Remember two nights ago when Tim Kaine spent the entire VP Debate calling Trump a “racist” for being against illegal immigration and wanting to enforce the law?

Well, Cranky Tim Kaine and Crooked Hillary should have been made aware that these days EVERYONE has access to the internet and can easily discover videos of their past statements.

We dug up an old video from 2005 where Tim Kaine says the same thing he and Hillary label Trump as racist for saying.

We also have dug up NUMEROUS “racist” quotes from Hillary and compiled them into a video at the bottom of this page.


DISCLAIMER: Obviously, I don’t believe this statement is racist, but Tim Kaine does. We are just holding him to his OWN standard!

Tim Kaine is talking about illegal immigration and says,
“I am deeply opposed to illegal immigration, and I call on the Federal Government, the President, the immigration services to STOP the in-flood of illegal immigrants into this country”

He didn’t stop there!

“I’ve supported wide state policies to make sure that we do not provide services to folks in this state not here legally”

By his own standards, he is a racist. WATCH this and SHARE it on Facebook so we can expose his hypocrisy to everyone!

(Hillary has also been exposed as a hypocrite on this topic, SEE BELOW the video)

Hillary Clinton Caught Cheating Her Way to the White House


by warner-todd-huston
Aside from the obvious fact that the national media is working overtime to get Hillary Clinton elected–including some in the so-called conservative media–evidence is growing that Hillary and her party are well on the road toward cheating their way to putting Hillary in the White House.

The examples of the left cheating, lying, and committing fraud in a desperate attempt to get Hillary elected are wide and varied. They range from the more trivial to the insidious.

In one case, for instance, Hillary’s campaign hired a child actor to pretend to be a little girl who is aggrieved over Donald Trump’s “body shaming” of a past beauty pageant contestant.

During a town hall-styled event Hillary’s Hollywood actress host, Elizabeth Banks, pointed out a little girl in the audience and made as if they had only just noticed the little girl for the first time. The girl rose and delivered a very polished–almost focus group created–question on “body shaming,” a topic with which the left has recently fallen in love.

The girl was applauded for her “spontaneous” question and presented as a “normal” little girl who just happened to be in the audience. But sharp eyed viewers noted that this “little girl” is actually an actress who has appeared in several movies. Obviously Team Hillary hired the girl to ask this “spontaneous” question. The 15-year-old actress, amusingly named Brennan Leach–what a perfect last name for a Hillary supporter–was exposed very quickly.

Aside from the obvious fact that the national media is working overtime to get Hillary Clinton elected–including some in the so-called conservative media–evidence is growing that Hillary and her party are well on the road toward cheating their way to putting Hillary in the White House.

The examples of the left cheating, lying, and committing fraud in a desperate attempt to get Hillary elected are wide and varied. They range from the more trivial to the insidious.

In one case, for instance, Hillary’s campaign hired a child actor to pretend to be a little girl who is aggrieved over Donald Trump’s “body shaming” of a past beauty pageant contestant.

During a town hall-styled event Hillary’s Hollywood actress host, Elizabeth Banks, pointed out a little girl in the audience and made as if they had only just noticed the little girl for the first time. The girl rose and delivered a very polished–almost focus group created–question on “body shaming,” a topic with which the left has recently fallen in love.

The girl was applauded for her “spontaneous” question and presented as a “normal” little girl who just happened to be in the audience. But sharp eyed viewers noted that this “little girl” is actually an actress who has appeared in several movies. Obviously Team Hillary hired the girl to ask this “spontaneous” question. The 15-year-old actress, amusingly named Brennan Leach–what a perfect last name for a Hillary supporter–was exposed very quickly.

It makes you wonder, if one “spontaneous” audience member was a political theater plant, how many more of the people asking questions in the audience were fakes?

Speaking of campaign trail frauds, in another case a leaked memo reveals that Hillary Clinton was provided questions beforehand when she was “interviewed” by daytime talk show host Steve Harvey. It’s proof once again that members of the so-called un-biased media are so in the tank for Hillary that they won’t even have a light daytime interview without allowing Clinton to program every aspect of it. Harvey clearly has no integrity.

