RUTHFULLY YOURS

And so the worm turns. Make that worms.http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/the-trump-dossier-was-clintons-dirtiest-political-trick/

Just as key congressional panels open new probes into the still-smoking debris of last year’s election, the revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited Russian dossier on Donald Trump flips the collusion script on its head.

Now it’s Democrats’ turn in the barrel.

The explosive report in the Washington Post goes a long way to explaining how the dossier was so widely spread among political reporters during the election. The Clinton camp must have passed it out like Halloween candy to its media handmaidens.

News organizations tried for months to confirm the salacious details, but couldn’t. The document became public when BuzzFeed, a loud Clinton booster, published it 10 days before the inauguration, while acknowledging it couldn’t verify the contents.

The Post report provides possible answers to other questions, too. Because Clinton’s team paid for the dossier, it’s likely that she gave it to the FBI, where James Comey planned to hire the former British agent who had compiled it to keep digging dirt on Trump.

The finding also raises the possibility that the dossier is what led the Obama White House to snoop on members of Trump’s team, and leak the “unmasked” names to the anti-Trump media in a bid to help Clinton.

In short, we now have compelling evidence that the dossier was the largest and dirtiest dirty trick of the 2016 campaign. And Clinton, who has played the victim card ever since her loss, was behind it the whole time.

Anybody surprised? Me neither.

Forget Gal Gadot. The real Wonder Woman is here. And she’s Hillary. Hillary Clinton is just like Wonder Woman. If Wonder Woman spent all her time giving six figure speeches before boarding a corporate jet and passing out with a glass of chardonay in one hand while the other claw grips the flight attendant’s throat.

Finally, the left’s two great un-American heroes can be together at last as the Women’s Media Center honors Hillary Clinton and Jane Fonda.

What is the Women’s Media Center?

The Women’s Media Center was co-founded by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem

So Jane Fonda is honoring herself. It’s mighty big of her.

Also being honored is Ashley Judd for incoherently shrieking something to power.

The Women’s Media Center will honor Ashley Judd with the WMC Speaking Truth to Power Award at the Women’s Media Awards on October 26 at Capitale in New York City.

Because millionaire celebrities in no way represent power. And Hillary is just like Wonder Woman.

The Women’s Media Center is presenting its first—and only—WMC Wonder Woman Award to Clinton as she is a hero to millions in the United States and around the globe for her extraordinary accomplishments and public service. Like Wonder Woman, she seems to have superhuman strength, resilience, and courage. She also blazes new paths so that everyone has equal opportunity to pursue their dreams, and she has done much of it in the face of enemy fire.

“Hillary Clinton’s actions have inspired and protected women and men on every continent,” said Gloria Steinem, co-founder of The Women’s Media Center. “She has battled negative forces and helped to maintain a fragile peace with her negotiating skill on behalf of this country and peace-seekers everywhere. She has handled all this with grace, grit, determination, integrity, humor and fortitude while remaining a steadfast feminist, advocate, activist, sister and tireless leader in the revolution. With this award, the Women’s Media Center declares Hillary Clinton our Wonder Woman.”

Hillary Clinton does have superhuman strength. Who can forget the time she landed at that airport under fire or joined the Marine Corps and NASA? And who can forget the time Harvey Weinstein helped endow a chair for Gloria Steinem.

Oh wait, we’re supposed to forget that part.

Also who can forget the time Hillary blazed a trail by helping get a 12-year-old girl’s rapist off. And then laughed about it. On tape.

Maybe Hillary could get the Lex Luthor award instead.

Clinton is an advocate, attorney, author, First Lady, U.S. Senator, U.S. Secretary of State, and Democratic presidential candidate who has devoted her life to working on behalf of women, children and families.

When she wasn’t working on behalf of herself or their rapists.

“I’ve known Hillary for decades and I was proud to be at the historic UN Conference on Women in Beijing when she made her groundbreaking speech, ‘Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.’ ” said Jane Fonda, WMC co-founder. “Over the years I’ve watched her break glass ceilings, champion women and girls, and fight for human rights domestically and internationally. I celebrate her fierce passion, compassion and dedication.”

Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh,Hillary Clinton is gonna win!

Anyway, I’m sure it’ll be a great party. And maybe John Kerry can arrange to have some POW’s brought in and tortured for Jane and Hillary’s entertainment. It’ll be just like old times.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee bankrolled the explosive, far-fetched dossier that attempted to smear President Trump by falsely linking him to Russia, according to new reports.

