Project Veritas: UNDERCOVER VIDEO: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post,” & Private “Sex Messages”


UNDERCOVER VIDEO: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post,” & Private “Sex Messages”
https://www.projectveritas.com/video/undercover-video-hundreds-of-twitter-employees-paid-to-view-everything-you-post-private-sex-messages/

by Staff Report January 15, 2018

Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Twitter Engineers and employees admitting that Twitter employees view”everything you post” on their servers, including private “sex messages,” and “d*ck pics.” The engineers also admit that Twitter analyzes this information to create a “virtual profile” of you which they sell to advertisers.

James O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018. Pre-order the book: http://www.americanpravdabook.com

This is part three in Project Veritas’ Twitter investigation.

See part one: Part One
See part two: Part Two

Pre-order James O’Keefe’s new book – a treatise on modern media, a true crime spy thriller, and a rollicking adventure story. Follow James and his undercover journalists as they expose mainstream media outlets like CNN and the New York Times and reveal dirty political tricks during the 2016 national elections.

Advertisements

Lying Little Shit Hogg: SHOCK: David Hogg Changes Story, Wasn’t At School When Cruz Opened Fire By Peter D’Abrosca – Mar 26, 2018


SHOCK: David Hogg Changes Story, Wasn’t At School When Cruz Opened Fire
By Peter D’Abrosca – Mar 26, 2018

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-david-hogg-changes-story-wasnt-school-cruz-opened-fire/

In a not-yet-released CBS Documentary, David Hogg, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student who has become the face of the gun control movement, changes his entire story and admits that he was not at the school during the event.

In a Time interview done within hours of the shooting Hogg recounted, “Our first response was ‘that sounded a lot like a gun shot’ and we closed the door.” Hogg claimed that he was in his AP enviromental science class during the shooting. He also made videos of himself and other students, regarding gun control, purportedly while the shooting was going on.

But CBS News has released some transcripts from its “39 Days” documentary, in which student David Hogg is quoted.

“On the day of the shooting, I got my camera and got on my bike and rode as fast as I could three miles from my house to the school to get as much video and to get as many interviews as I could because I knew that this could not be another mass shooting,” Hogg said in his CBS News interview.

The shooting occurred in the afternoon, after alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz was dropped off after 2 PM.

“While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here? And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about,” Hogg recalled.


Watch David Hogg tell two different stories below:

Interesting. However, Hogg made some videos purportedly DURING the shooting from inside the school.

Here is Hogg’s interview with TIME magazine following the shooting in which he claimed that he was in his AP environmental science class at the time the shooting occured:

When Hogg heard a “pop” while sitting in an AP environmental science class around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, he told his teacher it sounded strangely like a gunshot. But there had been a fire drill that very morning and talk of a “Code Red” exercise to prepare for an active shooter. This must just be a surprise drill, he reasoned.

And then the fire alarm sounded. Dutifully acting on it, Hogg and other students tried to exit the building. A janitor—Hogg doesn’t know his name but calls him an angel—knew where the shots were coming from and sent the students back. Then a culinary arts teacher, Ashley Kurth, pulled Hogg and others inside, locked the door, and made them hide in a closet. Checking Twitter and Instagram, Hogg—who’s an editor at the school’s TV station—found the news that the shooting was real and ongoing.

The shots continued for what felt like an eternity. Hogg considered the possibility that he would not live to see the end of the day.

“While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here?’” Hogg told TIME in the hours following the ordeal. “And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about.”

Pretty big contradiction there.

Here is some of “student reporter” David Hogg’s interviews with his classmates, purportedly during the shooting. By the way, there is no way Hogg could have gotten into the school during the shooting, because the Broward County Sheriff’s Office set up a perimeter around the school during the shooting, all the while refusing to enter the school to stop the bloodshed.

Here is Hogg claiming to be inside the school during the shooting.

Here are Hogg’s interviews with his classmates, purportedly during the shooting:

Sheriff Scott Israel’s Broward County Sheriff’s Office made a concerted effort to not enter the Parkland high school during February’s mass shooting, instead allowing the shooting to happen.

The mainstream media is finally reporting on police and emergency scanner audio tapes that show the full extent of the Sheriff’s Office’s complicity in the horror at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“Do not approach the 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away,” Sheriff’s Office deputy Scot Peterson said over radio dispatch, disproving his claim that he didn’t go inside the school because he was ordered not to do so if he didn’t have body cameras on. School surveillance footage has still not been released, and is unlikely to ever be released.

Big League Politics first reported on audiotapes showing that the Sheriff’s Office set up a perimeter around the high school during the shooting, after learning that multiple people were shot dead inside the high school. The police dispatcher ordered police to “hold all perimeters” while the shooter was still at large. Thirty minutes after learning of the active shooter situation, the Sheriff’s Office was still holding its perimeter and dispatchers were reporting “The shooter is not down. The shooter is not down.”

Our reporting proved that Israel’s office lied by claiming that they only set up a perimeter around the school AFTER the shooting, not during the shooting. In fact, they set up a perimeter four minutes after learning that people were shot dead inside.