This isn’t speculation, either, as Harvey show producers later fully admitted that Steve Harvey’s interview was all a pre-scripted sham.

It may be evidence of smart campaigning by Team Hillary, but it is also proof of complicity by the left-wing, sold-out, old media establishment.

But these two examples are trivial compared to the dozens of examples of vote fraud being racked up day in and day out by Democrats across the country.

The theft of this election started way back during the Democrat primaries before Hillary even “won” her party’s nomination. Early in the process the Democrat establishment was seen working hard to make sure self-avowed socialist Vermont senator Bernie Sanders would lose to Hillary.

By one estimate, for example, Bernie lost 184 delegates that had previously pledged to vote for him and that number, the study says, would have allowed the Vermonter to thoroughly beat Hillary if those delegates had not been stolen away by hook or by crook through the various machinations of the Democrat Party.

And that doesn’t even count the fact that Hillary avoided debates, nor does it take into account that the chair of the Democrat Party was caught working behind the scenes to make sure Sanders lost.

The latter is no conjecture as chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz was kicked out of her position as the chairperson of the DNC over the scandalous revelations. And it couldn’t have come at an more embarrassing time for the Party, either, as Schultz was forced to resign just as the Democrat National Convention was beginning.

hillary-clinton-shrugIn yet another case, the Clinton campaign was accused of cheating in Kentucky when Bernie Sanders votes in Pike County were mysteriously changed from Sanders to Hillary votes. And not just a few of them, either, but over 4,000! Some feel this fraud was just enough to allow Hillary to “win” the state’s primary.

Team Hillary also committed fraud during the Iowa Caucus. During one vote count in Polk County it was revealed that Hillary’s team purposefully miscounted votes in order to give her a win over Sanders.

The vote fraud has continued since the primaries, too.

In Illinois Union operatives were caught paying people to fill out Democrat ballots. Kankakee County officials also discovered that absentee votes were being sent in by people who are not legally registered to vote in the county.

Then there is the growing vote fraud investigation in nearby Indiana where the state police have been investigating an ever growing case of vote fraud in Marion and Hendricks counties. But as the investigation got under way it became clear that fraud was being committed by Democrats in at least seven more counties. The investigation now spans nine counties.

At the heart of the investigation is a liberal activist group called Indiana Voter Registration Project run by one Craig Varoga, a Democratic strategist who back in the day was a staffer on former President Bill Clinton’s 1996 national campaign.

The liberal voter group is based in Indianapolis and appears to have submitted thousands of voter registration forms with fake, inaccurate, or missing information.

With all this illegal activity being carried out by Democrats, a study by political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest estimated that at least 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and maybe as many as 2.2 percent in 2010. That estimate is likely very low, but it still adds up to thousands of illegal votes.

This fraud is still going on. In fact, only just this month we had yet another case of illegal immigrants preparing to vote when officials in Virginia admitted that thousands of foreigners were registered to vote in the Commonwealth.

And according to, a young Democrat staffer named Andrew Spieles, a student at James Madison University, confessed to registering 19 dead people to vote as Democrats.

Of course, liberals are fond of saying all this fraud is meaningless and even if there is vote fraud (which they vehemently deny) it doesn’t impact elections. But as vote fraud expert John Fund reported in August, we already have plenty of examples where vote fraud has upset election results.

But there certainly are examples of elections being overturned for reasons of fraud, including mayoral elections in Miami and East Chicago, Ind. We’ve also seen clear evidence of fraud in more important races. In 2008, illegal felon voters appear to have swung the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election. The day after the election, GOP senator Norm Coleman had a 725-vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312-vote victory.
It all adds up to clear evidence that Hillary and her party are working overtime to steal this election. So who can blame Donald Trump when he says this system is rigged?

Clinton PUPPET MASTER George Soros Has A New ENEMY…I Don’t Think He’s Going To Enjoy THIS!


If you need any evidence that the system is rigged against regular, everyday Americans like us, look no further.
For years super rich elitists have been pulling the strings of government. They have been controlling our leaders from the shadows; even making sure their preferred choices are put into office. Anyone that defies their agenda is made sure to be destroyed.