The news came days after President Trump suggested Democrats, Russia, or the FBI may have helped fund research that Democrat communications firm Fusion GPS used to compile the infamous dossier.

“Workers of firm involved with the discredited and Fake Dossier take the 5th[,]” the president tweeted Oct. 19. “Who paid for it, Russia, the FBI or the Dems (or all)?” In Oct. 21, he followed up, tweeting “Justice Department and/or FBI should immediately release who paid for it.”

News of the dossier funding came as two congressional committees announced plans Tuesday to jointly investigate the 2010 sale of a U.S. uranium concern to a Russian company. As U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton approved the transaction as millions of dollars poured in to her corrupt family foundation from Russian sources.

There are “very, very real concerns about why we would allow a Russian-owned company to get access to 20 percent of America’s uranium supply,” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said Monday. “It’s important we find out why that deal went through.”

The character-assassination dossier is the unvetted, salacious, 35-page report written by British former spy Christopher Steele and published by cat-video and gossip website BuzzFeed. The dubious package of documents dubbed the “piss-gate dossier” claimed, among other things, that Donald Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a hotel room bed in Moscow in front of him.

The dossier put together by Democrat-aligned Fusion GPS was just one of many dirty tricks Hillary Clinton’s campaign used in an effort to undermine her opponent’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. Clinton also personally authorized the illicit efforts of felon Bob Creamer and organizer Scott Foval who fomented violence at Trump campaign rallies, as James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas group revealed in undercover videos.

Although it was previously known that Democrat monies had flowed to Fusion GPS, the Washington Post provided more specific evidence Tuesday, reporting that Clinton campaign and DNC lawyer Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to conduct opposition research against Trump. Funded at the time by a still-unidentified Republican donor, the firm had already begun investigating Trump’s background when Hillary began picking up the research tab.

“The Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the firm’s efforts through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day,” The Hill newspaper reports.

Employees of Fusion GPS have refused through their lawyers to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. “We cannot in good conscience do anything but advise our clients to stand on their constitutional privileges, the attorney work product doctrine and contractual obligations,” Fusion GPS attorney Josh Levy wrote earlier this month.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media’s efforts to cover for the Clintons is about to get harder.

That’s because the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Oversight and Government Reform will carry out a joint investigation of the 2010 sale of a U.S. company controlling one-fifth of the nation’s uranium supply to a Russian company.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) says a confidential informant has come forward and that the two committees are trying to get the Department of Justice (DoJ) to release the person from a nondisclosure agreement, The Hill reports. House GOP leadership is fully committed to the Uranium One probe, DeSantis said Tuesday, of the investigation that is viewed as separate and distinct from broader investigations into election meddling by Russians.

New York seems to be following in the footsteps of Los Angeles, where municipal politics has long met with collective uninterest. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who enjoys a large polling lead in his November reelection bid, took a vacation prior to his late August debate with Sal Albanese, a former city councilman little known to most New Yorkers. Earlier this year, when de Blasio feared that his mishandling of the city’s homeless problems and the multiple city, state, and federal investigations into his ethics violations might pose a threat, he concocted a new slogan for his 2017 campaign: “One city for all New Yorkers,” a pointed contrast with his winning 2013 message decrying New York’s “Tale of Two Cities.” He also announced that he would pay for the legal costs involved in his numerous mayoral shenanigans. But after federal attorney Preet Bharara decided against prosecuting him for trading campaign money for influence, de Blasio dropped his contrived slogan about unity, while also announcing that he’d changed his mind—city funds would be used to cover his multimillion-dollar legal costs, after all. A man who often naps after his morning workouts, de Blasio has dropped the pretense of working hard as mayor. Instead, he works hard at opposing President Donald Trump, even journeying to Berlin to join street demonstrators against the G-20 summit—rather than sticking around to console the family of NYPD officer Miosotis Familia, assassinated in her squad car that same week.

A similar mayoral dynamic can be seen in Los Angeles, where Democrat Eric Garcetti, running for reelection this year on an anti-Trump, pro-sanctuary-cities platform, won with a record 81 percent of the vote. But running virtually unopposed against a slate of also-rans, Garcetti garnered barely 330,000 votes in a city of almost 4 million people. That amounts to just 20 percent of registered voters—though that didn’t “beat” the record-low of 17.9 percent achieved by previous L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in his 2009 reelection victory. Garcetti’s easy victory left him with a campaign war chest amounting to $3 million—money that will serve him well should he try, in 2018, to succeed 84-year-old Dianne Feinstein in the Senate. It’s not clear yet whether Feinstein will retire, but even if she does, L.A. mayors, no matter how popular, have never been able to win statewide office.