I love this: So his point is that those kids are who they are because somebody has a design that it stay that way, that they become useful, that they become trained not to think but rather as sponges! David Hogg….


A Great Piece on Teenagers and Gun Control
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 28, 2018 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 3/28/2018, 4:45:31 PM by Kaslin

RUSH: We’re not quite through with the gun control aspect of this, because that’s the big area, number one, where the left has finally decided they don’t have to lie anymore and they don’t have to pretend. They’ve been saying for years: We don’t want to confiscate every gun. We just want life to be safer in America. We want get rid of the assault rifles. We wanted to get rid of the semiautomatics. We want to get rid of the killing machines. We love our children.

Well, that’s never been the case. Not that they don’t love their children. What’s never been the case is that they only have a few things they want to do. They want total confiscation of every weapon in this country. And if it takes them 20 years, fine and dandy. They don’t put four-year time limits, something the Soviets and communists taught them very well. The Soviet Union never had a time limit on things like we do.

We have four-year administrations. If the president doesn’t get something done in four years or a second term, eight years, that’s considered, “It’s over. Somebody else has to start again.” In totalitarian countries, dictatorships, there’s no such thing as a time limit. You just get it done when you got it done. You have an objective and you work towards it, period. You don’t get derailed, and you don’t get stopped, and you don’t stop yourself. And people on our side just don’t believe anybody could have that kind of commitment and intensity. But these people have had it trained and educated, burned into them.

But I ran across a piece today that I want to share some excerpts with you from. This is Bruce Thornton, Shillman Journalism Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center. This is from FrontPageMag.com. “Teenagers Make Great Progressive Shock Troops.”

I just want to read a few excerpted paragraphs here, because you know what this piece is? This piece is one of those I wish I would have written. It contains elements, details, explanations for why things have been happening by certain people on the left for all these years, what the objective is, how they’ve gone about it and so forth. It’s really enlightening. And it deals with, how did we go off the rails?

It wasn’t that long ago that there were virtues and that there were tenets, there were time-honored traditions, institutions, and philosophies that everybody followed because they were time-honored and believed in, and they worked. And they were all oriented around virtue and morality, doing the right thing, overcoming obstacles, learning how to deal with adversity, not whining, not moaning, not complaining, not becoming a victim. When did all this change? Bruce Thornton here tackles it. So I JIPped this. I join it in progress.

“Once upon a time, experience in a hard, indifferent world, the virtues like self-reliance and impulse-control nourished by faith and tradition, and an education based on mental skills and the lessons of history taught the young that their feelings and ‘self-esteem’ don’t amount to a hill of beans in this flawed world.”

Once upon a time experience mattered, virtue, self-reliance, impulse control nourished by faith and tradition and an education system that taught people how to think, taught the lessons of history, taught young people that feelings were no substitute for knowledge and experience.

“Once upon a time people learned that good deeds are more important than fine words, that acting on their impulses and seeking instant gratification carry a high price, and that duty and obligation and responsibility to others in the end are the foundations of our political and social order.

“Starting in the postwar fifties, increasing wealth, more time spent in school rather than factories and fields, consumer capitalism’s promotion of impulse-buying, and a culture of materialism that defines the self through fashion, consumption, and popular culture rather than through education, challenges, and character — all exacerbated the flaws of youth that the larger culture once tried to correct, but now indulged.”

So he’s saying that the descent into current pop culture can be traced back to the economic boom of the postwar fifties. He’s not blaming economic booms. He’s not blaming a good economy. What he says is that with the increased wealth per capita, family income, more time spent in school rather than in factories and fields, so more professional training rather than vocational, consumer advertising promoting impulse buying and a culture of materialism as a definition of yourself. And of course yourself is defined by fashion, consumption, pop culture. That’s when it all began.

“Movies, music, and soon the therapeutic curricula of schools reinforced and glorified these flaws rather than disciplining and correcting them. The ‘human sciences’ replaced the doctrines of faith and wisdom of tradition in explaining human nature and its proper aims. The last three generations have been marinated in these social and cultural dysfunctions –” So he’s talking about anywhere from 60 to 75 years. So the last 60 to 75 years people have marinated, kids have “marinated in these social and cultural dysfunctions that have resulted in a sense of entitlement and outlandish expectations. Adolescence has been extended far beyond the traditional beginning of adulthood.”

That means parents are perfectly fine with their kids not growing up. Parents are perfectly fine with their kids remaining kids. I have a story in the Stack today, 75% of Millennials, mom and dad are still paying most of the bills, even after they’ve left the house. Because their parents say, “It’s so hard out there.” Good Lord. But, anyway, Mr. Thornton here is exactly right. Adolescence has been extended far beyond the traditional beginning of adulthood. What would you say that is, 21? Graduating from college, you’re an adult, you strike out on your own.