Just take this most recent case. Joe Arpaio, considered one of the toughest sheriffs in the United States, has worked tirelessly to keep Phoenix safe from crime for years. Now with his reelection at hand, there is someone trying to undermine his bid.
It’s someone we’re all too familiar with.

From AZ Family:

Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America who could face criminal charges for ignoring a judge’s order to stop targeting Latinos in anti-immigration roundups, may now have a new foe as he seeks re-election – George Soros, the billionaire liberal hedge fund tycoon.

The Republican sheriff already was battered politically and support for him had been slipping when a group linked to Soros mounted an anti-Arpaio attack in an attempt to weaken his bid for a seventh straight term.

The group started sending fliers to Phoenix-area voters two weeks ago, and a mailing last week accuses Arpaio of separating a mother from her child because of an unpaid traffic ticket, botching hundreds of sex crimes investigations and scaring immigrants so much that that they don’t report crime.

Obama has been waging a war against this no-nonsense sheriff and his stance on illegal immigration. Now with his reelection coming up, another corrupt, liberal villain is trying to undermine this protector of the people.

This is nothing new. Soros has been using his billions to place select candidates into power for years, people he knows will forward a broken, liberal agenda for this country.

Over the last year, Soros contributed $3.9 million to Democrats in law enforcement political races in Chicago, St. Louis, Orlando, Houston, Albuquerque, Lowndes County in Mississippi and Caddo Parish in Louisiana, according to campaign finance records.

Soros doesn’t care if our law enforcement are weak-willed pansies who ignore law and order and make our nation unsafe. It is his plan after all: make America weak, unsecure, with a faltering economy. That will ensure he and only he will have power over us and the rest of the country.

A nation of strong, independent-minded, hard-working Americans is a rich, greedy, villain’s biggest threat. Men like Soros will do everything in their power to make sure we cannot oppose them.

It’s why the liberal elite want us dependent on the federal government for our food, money, and healthcare. We can’t demand personal liberties when we’re under the government’s thumb.

Make no mistake, any sheriff Soros backs will be weak on immigration and other crime. The Phoenix area will be flooded with more illegals, violent crime, and drugs.
If you live in the area and want it to stay safe, then there’s one thing you can still do: vote for Arpaio.


The Clinton campaign, via the Washington Post released audio and video on Friday of Donald Trump talking about women in a way that has offended some people. He has apologized. But the media won’t let go of this non-story even though the Clintons have said and done 100 times worse things. It’s ridiculous.

Hillary paints Trump as a sexist and how he treats women badly and blah, blah, blah.

Well, Hillary has some nasty history herself and my fellow journalist, AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO from The Daily Wire has put together an impressive list of times when Mrs. Clinton has been accused of threatening, smearing and targeting women her husband has sexually assaulted or carried out consensual affairs with.

Here are seven of those instances:

1. Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers; calls her “trailer-trash.”
In an ABC News interview in 1992, Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers, a women Bill would later admit to having an affair with, as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” Hillary also referred to Flowers as “trailer trash.”

2. Hillary slams former White House intern Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon” after she had consensual relations with her husband in the Oval Office.

CBS News reports: “According to the friend, Diane Blair — a political science professor whose papers were donated to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library – Hillary Clinton credited Bill Clinton with trying to break away from Lewinsky, whom she called a ‘narcissistic loony toon.’”

3. Hillary, defending an alleged rapist, smears his 12-year-old alleged rape victim, claiming the young girl had a “tendency to seek out older men.” She also laughs on tape over the cunning way she had vital evidence dismissed, destroying the alleged rape victim’s case.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Hillary wrote in the affidavit about the 12-year-old girl.

Hillary is even captured on tape laughing at the fact that she got the only piece of evidence against her client dismissed: “He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Hillary says, audibly laughing.

The alleged rape victim told The Daily Beast what she would say to Hillary if she ever has the chance: “‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.’”

4. Hillary disparagingly refers to the numerous women her husband was involved with as “bimbos.”

In 1991, Mrs. Clinton called the onslaught of women accusing her husband of sexual misconduct or consensual infidelity as the “bimbo eruption.”

5. Hillary reportedly threatens Juanita Broaddrick, Bill’s alleged rape victim, into silence at a political fundraiser after the accused rape.