The civic indifference that makes such incumbent dominance possible in both cities is driven by the same source: the sharp decline of middle-class voters for whom the city is a matter of civic responsibility, on the one hand, and the mounting power of public-sector interest groups, for whom the city is a matter of financial interest, on the other. By de Blasio’s good fortune, these same public-sector interest groups, particularly the teachers’ unions, will play a major role at the 2020 Democratic convention.

In his first term, de Blasio invested his limited energies in styling himself as a leading light of the party’s progressive wing. He was slow to endorse the “insufficiently progressive” Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, though he’d served as her campaign manager in her successful 2000 Senate run. De Blasio tried to leverage the popularity of Thomas Piketty’s much-noted book on capitalism and income inequality, but he was humiliated when none of the Democratic Party presidential candidates showed up at his forum on the growing class divide.

Undeterred, de Blasio will likely spend much of his second term trying to fashion himself into a plausible presidential candidate. His campaign will be initially underwritten by several million dollars in public funds distributed by the city’s Campaign Finance Board (created to ensure that monied interests don’t dominate city politics). The 56-year-old de Blasio can argue that he’s a more attractive candidate for millennial voters than Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who will be 71, or Bernie Sanders, who will be 78, come 2020. He can also tout his progressive bona fides by pointing to, among other policies, his institution of universal pre-K schooling in New York.

But before he can focus on events outside the five boroughs, de Blasio will turn his attention to undermining New York governor Andrew Cuomo, his rival for state and national power. De Blasio has been quietly backing Sex in the City star Cynthia Nixon, who seems to be preparing a challenge in 2018, when Cuomo will be seeking a third term. Nixon, who has lobbied for more education funding, is an identity-politics triple threat: a gay female with celebrity status who will run to Cuomo’s left. Even if she loses, she could tarnish the governor, thus enhancing de Blasio’s prospects.

What comes of de Blasio’s possible presidential run in 2020 is contingent, of course, on what happens over the next two years. Will his ethical failures come back to haunt him? “Emails, obtained through a records request, show [Jim] Capalino’s stable of lobbyists were so entrenched in the minutiae of de Blasio’s first term, they formed an unofficial, additional layer of government—sometimes instructing staffers how to do their jobs—all while advancing the interests of their paying clients,” Politico reported in August. The de Blasio ethics drama hasn’t seen its last act. Meantime, what becomes of President Trump? Will Hillary Clinton try to run again? Will any Democrat emerge from the heartland? How strong is California’s first-term senator, Kamala Harris? Harris, of Indian and Jamaican descent, is already looking to 2020. De Blasio has his own identity-politics card to play: his wife, Chirlane McCray, is African-American, allowing de Blasio to present himself as the candidate who closes the racial gap. Like Garcetti, de Blasio labors under a historical shadow: no New York mayor has moved on to higher office since the mid-nineteenth century. But no New York mayor has ever had a target quite like Donald Trump.

Two summers ago, a sobbing relative called to say that she’d just seen one youth stab another in the chest outside her front door in gentrifying Harlem. As she spoke, she noticed that the blood had splattered her shoes. The victim didn’t die, thank heaven, but staggered across the street and got help. It was a neighborhood annual reunion—barbecues blazing, salsa music blasting—and the victim and his assailant, simmering with decades’-long loathing now heightened by drug-dealing rivalry, exploded. I e-mailed my friend Bill Bratton, then still police commissioner, to say that a lack of quality-of-life policing in that neighborhood, including an official blind eye to petty dope traffic, clearly contributed to the do-what-you-want mind-set that prevailed in that precinct, whose former corruption once dubbed it the Dirty Thirty.

Bratton needed no convincing: he was an even truer believer than I in the Broken Windows theory of crime prevention—the idea that if cops let minor crimes of disorder, such as low-level marijuana selling or subway fare-beating or public urination (or, these days, masturbation), go unpunished, the malicious will conclude that anything goes and do what their evil hearts prompt. He soon had a narcotics squad patrolling the neighborhood, and within months, the police had won a score of convictions of the pushers.