Anyway, it’s a great point here that parents have willingly accepted that their adult kids are still their kids, they’re still adolescents. This has been “increasingly shaped by a leftist political ideology that rationalizes and exculpates bad character and destructive choices as the fault of a corrupt political, economic, and social system. But the old-left call for the violent overthrow of such an evil establishment is now merely a rhetorical flourish. Symbolic politics like marches and demonstrations that occasionally stray into vandalism and petty thuggery are preferred, for they are relatively risk-free, and draw the attention of sympathetic media and like-minded adults who praise the youngsters’ ‘passion’ and ‘commitment’ to ‘change’ and a ‘better world.’”

“Take David [‘Camera’] Hogg, who was present during the attack last month on the high school in Parkland. The 17-year-old appears with four other Stoneman Douglas students on the cover of Time [magazine], and has become a darling of the anti-gun crowd for his profanity-laced tantrums that demonstrate perfectly the portrait sketched above…” Adolescents not being reined in. Profane language and behavior being applauded.

Isn’t he cute? Don’t we want to reward his passion and commitment? You know, I ask people who have kids, “Would you let your kid be doin’ this? Would you let your kid go on national TV at a march and make YouTube videos, and every other word be the F-bomb?” “No way! No way!” See, every parent that I ask… Where are this kid’s parents? I don’t know. I don’t know anything about him. I don’t know if they’re applauding. I don’t know if they’re troubled by it.

He’s out there calling the people that he’s upset with “‘The pathetic f—ers that want to keep killing our children, they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they all still see those dollar signs,’ [Hogg] said of the NRA and” people like Marco Rubio. “Notice how this…” I’m reading now Mr. Thornton. “Notice how this callow youth simply regurgitates the stale clichés of the gun-control fundamentalists. [This kid] obviously has no clue that the NRA has political clout not because of the pittance it gives politicians compared to, say, public-employee unions…”

No! “[T]he NRA has political clout … because millions” and millions and millions of Americans support it to defend a constitutional right they cherish. “Nor does [this kid] realize that a young person dying in a mass school shooting by a psychopath with a rifle is a rare occurrence, compared to dying in a car accident, or being beaten to death, or being killed by a motorist while walking or biking to school. He has no clue that the demonized, perfectly legal AR-15 was already banned from 1994-2004, without lowering gun-deaths…

“Like his equally addled elders, he can’t fathom that more regulations of guns do nothing to keep them out of the hands of” bad guys. In other words, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about — and it was that long ago where people that didn’t know what they were talking about were not given pedestals, and were not proclaimed experts, and the rest of the country was not required to agree and shut up. The rest of the country was not required to applaud and say, “Isn’t that cute!”

And the rest of the country was not prohibited from calling out that whoever didn’t know what they were talking about. But all of that’s changed. We can’t criticize it! We have to respect it. We have to applaud it for reasons that have nothing to do with fact, reasons that have nothing to do with truth. “This same juvenile thinking characterizes another high-school teen, this one interviewed by The Wall Street Journal:

“‘I make it a point to tell my mother I love her every day, because I want that to be the last thing I say to her in case anything happens to me at school,’ [the student] said, adding that gun violence ‘is something I don’t want to have to think about on a daily basis.’ While the young [student] is obsessing over the rare deaths from school shootings, 11 teens die every day from texting while driving. But we see no mass-movement to hold cell-phone manufacturers, and their billions spent in lobbying po[itician]s, responsible for the carnage their products cause.”

And likewise my old standby: We don’t see anybody protesting the automobile companies because the number of people killed every year by the wheel dwarfs the number of students shot in school. “Throw in drug overdoses and drunk-drivers, and kids and their parents have much more likely risks to worry about when a child leaves for school.” He’s the thing: “But we can’t blame the young. The progressive transformation of our culture has been directed at creating just such students, whose natural inclinations to self-drama and emotion rather than thinking make them perfect constituents for an ideology that flourishes among those who obsess over their feelings, and who demand the elimination of the sad constants of risk and suffering.

“The tragic wisdom that flawed humans are free to choose wickedness, and that the utopia of a world without risk or suffering is impossible, contradicts the pipe dreams of the left,” and all they are teaching. “So those who believe traditional wisdom must be trained from an early age to [give up] their freedom and autonomy to the technocratic elite that needs them to remain children.” So his point is that those kids are who they are because somebody has a design that it stay that way, that they become useful, that they become trained not to think but rather as sponges.

And they grow up to be exactly who they are as 17-year-olds, and they never change.

And they end up being incapable of self-reliance, incapable of thinking for themselves, incapable of being moved by facts.

They remain intolerant. So his point is: You can’t blame the kids. This is how they’re being raised. It’s how they’re being educated. It’s how they’re being taught. But at the same time, there are millions and millions of kids who somehow have managed to avoid this progressive inculcation. They join the military. They work for charities. They march for the right to life of the unborn. You just don’t know hear nearly as much about them, but they’re there, and they’re in much greater numbers than the students on Saturday. And that crowd, again, is estimated to be 10% kids.

Killing Ron Brown: A Clinton Crime Family Story


twothirds-750x420_00000421-750x420

Killing Ron Brown: A Clinton Crime Family Story
Reading Time: 7 minutesYour life is in danger. At this moment, a Chinese nuclear warhead sits in a missile silo. Its guidance, if launched, instructs the warhead to detonate a mile or two above your home. And this was all made possible by extortion, murder, and illegal campaign contributions to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember Ron Brown? Brown was Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce.