According to Broaddrick, Hillary threatened her while knowing her husband had raped her:

Hillary sought out Broaddrick at the political fundraiser after Bill had raped her; she grabbed her hand and “thanked her” for “everything” she had done for Bill. Feeling frightened, Broaddrick says she tried to turn around and leave, but Hillary allegedly squeezed her hand tighter and wouldn’t let her go.

Broaddrick told The Daily Wire that there was “no way” Hillary did not intend for that interaction to be construed as a threat.

“So many people have said since then that, ‘Maybe she just knew that you had been with him, maybe he hadn’t told her the complete description of what he’d done to you,’” she said. “I still feel like she knew.”

6. “I mean, I would crucify her,” Hillary says of Gennifer Flowers.

Hillary “told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, ‘I mean, I would crucify her,’” notes The Washington Post.

7. “[W]e have to destroy her story,” Hillary allegedly said of one woman state troopers sought out for her husband to have a sexual encounter with.

As noted by National Review: “When a rock groupie alleged that a state trooper approached her on Governor Clinton’s behalf, Hillary said ‘we have to destroy her story.’”

Pretty unbelievable huh?

I’d like to thank AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO from The Daily Wire for fighting the good fight- nice job!

Let us know what you think in the comments below.

God Bless.




In his last State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he was making Joe Biden’s “cancer moonshot” a national priority, putting the American research community on an accelerated path to a cure. Critics have said such a moonshot is outdated and misguided – that cancer is a collection of many different diseases and that any talk of a singular “cure” is an illusion. But even if you concede that point, a coherent national strategy could uncover new treatments and new information that could greatly improve our current understanding of the disease.

But then you see that we’re spending nearly $1 million to research the drinking habits of American lesbians, and you wonder how serious this administration really is about pursuing that moonshot in the first place.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the National Institutes of Health has awarded $911,056 in grant money to Old Dominion University so they can carry out a three-year study on this important American crisis.

“Sexual minority women (i.e., women who self-identify as lesbian and bisexual) report more heavy drinking, more alcohol-related problems, and higher rates of alcohol use disorders as compared to heterosexual women,” says the grant. “Young sexual minority women are particularly vulnerable.”

Hmm. So women who choose to live a lesbian/bisexual lifestyle (and sorry, but that’s what “self-identify” means – that it’s a choice) also choose to drink more? And we now have to go in there and figure out why the first choice leads to the second?

The grant notes that this is the first time that researchers have studied such a thing.

“No studies have examined how relationship factors and partners’ alcohol use contribute to hazardous drinking among female sexual minority couples,” the researchers say.

In case you think the researchers might discover something interesting, though, you can put those hopes to bed. They aren’t exactly going into this study with open minds. From the Free Beacon:

The research will be grounded in ‘Minority Stress Theory,’ which blames discrimination and stigma for ‘negative mental health outcomes.’ The latest grant, awarded this year, is a follow up to previous work that found ‘minority stress is associated with alcohol use and related problems via negative affect among lesbians.’
In other words, they already “know” that lesbians are driven to drink because “society” treats them “badly.” The $1 million is just so they can slap some numbers on that hypothesis and call it a fact. All of these preconceived notions will keep them from arriving at a simpler conclusion: A person who makes bad decisions will probably keep making them.



Hillary and Her Pal Lester Holt are Wrong, Stop and Frisk is Perfectly Constitutional

by Warner Tod Houston
serrano130527_2_560Stop and Frisk is Perfectly Constitutional
During the first presidential debate of the election year, Donald Trump and moderator-cum second Democrat debater Lester Holt clashed over the police policy of stop and frisk. Siding with Hillary, shill Holt insisted the policy was deemed unconstitutional while Trump disputed that notion. But in fact, Holt is wrong. Stop and frisk is perfectly legal.

One of Trump’s suggestions for how to put a dent in the wildly rising rates of violent crime in America’s Democrat-controlled big cities is to reinstate and expand the stop and frisk policy. Trump said as much during the September 26 debate.
ut, as Trump spoke the third debater interrupted him saying it was an illegal policy.

“Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men,” so-called “moderator” Holt told Trump.

“No, you’re wrong,” Trump responded. “It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”

So, who is right? Well, all signs point to Trump.