Bratton is retired now; the city council has decriminalized crimes of disorder by mandating civil instead of criminal summonses for many of them, resulting in no criminal record and no arrest warrant if you don’t show up in court; and the successors to the narcotics cops who worked their magic in the Three-Oh in 2015 have lost interest in the ongoing problem. They’re just low-level kids, the detectives say; they’ll soon be back on the streets—and, more than anything, as they do not say, Mayor Bill de Blasio and his city council of unemployables have decided that justice demands that the acting-out of the disorderly and the criminal, ex officio victims of social injustice, should take precedence over the peace and safety of the hardworking and civil. Out go the backlog of quality-of-life warrants of the last decade and more. Why should the wrongdoings of yesteryear weigh on the employment chances of an utterly work-unready 28-year-old—though, of course, no one would even invoke that past transgression in a case that didn’t involve current lawbreaking, just as no cop made a major fuss about small quantities of pot possession, unless some larger offense was at issue.

Fortunately, city crime continues to drop, because the virtuous circle set going by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Commissioner Bratton, and carried on by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly, has its own momentum, proving, as Adam Smith said, that “there is a great deal of ruin in a nation”—it takes a long time to expend the social and cultural capital that so many cities and countries take for granted. As Gotham proved, you can legislate morality, in the sense that lawmaking and law enforcement can change behavior and beliefs. But laws, morals, and manners exist in a dialectical tension with one another, and what has changed for the better can also change for the worse—and more easily, since improvement is harder than destruction. With a Black-Lives-Matter mayor, city council, and electorate, with Antifa thugs supposedly now the good guys, and with contrary views silenced by the universities and the trendy totalitarians of Silicon Valley (who, between engineering classes, learned what is right and moral from their required Stanford PC-indoctrination course), I would suggest holding on to your hat. Thanks to the age of Kindle, though, at least we won’t have book burnings.

But the reason for controlling quality-of-life disorder is not only, or even primarily, that it lowers major crime. Order is what makes urban life possible. Civility—the art of living in a city—is not innate. We have to learn not to throw sand at other kids and to learn to raise our hands to be called on, to stand in line and take our turn, not to blast music from our apartment or car, not to display too much affection publicly, not to block the sidewalk or market aisle, not to yell on our cellphones or cram pizza into our maws on the street or public transport, not to litter, not to monopolize public spaces with our “expressive” behavior, not to cut off pedestrians in crosswalks, not to bother or offend others unnecessarily. We no longer teach civility in schools: instead of the “citizenship” that my generation learned, we impart “social justice,” which teaches grievance and resentment of others; and city officials, with an Obama edict’s backing, have hamstrung school discipline, fostering misbehavior. In college, we don’t teach free and civil discussion, tolerance of intellectual differences, or respect for learning but only a kid’s right to resent microaggressions and silence politically incorrect speech as “violence.” The result will not be urbanity.

The Democratic Party has put forth several narratives since their loss in 2016. They have stuck with those narratives no matter how absurd they have been: Trump was elected because Russia colluded with him. Trump is unstable and unfit. Everything Trump does is wrong, he is a tainted President.

So says the party of Hillary Clinton and Hollywood, the moral arbiters of America. And the leftist mainstream media has followed in the most scurrilous of ways. They have reported only what the Democratic Party narrative says they should report.

Until now.

Follow me here. How long has this search for Trump/Russia collusion been going on? How long has the leftist media been claiming Trump does everything wrong?

Since he was elected last November. They have been hunting him since he won.

But the ground has shifted. It’s been clear for a long time that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative has been just that. It’s been a fable repeated over and over again, the Democratic Party and its media shills hoping that something would stick, helping them regain power through mindless repetition of an empty narrative.

Until now.

Unfortunately for the left, there is not the tiniest bit of evidence to bolster their narrative. There is not a scintilla of truth that shows Donald Tramp colluded with Russia to win. $100,000 of Facebook ads, half of them after November 8, 2016? That’s proof? Lord help us. That is the dumbest idea of proof offered since Piltdown Man. Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with a with someone claiming to have dirt on Hillary and left the meeting early because he saw nothing? Wow. Indict him, and impeach his father.

And that’s all there is?

Yep. That’s all there is.