Ron Brown ran the Clintons’ extortion racket in the 1990s.

Ron Brown played a role . . . he would rather not have. Targeted by an independent counsel along with his son Michael and his confidante (and my source) Nolanda Butler Hill on unrelated charges, Brown desperately needed the Clintons’ help to keep himself, Hill, and especially Michael out of prison. In true Underwood fashion, the Clintons exploited Brown’s vulnerability by making him their international bagman.

Jack Cashill writing on American Thinker

Follow the Money

Records show that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown used his position to raise illegal donations for the Clintons. Brown turned the Commerce Department into a shakedown machine, just the way the Mafia shakes down businesses. Commerce under Clinton was a protection racket. Donate to the Clintons or something bad might happen to your company. Or your kids.

In a 1998 summary of Clinton’s criminal activities involving Chinese campaign contributions, Phyllis Schlafly wrote:

Bill Clinton’s friend and ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from the Communist Chinese military to the Democratic campaign in the summer of 1996. The money was handed to Chung by the daughter of the top commander of China’s People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing, who was also one of the top five members of the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling Politburo.

Remember that illegal influence peddling is the primary mission of the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton used the State Department to extort cash payments from corporations and foreign governments. Clinton laundered the dirty money through the Clinton Foundation.

In the 1990s, the Clintons ran the same money laundering scheme through Ron Brown’s Commerce Department.

The More You Know About the Clintons, the Sooner You Will Die

After a religious experience, Ron Brown’s confidante Nolanda Hill told her story to former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporter Jack Cashill. Writing on the 10th anniversary of Brown’s likely assassination, Cashill says:

Hill is convinced and always has been that Ron Brown was assassinated. At the time of his death, I had refused to believe such a scenario possible. I was doing talk radio then in Kansas City, and I vigorously rejected all speculation about conspiracy. When I started research for my book, Ron Brown’s Body, in 2003, I began with the conviction that the plane crash was accidental and the famed hole in Brown’s head was some sort of anomaly. To say the least, I have lost that conviction.

Cashill has made the story his life’s work. And for good reason. Bill and Hillary Clinton are extortion artists at best and murdering traitors at worst.

You should believe the worst. As Jack Cashill wrote in American Thinking in 2014:

As Hill tells it, Brown arranged a meeting with Clinton at the White House family quarters. It did not go well. When Clinton said there was nothing he could do for Michael, Brown resorted to his ultimate bargaining chip. If he had to, he told Clinton, he was prepared to reveal the president’s treasonous dealings with China, news of which had yet to break.

We now know the China deal involved selling US military secrets to China in exchange for Chinese contributions to the DNC laundered through a tech company called Loral. The latePhyllis Schlafly explained in 1998:

In June 1994, the CEO of Loral Space and Communications, Bernard Schwartz, made a $100,000 contribution to the Democratic National Committee. He then joined a Ron Brown trip to China that led to a $250 million telecommunications deal for Loral’s satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets [in violation of US law at the time].

In October 1994, Clinton lifted the sanctions he had imposed on China for selling missile technology to Pakistan. In early 1995, Schwartz sent a letter to Clinton urging that responsibility for satellite-export licenses be shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, both Schwartz and Johnny Chung made more huge donations, in excess of $100,000, to the Democratic Party.

Back to Ron Brown’s desperate meeting with Clinton. Guess how Bill and Hillary dealt with Brown’s threat.

Next thing you know, Ron was on his final seat-selling trade mission, this one to Croatia to cut a deal between the neo-fascists who ran the country and the Enron Corporation. Yes, that Enron. He never got there. The Air Force plane that carried Brown, the military version of a Boeing 737, crashed into a hillside outside Dubrovnik. Brown and 34 others were killed.

After the crash that took out the US Secretary of Commerce and 33 others, the Clinton Administration covered up everything. They prohibited an autopsy of Ron Brown’s body despite evidence of a bullet wound in Brown’s skull. The military general in charge of the “investigation” repeatedly lied to the press and to Congress. The US Air Force released false press statements claiming the plane’s wreckage was found in the Adriatic. The US government said the plane crashed in the “worst storm in a decade,” which was a laughable lie even at the time. And many involved in the investigation died by accident or gunshot wound before testifying.

Those are facts on the record.

mtiwnja4njmznzu1mjm5otq4

But Nolanda Hill thinks the Clinton’s ordered their hit on Brown before that White House meeting. Here’s how Jack Cashill recounts Hill’s thinking:

Today, after much reflection, Hill no longer believes that the meeting with President Clinton triggered the trip to Croatia. She believes that the planning of Brown’s demise had already begun. “They [the president’s advisors] knew he was going to get indicted. They knew that he was gone.” Brown was the classic “man who knew too much.” The knowledge that had protected when his legal problems could still be fixed left him vulnerable when those problems were beyond fixing.

