Header Image (book)


Wednesday, January 29, 2020

More Obama Administration Corruption Uncovered

Silverfiddle Rant!
Just in case anyone missed this...

The Justice Department has concluded that it should have ended its surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser earlier than it did because it lacked "insufficient predication" to continue eavesdropping, according to an order made public Thursday by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The court has demanded explanations from the Justice Department by next week about the four applications, and information about how the secrecy of the material was being protected, as well as explanations about the "related investigations" and litigation referenced by the department.

Obama ain't the king no more, so corruption like Fast and Furious, giving lawbreaker Hillary a sweetheart deal, and using the IRS to attack political enemies can no longer be swept under the rug.  We've only seen the tip of Obama trash pile they furiously tried to bury as they scurried for the exits.


  1. "We've only seen the tip."
    That's a large tip.
    And not much is happening regarding it, it seems.

    1. I have to wonder....Will we ever see much happening?

    2. As we have all sadly found out, guilt or innocence all depends on who did it. All the stuff that went on in the Obama administration were just oopsies, my bad, but everything President Trump does is hardcore criminal activity.

      On a related note, if they call witnesses in the Senate, I hope Trump goes scorched earth and rips the lid off the Ukraine hog trough and exposes all the influence peddling and dirty business dealings going back to the Clinton Administration. Expose it all and spare no person or party.

      No one will go to jail, but I want the American people to see how "business is done" with the aid of "official US foreign policy" conducted through the state department and our embassies. If US citizens were still shockable, they would be shocked.

    3. SF,
      All the stuff that went on in the Obama administration were just oopsies, my bad, but everything President Trump does is hardcore criminal activity.


      Furthermore all the Obama administration oopsies have been "debunked." Not really, of course. Just "buried."

    4. And let us remember that Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress. Any consequences for that?

    5. Consequences? For an Obama Democrat?

      Surely you jest, good lady!

  2. Unless and until the powers that be develop some real and solid CHARCTER then find the MORAL COURAGE to OUTLAW, SEVERELY PUNISH and thus VANQUISH the DOUBLE STANDARD, Blacks, Jewish Marxian Activists, Illegal Aliens, Hispanics, Homosexuals, Islamaniacs, Drug Addicts, Street People, Thieves, and Feminazis will be held IMMUNE from adverse criticism, or any kind of punishment for their misdeeds, UNLESS they have transgressed by having sex with underage members of both sexes or pressing unwanted sexual attention on female subordinates.

    Since Feminazis now hold the whip hand, their increasingly strident demands now take precedence over the interests other "deprived and abused" victim groups.

    White Males are Fair Game, ESPECIALLY if they are of Anglo-Saxon Protestant derivation.

    The Left has instituted an offcial worldview that obviously believes in the profound INEQUALITY of the human species.

    1. I jst wrote this at KID's blog, but I believe the message to be of UNIVERSAL significance. Hope you agree.

      Kid, I've published the long long list of President Trump's many positive accomplishments at my blog today.

      I gave YOU full credit, Kiud, for providing the information in the first place, but laid it all out in print in a decent format. Seen that way and not merly buried in a LINK it looks tremendously impressive, which it is.

      So thanks again for that.

      I think it's VITALLY important that we keep emphasizing, and praising Mr. Trump's many VIRTUES and expressing GRATITUDE for his enormous accomplishments. .

      Most of us on the Right have too great a tendency to emhasize the FAULTS of his TORMENTORS, instead of heaping praise on our latter day HERO..

      I think that's not very bright, because it only expands THEIR visibity to a gullible, poorly informed, often bitterly cynical public.

      Cynicism and negative feelings are DEPRESSING nd inherently DESTRUCTIVE –– as well as UNGODLY –– o so I firmly believe.

    2. I called the lengthy column DONNY'S DIRTY DEEDS

      That ought to draw a lot of RATS, don't you think?


  3. When Bolton takes the stand I hope somebody asks him why he lied about Iraq's WMD. He was the principle Bushite lying us into war. He promised us Saddam had WMD.

    Democrats have always (rightly) hated this warmongering Establishment Syndicate made man, and now he's their beloved star witness!

    Can't make this stuff up!

    1. I don' be;ieve hat's strictly true, Silver. I remember very well that virtually EVERYONE in the "International Community" relied on any number of "Intelligence Slources" ALL of whom supported the belief that Saddam Hussein DID, indeed, have WMD.

      That they, pprently, were WRNG is not Jon Bolton's full.

      I lqaya LIKE Bolto, because he stood up to the whey-faced, limp-wested, pusillanimous willy wankers in the Big, Blind, Blundering, Bungling Bureaucracy, and the prissy, Internatonal Assholes at the UN.

    2. He's a warmonger and he and the Bushites cherry-picked the intelligence.

    3. He’s a warmonger.......

      As well as obfuscated the fact that some of the key “sources” were Iranian agents. Well known to the IC at the time. For all the currently popular ire at the community, it bears remembering that the public dissemination of findings, are filtered through the political apparatus.

    4. Now you want to echo Code Pink. There was no lying about WMD. It was a common belief held by every single intelligence agency on the planet. Even Saddam himself didn’t say he I dont have them.

      If you want to blame anyone the blame belongs entirely on Saddam himself. You are not looking at the war long term. The amount of large scale 9-11 attacks in the USA zero.