But now we have an explosion of information about Russian influence on….. *drum roll*…….the Uranium One deal. Perhaps the worst political scandal since Teapot Dome. And then there’s the so-called Trump dossier. Which apparently was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

The Uranium One deal has been a powder keg since Peter Schweizer wrote about the scandal in the book Clinton Cash. It’s everything a scandal should be. Corruption, illicit bribes, Russians influencing a deal to control stockpiles of Uranium for their own use.

The Washington Post, in rare move of investigative journalism against Hillary and the Democrats, has reported what we all suspected: the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the so-called “dossier” by Christopher Steele that is the basis for the charge of Russia collusion.

According to the Post, a law firm for the DNC paid to complete the report after a “Republican” donor had initially paid to start it. This shows the connection between the Never Trump Republicans and Hillary to defeat and destroy Trump. Now we need to know the identity of the Republican “donor.”

This news is probably the reason the DNC refused to have the FBI examine its email server and system. Such an investigation would probably have disclosed the communications between the DNC and the law firm that paid for the “dossier,” a fancy term used to dress up a garbage report.

Steele admitted that the charges in the garbage statement are unverified, another fancy term for false.

The Hillary-Steele garbage report, which is essentially a dirty tricks opposition report, was given to John McCain, the Democrats’ favorite Republican.

McCain gave it to the Comey FBI, which probably used it as the basis to investigate Trump that ultimately led to the Mueller special counsel appointment. One would think Comey would have had the FBI investigate the charges in the report, knowing that it was an opposition report, and question who authorized and paid for the report before he used it. Comey could have and should have discovered as soon as he received the report that Hillary had paid for it, which would have cast serious doubt on its accuracy. It should have been dismissed as Hillary campaign dirty tricks.

It was a cute move by Hillary’s campaign to use McCain as the bag boy to deliver the report to the FBI to give the report the air of legitimacy.

The swamp at work: Hillary uses a law firm to pay for the Steele report, the report is given to John McCain, and McCain gives it to Comey. The report is leaked to BuzzFeed; the Destroy Trump Media publicizes the charges, calling it “Russia collusion”; and we get Mueller wasting our tax dollars investigating Trump. But the Mueller investigation may backfire on the Democrats if Mueller investigates the ties between Manafort and Tony and John Podesta on behalf of the Russians on the Uranium One deal. At the center is Hillary using dirty tricks working through “buffers” to attack Trump.

Unfortunately, we have an attorney general, Sessions, who recused himself when there was no reason to recuse. A competent, forceful attorney general would have investigated the Steele report fully before such a decision and would have concluded that the Steele report was a Hillary-campaign dirty trick, not to be given any weight or credibility.

It is no surprise that Crooked Hillary paid for the garbage Steele report. The only surprise is that it took this long for it to be known.

Let’s give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan grandstanding you imagine.

Here’s a story consistent with what has been reported in the press—how reliably reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited stories from their supposedly “connected” sources in Moscow. If these people were really connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime.

The resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, and after the election to trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.

We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief James Comey’s intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.

OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI’s own actions are necessarily a concern.

But now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.

Here’s another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.

The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia’s U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation.

This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010 transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia. The FBI made no move to break up the scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.

For anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story.

The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy. More recently, if just one of two things is true—Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey’s email intervention—then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there’s a molehill anywhere nearby.

Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin. CONTINUE AT SITE

NEWSFLASH: On the night of October 1, 2017 shots rained down on concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas Nevada killing 58 people and injuring 546. Who would do such a thing? Why?

Solving a murder mystery requires following the clues. Those familiar with guns and ammunition do not believe that Stephen Paddock, the flabby 64 year old alleged shooter, was alone or even fired the killing shots from his Mandalay Bay suite. The increasingly contradictory and phantasmagorical explanations offered by government authorities to explain the shocking mass-murder are less credible than the Parker Brothers murder mystery board game Clue.

Motive is always a good place to start. If you want to know the motive look at the result. Who benefits from mass murder at an MGM hotel in Las Vegas?

MGM Resorts International is a holding company that operates in two sections – domestic resorts and MGM China. MGM Resorts International is the parent company of the Mandalay Bay hotel and is publicly traded on the NYSE as MGM. So let’s consider the business implications of mass murder. Chaos and instability drive stock prices down. As expected, the price of MGM stock plummeted after the mass-shooting.