Back to Cashill’s American Thinker article:

The Enron executives landed safely in their own jet just a few minutes earlier despite what the Clinton administration called “the worst storm in a decade.” As I learned in reading the 22-volume USAF report on the crash, it was not even raining at the time, and the sun was peeking through the clouds. I requested that report eight years after the crash. As far as I know, I was the first person in the media to request it, and the New York Times had a reporter on the plane.

And the Enron flight carried a very important connection to Hillary Rodham Clinton, as will see very soon.

Clinton’s Treason Goes Deeper Still

These paragraphs from Phyllis Schlafly’s excellent summary of the Chinese missile scandal will make you shudder:

The rationale for allowing U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets is that the technology is safely locked up in a black box, and Americans monitor the launch to assure that it stays secured. But when the Loral rocket blew up, the parts were scattered. The Pentagon refused comment on the Drudge report that the Loral engineers who reviewed the recovered debris said that the encryption hardware was missing.

U.S. intelligence has reported that China has targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA says that China’s targeting was made more accurate by Loral’s unauthorized help. The Justice Department started a criminal investigation of Loral, and the State Department warned that Loral’s actions were “criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful.”

In March 1996, despite the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the Defense Department and our intelligence agencies, Clinton personally transferred jurisdiction over satellite-export licensing from the State Department to his pal, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz stepped up his contributions to the Democratic Party and became the largest single contributor in the 1996 election cycle. Clinton signed another waiver this year to allow Loral Space to export a satellite that is scheduled to be launched by the Chinese in November.

To cover up their treason, the Clintons apparently ordered the assassination of Ron Brown and 33 others who boarded a doomed Air Force flight on a trade mission to Croatia.

So why haven’t the Clintons been tried and convicted for these capital crimes? Becausethey’re out of reach of US law, protected by the Wall Street and corporate interestswho laundered Chinese money to the Clintons in the 1990s. That and Republican fecklessness. The GOP impeached and tried Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal when the real crime of the Clinton Administration involved treason and state assassinations. Assassinations and sham investigations.

The Mysterious, Beautiful Woman

While the Ron Brown assassination story has yet to reach its end, Jack Cashill’s reporting explains Clinton’s desperation to win the White House in 2016. And it involves a mysterious woman.

Zdenka Gast
Zdenka Gast

Cashill found an intriguing open loop in an Air Force report on the assassination of Ron Brown. (The USAF does not call the report an assassination report, but you know by now that it was.) This open loop was a Croatian woman named Zdenka Gast.

[For more about Zdenka Gast and Hillary’s serial lies, click here.]Gast was supposed to be on Ron Brown’s plane. At the last minute, she was removed from that death flight’s manifest and moved to the Enron plane.

Why the move?

According to a witness, “There were problems in — in — in this — in concluding this deal where they wanted to sign a letter of intent, and so, rather than — than go on the Brown trip, she stayed with the Inron [sic] people to do the final negotiations.”

The Air Force never interviewed Gast. The USAF claimed they were unable to find her. But Cashill found in a few minutes of searching. He contacted her office. Gast’s office said she’d return the call shortly. Six years later, Cashill is still waiting.

Well, no. Cashill isn’t waiting. He knows he’ll never hear from Gast. As Jack Cashill explains in his American Thinker story:

Inquiring into Gast’s background, I came across the Croatian-language magazine Gloria. The photo that graced this article leapt off the page at me. In the center of three smiling women, all linked arm in arm, was Gast, an attractive, full-figured redhead. On her left was the then Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. On her right was none other than Hillary Clinton. Gast was one of only forty guests at a 2000 White House wedding reception for Herman, the woman who dispatched Brown on his fatal trip. Most of the other guests the reader would recognize by name.

According to public records, Gast lives in Grand Island, New York with a home in Florida. She’s listed as CEO of Z Global Consulting Ltd., a company with no apparent legal formation in any state. Except for a bare-bones LinkedIn profile, Gast seems to have been wiped from the internet.

Let’s hope Zdenka, now 67, is still alive.

 

Hillary Clinton keeps her friends close . . . and her witnesses closer. Just ask Ron Brown.


Also published on Medium.

Cashill and Clinton here.

Senator Clinton, Just Who Is Zdenka Gast?

Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future
Ron Brown’s Body: How One Man’s Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary’s Future

© Jack Cashill

WorldNetDaily.com
December 4, 2008

Although his colleagues on the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be content to throw Hillary Clinton softballs during her confirmation hearing, I suspect Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has moxie enough to throw the would-be secretary of state a nasty curve as follows:

DeMint: Senator Clinton, just who Is Zdenka Gast?

Clinton: Zdenka Gast? Help me out here.

DeMint: Let me refresh your memory. Gast played a key role in Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s fatal trip to Croatia in April 1996. Ostensibly at least, Brown went to Croatia to broker a deal between the Croatian government and a certain American corporation. Gast served as liaison between the two.

Clinton: Why is this an issue?

DeMint: For starters, it was a sweetheart deal that the White House coerced Croatia to sign. For another, the White House’s Croatian client was president Franjo Tudjman, a notorious anti-Semite. And for a third, the company in question was Enron. Otherwise, no problem.

