boutique Washington-based law
http://www.capdale.com firm Caplin & Drysdale “to determine if we were
mislead by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with
potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.”
The Podesta Group statement issued to CNN continued: "When the Centre
became a client, it certified in writing that 'none of the activities of the
Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or
subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a
foreign political party.' We relied on that certification and advice from
counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”2The CNN statement concluded with the statement, “We will take whatever
measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin &
Drysdale's review, including possible legal action against the Centre."
In breaking the story that the Podesta Group had hired Caplin & Drysdale,
Buzz Feed https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/top-lobbying-firm-hires
outside-counsel-in-ukraine-manafort?utm term=.duLexkeKBx#.rj4gn3gmln
reported on Aug. 19, that both the Podesta Group and Manafort’s D.C.
political firm were working under contract with the same group advising
Yanukovych and his Ukrainian Party of Regions – namely the non-profit
European Centre for a Modern Ukraine based in Brussels.
On Dec. 20, 2013, Reuters reported http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa
ukraine-lobbying-idUSBRE9BJ1B220131220#6oTXxKZp25obYxzF.99 the
European Centre for a Modern Ukraine paid $900,000 to the Podesta Group
for a two-year contract aimed at improving the image of the Yanukovych
government in the United States that the Podesta Group told Reuters they
were implementing through contacts with key congressional Democrats.
Podesta Group undermines Democratic Party narrative attacking
Manafort and Trump
Mainstream media attention has focused on the contract Manafort’s K-Street
firm Davis, Manafort & Freedman had tracing back to 2007 with
Yanukovych’s political party, Ukraine’s Party of Regions,
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KIEV473 a.html to perform an
“extreme makeover,” repositioning the party from being perceived as a
“haven for Donetsk-based mobsters and oligarchs” into that of a legitimate
political party.
On Feb. 21, 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29761799
Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped then President Yanukovych to flee
violent protests seeking to oust him from office, by flaying out of Ukraine
and traveling through Crimea, to arrive Russia, where he has remained,
trying desperately to restore himself to power back home in Kiev.
In Manafort’s case, opponents have failed to document Manafort ever
received some $12.7 million in some 22 previously undisclosed cash
payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party as supposedly documented
by “black ledger” entries revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-CorruptionBureau. Yet, this “evidence” was sufficient for New York Times reporters
to concludehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafortukraine-donald-trump.html that Manafort had hidden back-channel ties to
Putin financed by under-the-table payments arranged via Ukraine.
From there, the Democratic Party narrative
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-15/ukraine-documentsdetail-cash-payments-to-paul-manafort charges Manafort never registered as
a foreign agent with the U.S. Justice Department that would only have been
required if he was contracted with the Ukrainian government, not with a
political party in the Ukraine, and that Manafort transferred his close
relationship with Putin (via Yanukovych) to the Trump campaign.
From there, the Democratic Party narrative continues to suggest Manafort’s
close relationship to the Kremlin allowed him to position the Trump
campaign to receive a dump of hacked emails that embarrassed the Clinton
campaign by exposing the efforts Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as chairman
of the DNC, took to rig the primaries for Hillary, to the distinct disadvantage
of challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The entire Democratic Party narrative is thrown into disarray if it turns out
the Podesta brothers, via the Podesta Group, have tighter and more easily
documentable financial ties to Russia, involving far greater numbers than
have ever been suggested to tie Manafort to Russia via Ukraine.
Podesta Group, D.C. lobbyist for Russian bank accused in Ukraine of
terrorist ties
Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents
leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing
the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking
transactions dating back to the 1970s was the disclosure
http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlinconnection/ Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sherbank, uses the
Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.
“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its
public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being
known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift
some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the
Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the
country’s hard-hit financial sector,” http://observer.com/2016/04/panamapapers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/ wrote former National Security
Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer
http://observer.com/author/john-r-schindler/ John R. Schindler in an article
entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published
by the Observer on April 7, 2016.
“It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders
like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly
understand how American politics work,” Schindler continued.“The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money,” Schindler
asked. “That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s
the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired.
Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank
wound up in the Panama Papers.”
Schindler noted that since the 1990s, Sberbank has grown to be Russia’s
dominant bank, controlling nearly 30 percent of Russia’s aggregate banking
assets and employing a quarter-million people. The majority stockholder in
Sberbank is Russia’s Central Bank, making Sberbank functionally an arm of
the Russian government, though officially Sberbank is a private institution.
“Certainly Western intelligence is well acquainted with Sberbank, noting its
close relationship with Vladimir Putin and his regime. Funds moving
through Sberbank are regularly used to support clandestine Russian
intelligence operations, while the bank uses its offices abroad as cover for
the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR,” Schindler pointed out.
A NATO counterintelligence official explained that Sberbank, which has
outposts in almost two dozen foreign countries, “functions as a sort of arm
of the SVR outside Russia, especially because many of its senior employees
are ‘former’ Russian intelligence officers.” Inside the country, Sberbank has
an equally cosy relationship with the Federal Security Service or FSB,
Russia’s powerful domestic intelligence agency.On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times repor
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/ukraine-charges-russias-sberbank-wifinancing-terrorism-34125 Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against
Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.”
Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal infestation concluded Sberbank had
distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists
fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of
Russian aggression against Ukraine.”On April 5, 2016, http://freebeacon.com/issues/panama-papers-implicatepodesta-client/ Lachlan Markay reporting in the Washington Free Beacon
published
http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=8a5b
d4fb-2687-4cdf-9906-0a65f4d8d52b&filingTypeID=1 the lobbying
registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving
Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests
with banking, trade, and foreign relations.
Markay further reported that according to the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of journalists exploring the
Panama Papers leak, Sberbank and Troika Dialog have ties to companies
used by members of Putin’s inner circle to funnel state resources into
lucrative private investments.
“Some of these companies were initially connected to the Troika Dialog
investment fund, which was controlled and run by Sberbank after the bank
bought the Troika Dialog investment bank. Troika and Sberbank declined to
comment,” Markay noted the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project, concluded https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/the-secretcaretaker/ in a report published in April 2016.
On March 30, 2016, Politico reported
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2016/03/etsy-registerspodesta-for-sberbank-lend-lease-cov-for-bacardi-livingston-for-curacao-andst-maarten-pizza-for-hillary-213495 the Podesta Group registered to lobby
for the U.S. subsidiary of Sherbank to see if relief could be obtained for the
bank in the easing of U.S. sanctions against Russia for Russia’s role in the
Ukraine conflict.The Podesta Group and the Russian uranium scam6
On Aug. 20, 2016, Breitbart reporter Jerome Hudson
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/20/fbi-doj-launch-probefirm-clinton-campaign-chairman-john-podesta/ documented that the Podesta
Group was paid a total of $180,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000065156&year=201
5 according to public records for the consulting work done under contract
with the Russia-controlled firm Uranium One in 2012, 2014, and 2015.
The Daily Caller reported on April 29, 2015,
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/firm-co-founded-by-hillarys-campaignchair-lobbies-for-russias-uranium-one/ that the Podesta group was to lobby
the State Department while Hillary was secretary of state, with $40,000 of
the total paid to lobby the State Department, the Senate, and the National
Security Council on “international mining projects.”
As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,”
and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The
Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed
millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained
ownership of the company.
New York Times reporters Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, in an article
entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,”
that the newspaper printed on April 23, 2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundationas-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html? r=2 documented
the tie between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation as the Uranium One
deal evolved.
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three
separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of
cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation,” Becker and McIntire wrote.
“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four
donations totaling $2.35 million,” the New York Times reporters continued.
“Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly
identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as
well.Becker and McIntire further noted that shortly after the Russians announced
their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton
received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
CIFUS is the acronym for https://www.treasury.gov/resource
center/international/Pages/Committee-on-Foreign-Investment-in-US.aspx
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the inter-agency
committee of the U.S. government, operating out of the U.S. Treasury, that
is responsible to review and authorize transactions of a U.S. business that
could result in a foreign person or entity undermining U.S. national security
interests.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a member of CIFUS and she was
the only presidential candidate in 2008 to make an issue of the importance of
strengthening CIFUS to protect U.S. economic sovereignty and national
security.
In October 2010, CIFUS http://www.breitbart.com/big
government/2015/05/04/clinton-cash-uranium-deal-approved-by-foreign
investment-committee-52-days-after-shareholders-finalized-takeover/
reviewed and approved the Rosatom acquisition of majority control in
Uranium One before the deal was done.
In 2013, Rosatom http://www.breitbart.com/big
government/2015/07/02/senate-judiciary-committee-chairman-demands-doj
answer-questions-about-hillarys-role-in-uranium-deal/ acquired all
remaining shares of Uranium One. Becker and McIntire estimated that by
2015, after getting CIFUS approval, the Russians ended up controlling one
fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
Imam Fethullah Gullen’s ties to Clinton Foundation and Podesta Group
In the wake of the recent coup attempt in Turkey, Turkey’s president, Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan, has mounted an aggressive crackdown against Imam
Fethulla Gulen and his followers, known as Gulenists.
Erdoğan, who was once allied with Gulen, has even personally asked
President Obama to extradite the 74-year-old guru, who has lived in self
exile in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains since 1999.State Department emails produced as part of a Judicial Watch FOIA request
include an email dated April 1, 2009 in which a Gulen follower named
Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in
connecting one of his allies to President Obama.
Ozkok is founding board member of the Turkish Cultural Center and part of
a network of businesses and non-profits affiliated with the Gulen movement,
also known as Hizmet.
On July 13, 2016, the Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/newties-emerge-between-clinton-and-mysterious-islamic-cleric/ reported Ozkok
served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC.
He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s
campaign last year.
The Daily Caller also noted Ozkok is listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s
website (a reference that apparently has been scrubbed since the publication
of that information) as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the
non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation, who has given between $25,000
and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.
The Daily Caller further reported a link between Gulenists and the Clinton
orbit was revealed in a lobbying registration disclosure filed on May 2, 2016,
with the U.S. Senate.
The lobbying disclosure filed by the Podesta Group with the Senate shows
that a Gulen-aligned group called the Alliance for Shared Values hired the
Clinton-connected Podesta Group to lobby Congress on its behalf.
According to the Daily Caller report, the group apparently seeks to lobby for
the “promotion of peace, tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”
John Podesta briefly served as Clinton Foundation CEO
According to a New York Times report
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clintonfoundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=1&&pagewanted=all
published Aug. 13, 2013, in 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff
members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration ofmuch of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands
running the organization.”
Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s
CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of
succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House,
stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.