Most people buy stocks hoping they will increase in value and generate a profit. George Soros buys futures and bets the stock will go down (shorting a stock) – he actually wants the stock price to drop. Soros is infamously known as the man who broke the Bank of England in 1992 by shorting billions of pounds. He is also a convicted felon for insider trading in France 2002. If it can be proven that Soros is connected to the murders and profited from them he becomes a prime suspect. So what actually happened?

SEC filings in May of 2017 show no MGM stock in the Soros Fund Management. In August of 2017 Soros Fund Management shorts 1.35 million MGM shares worth $42 million dollars. The slaughter at Mandalay Bay will generate hundreds of millions of dollars for Soros. This puts Soros in the office and makes him a person of interest.

Las Vegas and Hollywood are connected by conglomerates that own studio properties and hotel properties. The parent company’s stock is affected by the successes and failures of both. Remember that chaos creates instability which causes stock prices to tumble. That is Soros’ modus operandi – he destabilizes governments for power and profit. Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has been a despicable sexual predator for decades so why is he being exposed now? Why not five or ten or fifteen years ago? If you want to know the motive look at the result. The exposure of Harvey Weinstein as a serial sexual predator caused stock prices to drop and is collapsing The Weinstein Company at the same time that MGM stock is dropping. This puts Weinstein in the bedroom.

Goldman Sachs is said to be in negotiations to buy Weinstein’s company and what a surprise – Soros Fund Management increased its stake in Goldman Sachs Group (GS.N) by nearly 40% during the first quarter and then dumped them by August. Coincidence? Not likely.

MGM stock prices were falling so on September 5, 2017 MGM Resort International announced a 1 billion share buyback program that artificially inflated the stock price. On September 7, 2017 CEO and Chairman of MGM Resorts International James Murren sold 294,150 shares of his stock for $10,024,632.00. On September 6, 2017 CAO Robert Selwood sold 40,325 shares of his stock for $1,365,404.50. Could these men have prior knowledge of the catastrophe at Mandalay Bay? Insider trading is against the law but if it can be shown that Murren had prior knowledge of the shooting that makes him prime suspect number 2. His selloff places Murren in the library.

MGM has a China connection as well. China is heavily invested in MGM through its hospitality division that develops hotel and resort properties all over the world including the Middle East and China. MGM Resorts International projects in China are developed and operated by Diaoyutai MGM Hospitality a joint venture between MGM and Diaoyutai State Guesthouse of China.

Let’s review. MGM Resorts International is connected to Las Vegas hotels, Hollywood movie studios, Chinese hotels, and its stock is being shorted by currency manipulator George Soros. And then there is Wanda’s 20 million dollar donation to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) to consider. Billionaire Wang Jianlin is chairman and president of Dalian Wanda Group. Interestingly it was Harvey Weinstein who sent a letter to the Beverly Hills City Council on behalf of Wanda’s development of a condo and hotel. Why did Weinstein go to bat for Wanda? What is the Weinstein connection to Chinese billionaire Wang Jianlin and MGM?

The Weinstein Company (TWC) sold its library to Goldman Sachs in 2010 to save itself from bankruptcy. The library was purchased by AMC Networks (AMCX) in 2015 and then AMC Networks offered a $500 million buyback program of their stock on June 6, 2017. The library will revert back to TWC when the debt is paid but what happens if TWC goes out of business? The plot thickens.

China has been quietly buying up studios and influence in Hollywood for the last several years. Beijing based real estate conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group is central to the story. Wanda owns AMC Theaters and Legendary Entertainment. Wanda co-owns Open Road Films and Fathom Events and partners with Sony Entertainment.

Chinese control over content and distribution of movies is extremely problematic because of the unparalleled influence and platform it provides to manipulate public opinion. Media strategist Richard Berman expresses the concern in this way:

“Chinese control of movie production, radio station broadcasts, and other public channels provides the Chinese government with a platform to promote its own ideological message in the place of competing ideologies — often in an unassuming manner.”

Only the corrupt self-serving Hollywood elite who protected Harvey Weinstein for decades could actually say that Chinese influence in American film content will be minimal or benign. Twenty million dollars buys a lot of influence – remember Wanda’s gift to AMPAS. China is one of the usual suspects in this murder mystery because China seeks geopolitical primacy. Predators come in all forms – there are sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein, political predators like China, financial predators like James Murren, and the mother of all predators profiteer George Soros.

Predators succeed because of the participation of their enablers who benefit in some way from the actions of the predator. Solving murder mysteries often hinges on identifying those who enabled the crime. So, who is the enabler in our WHODUMIT??