Clinton: Enron? Please! What’s your source? Some right-wing blog?

DeMint: No, your ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith. He told Air Force investigators that Gast had been scheduled to fly with Brown on the USAF plane that crashed but flew in instead on a Swiss Air Charter with the Enron guys.

Clinton: You’re making this up.

DeMint: Let me quote the official, 22-volume U.S, Air Force Report. Said Galbraith, “There were problems in—in—in this—in concluding this deal where they wanted to sign a letter of intent, and so, rather than—than go on the Brown trip, she stayed with the Inron [sic] people to do the final negotiations.”

Clinton: Bull. Enron was a Republican company.

DeMint: That is what the media tell us, and Gast was allegedly a Republican too, but in the nineties Enron execs were frequent flyers on Brown trade missions. Remember the deal in 1995 when you all held up a $13.5 million aid package to Mozambique until its president agreed to give Enron a major stake in a local gas field?

Clinton: I have no recollection of that.

DeMint: As you probably heard, Brown more or less sold seats on these missions to raise money for what Senator Fred Thompson’s committee would call “the most corrupt political campaign in modern history.”

Clinton: I had nothing to do with that campaign.

DeMint: Dick Morris says otherwise. As he tells it, you were the one who brought him into the White House after the Dem’s November 1994 whipping, and you were there with the president, Al Gore, Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and DNC chair Don Fowler when his plan for a massively expensive ad campaign was approved. In fact, The DNC cupboard was bare. The money had to come from somewhere.

Clinton: Prove it.

DeMint: Brown could have. In fact, Judicial Watch had scheduled him to give a deposition on this subject as soon as he returned from Croatia. It’s a shame he never returned.

Clinton: And why would Tudjman submit to such a deal?

DeMint: Glad you asked. According to the Financial Times of London, Tudjman linked the Enron deal to a variety of political demands, chief among them—and this is a quote–“avoiding his arrest and that of other senior figures by the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal.”

Clinton: You’ve got it backwards. The Serbs were the war criminals.

DeMint: The Serbs had no monopoly on ethnic cleansing. If you recall, just months before Brown’s death, Croatian forces drove more than 200,000 Serbian civilians from their homes in the Krajina region and killed some 14,000 of them. The White House and Galbraith aided and abetted the Croats as something of a reward for their agreeing to the federation between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.

Clinton: I had nothing to do with that.

DeMint: I didn’t say you did. But I am curious as to why you took a one-day detour to Tuzla in Bosnia just nine days before Brown left Tuzla on his fatal flight. You may have fudged about the sniper fire, but Tuzla was a dangerous place in 1996. As the White House spun it, “No first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made a trip into such a hostile military environment.” And you brought Chelsea?

Clinton: I wanted to say “thank you” to our troops. What are you insinuating?

DeMint: Nothing, just asking. Much of this would be clearer if we had all the facts.

Clinton: What are you missing?

DeMint: Our best witness. After Galbraith told the Air Force about Zdenka, the investigator said, “We’ve been looking for her.” Apparently, they did not find her. The report lists 148 witness interviews, but Zdenka’s was not among them. You might have been able to help.


Above: Zdenka Gast

Clinton: How is that?

DeMint: You know the lady. I have this photo here from a Croatian language magazine named Gloria taken a few years after Brown’s death. In the center of the photo is Zdenka, the redhead, not bad looking. On her left, as you can see, is Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. On her right is you.

Clinton : Probably some big fundraiser. I get my picture taken with all kinds of people.

DeMint: This is a little more intimate, a lot more. This was taken at a wedding reception for Herman at the White House. You hosted it. Only 40 people attended, just about all of them DC big shots except Zdenka. Zdenka boasts that she was supporting your senate run and that—quote–“Hillary paid special attention to me.”

Clinton: And that’s somehow suspicious?

DeMint: It’s no more suspicious than your detour to Tuzla or the hole in Ron Brown’s head or the White House refusal to do an autopsy on Brown or the “inexplicable” deviation of the aircraft into the mountainside or the lethal bullet hole in the chest of the airport aviation manager.

Clinton: Are you finished?

DeMint: This is just question one, Senator. Fasten your seat belt.

to top of page


Subscribe to the Cashill Newsletter. It’s FREE!

Receive political news, invitations to political events and special offers.