For those unaware, stop and frisk (sometimes called a “Terry stop”) was legitimized by the U.S. Supreme Court way back in 1968 when the court ruled that a police officer could legally frisk a suspect without obtaining a search warrant or first arresting them if the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed or carrying contraband (such as drugs).

But the concept goes back even farther than 1968 and can be found in the English Common Law upon which the American system of justice was based. In any case, it is a concept of very long standing and has already been ruled a legal policing tool.

The trick, though, is in the way stop and frisk is observed and put into use. In practice, the officer needs a “reasonable” cause to perform a stop and search and that is where the whole policy can get political. Should a department indulge the process too much it could result in calls of harassment by members of the community and that is what happened in New York City. Stop and frisk was ended due to political pressure, not really legal pressure.

Holt did have a minor point in that a 2013 lawsuit against the New York Police Department put a halt to stop and frisk by the NYPD saying that its process was flawed. But the lawsuit did not deem the policy of stop and frisk itself to be unconstitutional. Holt was 100% wrong on that.

In the 2013 case, Bill Clinton appointed Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan essentially ruled that New York City’s version of the policy was improper–calling it an example of “indirect racial profiling”–and demanded that the NYPD put a halt to its policy.

After her decision Judge Scheindlin was criticized by an appeals panel saying she had compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation” by taking the case to the media instead of remaining properly aloof during the process.

Even after she issued her decision it wasn’t necessarily the end of the case as the city had initially begun to file an appeal of the ruling. The appeal could well have over turned Judge Scheindlin’s obviously liberal political ruling but the appeal was canceled by incoming, self-avowed socialist mayor Bill de Blasio whose decision was arrived via political considerations, not legal ones

So, even the NYPD’s version of stop and frisk never reached its final legal challenge to determine its legality.

But don’t take my word for it. After the debate the policy was immediately defended by one-time New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The former mayor said that stop and frisk helped bring about an 85 percent reduction in crime in the Big Apple and is a perfectly legitimate, legal and constitutional tool used by America’s police departments.

Giuliani took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal the day after the debate to side with Trump and asserted the efficacy of the stop and frisk policy.

Rudy insisted that the policy saved black lives.

Over a 20-year use of this policy, spanning the administration of two New York City mayors and four police commissioners, stop and frisk played a material part in reducing homicides in New York City. It helped to change New York City from the crime capital of America to the safest large city in the country. In each of those 20 years, approximately six of 10 murder victims in New York City were African-Americans. In other words, stop and frisk saved many black lives.
Rudy also pointed out that during his tenure the U.S. Department of Justice constantly reviewed the NYPD’s policy and never filed any sanctions or actions against the city.

It wasn’t until the liberal Manhattan judge appointed by a leftist president who wanted to make her mark in social justice before she retired that the policy was s maligned.

Rudy slammed both Hillary Clinton and “moderator” Lester Holt for their attack on Trump during the debate.

“Donald Trump was right. Hillary Clinton was wrong. Lester Holt should apologize for interfering and trying so hard to help Mrs. Clinton support her incorrect statement that stop and frisk is unconstitutional,” he wrote.

But Rudy Giuliani isn’t alone in his contention that stop and frisk is a good policy.

Even FBI Director James Comey noted that stop and frisk is a useful and legal tool for police. Comey recently told the House Judiciary Committee that the policy is perfectly fine when used properly.

Of course, many claim the policy is “racist” because it affects so many black citizens. But a study by the RAND Corp. found that “black pedestrians were stopped at a rate that is 20 to 30 percent lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions.”

In any case, the decision on how to or whether to implement stop and frisk is firmly in the political realm because in the legal realm the policy is perfectly constitutional.

The Never-Trump Lobby Needs To Wake Up To Reality

I just finished watching the movie “The Huntsman: Winter’s War” and couldn’t help but force myself to look into the proverbial political mirror.

And so I asked, mirror, mirror on the wall, who are the most ignorant and out of touch individuals in politics of them all?

While all of my mirrors at home are on the same page in thinking that my looks are exquisite and second to none, the political mirror told me that those pesky never-Trumpers are in a class by themselves when it comes to being out of touch with today’s political realities.

Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, two men who have reason to hate on Trump, are backing him over Hillary Clinton. The list of never-Trump turncoats continues to grow as the general election approaches.

Many of these Americans are waking up to the scary thought that Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill could be leading our country this time next year.

One individual who has spent a lot of time and money this presidential election cycle supporting the likes of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio is Brian Ballard, the owner of Florida’s top lobbying firm.

Ballard, who is raising big cash for Trump and never pulls a punch or a personal check, told the Shark Tank that in regards to Republicans not supporting Donald Trump, a Hillary win would forever be “tattooed on their resumes.”

“Congrats on the rest of your career seeking Republican support.”-Brian Ballard
Look, the never-Trump lobby is mad, we get it. It is understandable, but they need to get a grip of themselves and put egos aside.

I am talking to you Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, as well as any other Republicans and Independents still hung up on not voting for Trump.

Most of these self-style purists who live by the notion that voting for Trump will somehow compromised their deep-rooted conservative principles, and that a Trump presidency will signal the end of the Republican Party as we know it, need to consider laying off whatever herb or root they are currently smoking.

I have come to the conclusion that the anti-Trump wing of the GOP, who seems to want to have their day in the sun, may just only need to hug it out with Trump.

Really, they may must need Trump to pay them a visit and literally embrace them.

Look at voting for Trump this way. If President Barack Obama failed to destroy Conservatism and the GOP in 8 years of actively trying to do so, what makes the never Trump crowd think “The Donald” could do any better?

As those Rhodes Scholars on ESPN’s Sunday Morning Countdown like to say, “C’mon Man!”

Forget about what I just wrote and just listen to what Hillary Clinton said in her opening statement during the first presidential debate against Trump.

Clinton not only recited Democratic Party talking points, it seems as if she was reading directly from the Book of Obama when she said, “we also have to make the economy fairer” for the less fortunate.

In reading verse three of Obama’s Gospel, Clinton said that she supports “raising the minimum wage” and having the “wealthy pay their fair share.”

And for all of you scratched-face college kids, Clinton wants to make it so that you are “debt free” from your collegiate fiscal responsibilities. In other words, Clinton wants everyone else pay for your schooling.

She didn’t stop there. Clinton gave a full-throated endorsement of Obama’s “spread the wealth around” agenda by telling the 80+million Americans watching that night that businesses need to spread their wealth around.

If you helped create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top. -Hillary Clinton

Here is the video of the first 20 or so minutes of the debate. You need only to jump to minute 3 of the video to hear Clinton’s vision of the future People’s Republic of the United States.
Donald Trump wasn’t my first presidential choice, even though he was right up there with Rubio and Cruz.

This is a no-brainer. Donald Trump for President, because the alternative will be a reckless, dishonest and destructive individual who will not only change the face of the U.S. Supreme Court, but stands to change the American identity with her “One World” philosphy.

Amen to that.

FBI Director Comey Took Millions from Clinton Foundation Defense Contractor

Is anyone surprised by this corruption? When FBI Director James Comey said that the organization would not be seeking to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her illegal email server, anyone paying attention knew there was a deep level of corruption. Now, it’s been made clear. James Comey received millions of dollars from the corrupt Clinton Foundation, and his brother’s law firm also does the Clinton’s taxes.

According to a letter sent by 200 Republicans who stated Clinton “clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril,” Comey was asked why he would not bring charges against her. “No one is above the law, and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges.”

MiniPlanet reports:

A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.

These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
In the report, Comey is noted as receiving $6 million in one year along from Lockheed Martin, who is a Clinton Foundation donor, and became a donor in the same year Comey received those funds.

Additionally, Mr. Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings in 2013. HSBC has also partnered with The Clinton Foundation, where records indicate that the bank projected $1 billion in financing through the Clinton Foundation for “retrofitting” 1,500 to 2,000 housing units to conserve energy.

Additionally, Peter Comey, James’ brother, serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper, according to the report.

DLA Piper is number five on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list. DLA also performed an independent audit of The Clinton Foundation in November.

So, is anyone else going to question the motives of FBI Director Comey when it comes to failing to call for charges against Hillary Clinton regarding her blatant disregard for the law, national security and the American people? I think not.