Let’s consider the absurd phantasmagorical accounts of the Las Vegas shooting provided by the authorities and echoed by the mainstream media (that has suddenly gone silent on the subject) as enablers. Let’s also consider the multiple eyewitness accounts contradicting every point of the official version. What could possibly account for such diametrically opposed versions of what happened in Las Vegas that night?

One theory of the crime is that the entire event was a deep state/government psychological operation (PsyOps) designed to create chaos to drive stock prices down. In this scenario the government enabled prime suspects Soros, Murren, and China to profit enormously. Why? All three are enemies of the state and enriching them enriches the coffers of the leftist/globalist agenda that seeks to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. The predictable cries for gun control furthers the leftist/globalist cause because an unarmed American public cannot defend itself.

But what about Weinstein? Who wanted to bring down Weinstein? He is, after all the premier spokesman for the culture war against America – his films destructively portraying an increasingly violent and out of control society. The exposure of Weinstein seems personal – perhaps Weinstein was exposed to destroy him and devalue his company for the scavengers waiting to buy it. Time will tell.

Before anyone rejects these possibilities as impossibilities – remember that the enemies of America intend to destroy us from the inside out. Chaos is the goal of the enemy because chaos is necessary for seismic social change. It is the chaos that produces economic instability, cultural instability, political instability, and makes people afraid. When people are fearful enough they will willingly surrender their civil liberties for the promise of safety. Surrender is the tipping point that awards the government excessive control.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

News broke last week about possible Russian wrongdoing in the U.S., and it didn’t involve the Trump campaign. The Hill reported that in 2009 the FBI “gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.”

The FBI kept that information from Congress and the public, the Hill reported, even as Hillary Clinton’s State Department in 2010 approved a deal that transferred control of more than 20% of America’s uranium supply to a Russian company. The Hill also reported the FBI had documents showing that during this period Russia engineered the transmission of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The FBI director at the time: Robert Mueller, now special counsel in charge of investigating “Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters.” The revelations can only heighten anxieties about Mr. Mueller, the FBI and the rule of law.

The special counsel’s open-ended mandate covers not only “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” but also “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Because Mr. Mueller has interpreted his mandate expansively, his effort may become the most politically disruptive federal investigation of our young century—more than the FBI’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server and mishandling of classified information, more than Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the 2003 disclosure of CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity.

All three investigations have one important characteristic in common: James Comey, Mr. Mueller’s successor as FBI director, played a dubious role in each.

In December 2003, after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the Plame matter, then-Deputy Attorney General Comey named Mr. Fitzgerald—a close friend who was godfather to one of Mr. Comey’s children—as special counsel to head the Justice Department’s “investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure” of Ms. Plame’s employment.

Unknown to the public then, and still not widely known, that potential crime had already been solved. By early fall 2003, the CIA had determined that revealing Ms. Plame’s identity caused no injury to national security, while the FBI knew it was not a White House official—as many Democrats and liberal pundits ardently believed—but rather Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who was columnist Robert Novak’s source for the original Plame story.

Mr. Fitzgerald declined to prosecute Mr. Armitage, but he played hardball with the Bush White House. Over several years, Mr. Fitzgerald inflicted severe damage by feeding the false accusation that the president had lied the nation into the Iraq war. The only criminal charges he prosecuted were generated by his investigation. He won a 2007 conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, for obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury. The conviction was based on small inconsistencies Mr. Fitzgerald discovered in (or created from) more than 20 hours of Mr. Libby’s FBI interrogation and grand-jury testimony. Star prosecution witness Judith Miller wrote in her 2015 memoir that Mr. Fitzgerald had withheld crucial information and manipulated her memory, inducing her to testify falsely against Mr. Libby.

In contrast, then-FBI Director Comey played softball with the 2015-16 Hillary Clinton investigation. Despite the gravity of the matter—military service members can be court-martialed and discharged for sending classified information on nonsecure systems—Mr. Comey mostly avoided issuing subpoenas and cooperated with the Obama Justice Department in obscuring the investigation’s criminal character. He permitted Mrs. Clinton and her team to destroy evidence and granted generous immunity deals to her advisers. He drafted a statement exonerating Mrs. Clinton months before the FBI interviewed her. And his FBI neither recorded the interview nor compelled her to answer questions under oath. CONTINUE AT SITE