Home | Professional | Personal | International | National | Regional | Books & DVDs | Articles By Title | Email Jack

copyright 2005 Jack Cashill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eXTReMe Tracker

In first, U.S. judge throws out cell phone ‘stingray’ evidence


7/13/16 REUTERS 12:19:26

July 13, 2016
In first, U.S. judge throws out cell phone ‘stingray’ evidence
Nate Raymond
https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I14f31320488a11e6a72ad77936ae8042/View/FullText.html?transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
NEW YORK (Reuters) – For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects’ cell phones into revealing their locations.U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis’ rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis’ apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.”Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen’s cell phone into a tracking device,” Pauley wrote.The ruling marked the first time a federal judge had suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which like other privacy advocacy groups has criticized law enforcement’s use of such devices.”This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age,” ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement.It was unclear whether prosecutors would seek to appeal. A spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose office was prosecuting the case, declined to comment.Stingrays, also known as “cell site simulators,” mimic cell phone towers in order to force cell phones in the area to transmit “pings” back to the devices, enabling law enforcement to track a suspect’s phone and pinpoint its location.Critics of the technology call it invasive and say it has been regularly used in secret to catch suspect in violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.The ACLU has counted 66 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays but said that figure underrepresents the actual number of devices in use given what it called secrecy surrounding their purchases.A Maryland appeals court in March became what the ACLU said was the first state appellate court to order evidence obtained using a stingray suppressed. Pauley’s decision was the first at the federal level.The U.S. Justice Department in September changed its internal policies and required government agents to obtain a warrant before using a cell site simulator.Bernard Seidler, Lambis’ lawyer, noted that occurred a week after his client was charged. He said it was unclear if the drug case against Lambis would now be dismissed.Note: Corrects location of apartment in second paragraph to Washington Heights from the Bronx, rephrases paragraph 10 to make clear ACLU said its figure underrepresents number of devices—- Index References —-News Subject: (Civil Rights Law (1CI34); Intellectual Freedoms & Civil Liberties (1IN08); Judicial Cases & Rulings (1JU36); Legal (1LE33))Industry: (Consumer Electronics (1CO61); Consumer Products & Services (1CO62); Electronics (1EL16); Global Positioning Systems (1GL40); Mobile Phones & Pagers (1WI07); Telecom Consumer Equipment (1TE03))Region: (Americas (1AM92); Maryland (1MA47); New York (1NE72); North America (1NO39); U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region (1MI18); USA (1US73))Language: ENOther Indexing: (Bernard Seidler; Raymond Lambis; William Pauley; Mark Blinch; Nathan Freed Wessler; Mark BlinchCell)Keywords: dataprivacy (MCC:f); (N2:US); (N2:USANY); (N2:AMERS); (N2:NAMER); (N2:USA); (MCCL:OVR)Word Count: 487

In first, U.S. judge throws out cell phone ‘stingray’ evidence

Health Ranger: “California to throw adults in JAIL if they refuse government-mandated vaccines”


California to throw adults in JAIL if they refuse government-mandated vaccines

SB792
 (NaturalNews) In case you haven’t noticed, there’s an incremental push right now by the controlling elite to force vaccinations on all Americans, both young and old. And this agenda is gaining considerable traction in California, where legislators are now moving forward with plans to force childhood vaccines on all adults who work in daycare centers, both private and public.

Senate Bill 792, also known as the “Day care facilities: immunizations: exemptions” act, was presented quietly alongside SB 277, which eliminates personal, philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions for children who attend both private and public schools in the Golden State. The bill, as recently heard by the California Assembly Human Services Committee, reads as follows:

This bill, commencing September 1, 2016, would prohibit a day care center or a family day care home from employing any person who has not been immunized against influenza, pertussis, and measles.

If passed, SB 792 would represent the first adult vaccine mandate in the U.S. that disallows exemptions for personal reasons, and that threatens criminal penalties for those who fail or refuse to comply. Here’s how Vaccine Impact describes SB 792:

SB 792, would eliminate an adult’s right to exempt themselves from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure.


This bill would make California the first state to require mandated vaccinations for all childcare workers, including all private and public school early childhood education programs (Headstart, Private preK and preschools), family daycares, and daycare centers.

SB 792 represents medical violence against adults

An affront to both medical and religious liberty, SB 792 appears to be the wave of the future in New America, where the perceived health of the “herd” is now more important than the health of the individual. Never before in the history of the United States have legislators pushed this hard to literally force vaccine injections on the public under duress.

But why do they feel the need to do this if vaccines really work and are truly safe as claimed? The answer is that vaccines aren’t safe and effective, and more people than ever are acknowledging this truth and opting out of the “requirements” of the system through vaccine exemptions, hence the rush to eliminate these exemptions as quickly as possible, starting with California.

“This bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that are not even 100% effective,” adds Vaccine Impact.

Contact California legislators and say NO to SB 792

As of this writing, SB 792 awaits a hearing by California’s Committee on Appropriations, having recently passed through the Assembly Human Services Committee with a 6-1 vote. The official vote tally reveals that the following members of this committee voted in FAVOR of passing SB 792:

Ian C. Calderon
Kansen Chu
Patty Lopez
Brian Maienschein
Mark Stone
Tony Thurmond

You can contact the above individuals here and let them know how you feel about their betrayal of medical freedom in California.

You can also contact the individual members of the Committee on Appropriations and tell them to vote AGAINST SB 792 by visiting: pro.assembly.ca.gov

If Americans sit idly by while corrupt legislators pass incremental bills like SB 277 and SB 792, it will only be a matter of time before even stricter bills come along mandating vaccinations for additional groups of people, until eventually everyone is forced into being vaccinated by the state for the benefit of “public health.”

“Laws like these are forging a burden of responsibility that is collectively shared by everyone,” writes Joshua Krause for GlobalResearch.ca.

“It won’t be long before they try to force vaccines on every adult and child in California. And if they pull it off there, legislators in other states will try to see if they can use the sheepish tyranny of majority rule to force vaccines on their citizens as well.”

Sources:

experimentalvaccines.org

vaccineimpact.com

globalresearch.ca

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

apro.assembly.ca.gov

By Bruce Moyer: March 2015: The Most Powerful Court You Have Never Heard Of



Washington Watch | March 2015
By Bruce Moyer

Long The disclosures by Edward Snowden about the size and scope of the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities, both in the United States and abroad, has prompted a flurry of Congressional proposals aimed at reframing the foreign intelligence- gathering process. While the thrust of these proposals is aimed at the intelligence-gathering process itself, several would also alter the operations of the federal court in Washington that provides judicial oversight of intelligence gathering and, in fact, authorized the con- troversial NSA telephone metadata collection effort disclosed by Snowden.

The court we’re talking about is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC. Described by CNN as “the most power- ful court you have never heard of,” the panel plays a significant role in the sensitive balance of foreign intelligence-gathering and civil liberties. Established in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the FISC hears applications from the government and decides whether to issue orders approving certain electronic surveil- lance activities for foreign intelligence purposes. Another Article III tribunal co-located in Washington, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR), reviews the rulings of the FISA court. Collectively these are referred to as the FISA courts.

Unique Among Federal Courts
The FISC is unique among federal courts in its narrow jurisdiction, the selection of its judges, and the secret conduct of its day-to-day operations. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court plays an especially engaged role in the affairs of the court. The FISC’s 11 district court judges and review court’s judges are “designated” by the Chief Justice, foregoing the usual process of presidential appoint- ment and Senate confirmation. Similarly, the Chief Justice designates the chief judge of the FISC and the FISCR. The judges of both courts serve one term of seven years and are not eligible for a second term. Because of the sensitive nature of its docket, the FISC and the Review Court operate largely in secret and in a nonadversarial fash- ion. Since its creation in 1978, the FISC has operated primarily in an ex parte manner with the government as the only party presenting arguments to the court and seeking warrants approving of electronic surveillance, physical searches, the use of a pen register or a trap- and-trace device, or the access to business ecords for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

The FISC operates out of a secure location in the federal court- house in Washington, D.C. Each week, one of the eleven district court judges that comprise the FISC is on duty in Washington. Most of the FISC’s work is handled by the duty judge with the assistance of a small group of attorneys and clerk’s office personnel who staff the court. On occasion, judges outside of the duty-week rotation handle more complex or time-consuming matters, at the direction of the Presiding Judge.

The secret and nonadversarial nature of the FISC’s proceedings and the revelation of the court’s approval of the NSA telephone meta- data collection effort have spurred several Congressional proposals that would change some of the underlying practices of the FISA courts. The most controversial proposal involves the court’s appoint- ment of a special advocate when the court is considering a novel or significant interpretation of law. Other proposals would establish en banc panels of the FISC and would alter the voting rules of the FISC in an attempt to create a higher bar for the approval of government surveillance activities.

A Special Advocate Before the FISA Courts?
The appointment of a special advocate within the FISA courts has stirred the greatest controversy. The House last year passed legislation (H.R. 3361) giving the FISA courts substantial discretion to determine when to appoint an advocate, as well as decide the nature and scope of the assistance to be provided by the advocate. A broader Senate measure (S. 2685) last year would have more rigidly mandated the appointment of an advocate to make specific argu- ments involving privacy and civil liberties. The Senate bill stalled at the end of 2014, carrying the debate into 2015 with some urgency. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes electronic foreign intelligence surveillance activities, expires on June 1.

Proponents of the appointment of a special advocate argue that the nature of a non-adversarial process prevents the FISA courts from hearing opposing viewpoints on difficult legal issues, especially ones involving privacy and civil liberty interests. The Federal Judiciary is not so sure. In a letter to Congress last year, Judge John Bates, then director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (and a for- mer FISC judge) embraced the House legislation’s approach, which imparts to the FISA court the discretionary authority to appoint an advocate, a power the court already inherently maintains. Bates criticized the Senate’s approach, which directs the FISC to appoint an advocate in certain kinds of cases. “… [W]e are concerned that insert- ing into FISA court proceedings an advocate with a statutory mandate to make specific arguments would raise substantial legal questions and impede the courts’ work without furthering the interests of privacy or civil liberties,” Bates wrote. Those questions involve separation of powers and judicial independence considerations.

FBA Panel Session on the FISA Courts
These concerns and the broader challenge of balancing national security, privacy, and civil liberties will be spotlighted at the FBA Mid-year Meeting on Saturday morning, March 28, in Arlington, Virginia, when an esteemed panel of judges, lawyers, and academics will debate the pros and cons of altering the FISA courts and their operations. Consult the FBA website for further details.

Bruce Moyer is government relations counsel for the FBA. © 2015 Bruce Moyer. All rights reserved.