      What we are left with is Irans asymmetrical warfare. It took a genuine leader to put Iran on notice. Its proxies are having cashflow problems. Hezbollah will have to smuggle more drugs. Iran is over extended and it has a plethora of nationalities more deserving than Psuedostinians for national status. The Azeris want to unite with their peers.

      Whatever criticism of Bolton you might have is one thing. However the Code Pink lying about WMD is a farce.

      History of the region is not over. I maintain the seeds plant by Bush are still an open book.

    5. That would all make perfect sense....if WMD were found in Iraq.

  4. Well serve me subpoena colada... I've almost finished my MAGArita (h/t to Laura Ingraham). Pigs DO fly.

  5. Our good friend at Bunkerville does a pretty good job exposing Bolton’s corruption; see https://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2020/01/29/john-bolton-pocketed-115000-from-ukraine-oligarch-clinton-foundation-donor/

    Washington DC corruption appears to transcend either left or right. They’re all in it. Deep in it. So deep, in fact, that it’s almost time for American mobs, burning torches, and pitchforks.

    1. Flaming torches and pitchforks, Mustang?

      Oh yeah, and Clubs studded with nails, Potatoes loaded wih razor blades, Spray Cans of Mace, Sledghmmers, scythes, Flamethrowers, Grenades, and Machine guns, an IED's too.

      The Left often talks in lofty, effete, academic-style terms of their love for "Creative Destruction." It's high time they got a heavy overdose of their own bitter medicine.

    2. @ Franco: " Potatoes loaded with razor blades" ???

      Are you sure you weren't a 60's radical? I've never heard of that one before.

    3. Just think what one of those MOLEYS (that's what we called them in New York's gang culture) could do to Nasty Pelousy's supercilious sagging sour face, Schumer's sly, sarcastic, mocking grin, or little ADAM SCHITT's balding, pencil necked, purse-lipped, perennially pouting puss.

      The images fill me with unholy vicarious joy.


  6. You forgot Benghazi,Benghazi, Benghazi .

    Now back to the trial with no witnesses.

    1. Benghazi wasn't a crime. It was bureaucratic malfeasance that ended in the death of good Americans. At the Clinton, Rice, and Bush level, that's just the cost of doing business...

    2. If everything about Russiagate were true, it pales behind the abysmal behavior of the Obama IRS debacle. Fake news vs abuse of power straight out of the Soviet textbook denying US Citizens the right to political organization.

      Then when busted the DOJ investigation of a former employee of the DOJ. Wholesale obstruction of justice by Lerner and the IRS.

      Unlike Russiagate this is real. Are the payments a fiction.

      Leave Obama alone. No plea deals, Lerner and Paz do hard time and have their pensions seized. A special prosecutor for Lerner is waranted

      Then there is the alleged whistleblower. A nice RICO trial with Schiff, Nadler, Brennan and the Deep State defendants will serve notice.

  7. Trump sure seems hyper-defensive about doing nothing wrong.

    1. Being attacked daily for three straight years could do that to a guy...

      Whatever happened to that Russia collusion thing?

    2. Not exonerated, several people imprisoned, sealed indictments waiting for Trump to leave office...

      I know. I can't wait either.

    3. Some dirty FBI bureaucrats went down as well... It'll be interesting to see what that federal prosecutor ends up with.

  8. My guess is that there will be no witnesses...why would they take a chance? Both Dems and GOPers had their long fingers in the Ukraine honey pot..
    This hearing is just a charade...by the way, including Romney no doubt so it is really rich to hear him wail about witnesses.....just a cover...

    1. "Both Dems and GOPers had their long fingers in the Ukraine honey pot"

      We agree. I expressed a similar view above. Trump Team's scorched earth threat will tamp down all this witness talk.

      Houston, we have a bipartisan corruption problem.

    2. It's a shame John Bolton is no longer around to advise Trump that there's only been two world wars.

    3. No witnesses, final vote on Saturday, Trump victory tour during the halftime show interview of the Super Bowl.

    4. Dave,

      Yup. Start throwing around Ukraine corruption charges, and both parties get more than they bargained for.

      House Dems need to pack it up, go home, reopen their impeachment investigation, subpoena those witnesses they want, and ENFORCE those subpoenas in court instead of dropping the fight.

      I bet even Democrat senators were pissed at the House for marching in there and demanding the Senate take weeks to do their work for them.

    5. The whistleblower's motives turn out to be to prevent a Ukraine corruption investigation from being re-opened... whouda thunkit?

    6. I know that Lindsey Graham wants all the Senate Hearings on Burisma held in his committee so as to prevent the investigation from straying into his and John McCain's Ukrainian shenanigans....

    7. Joe,
      his [Linday Graham's] and John McCain's Ukrainian shenanigans

      More of the cesspit.

      And what about Mitt Romney's connections to the Ukraine?

    8. It's all swampland... and so there will NEVER be any witnesses if it exposes what ACTUALLY happened in Ukraine.

    9. Romney’s top aide in the 2012 presidential campaign, J. Cofer Black, has served on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings since 2017.

    10. Joe,
      there will NEVER be any witnesses if it exposes what ACTUALLY happened in Ukraine


    11. The swamp will ALWAYS be a swamp. No one holds government agencies accountable, as they all exempt themselves from the nearly all the standards of conduct that they impose by LAW upon all their contractors. It's the corrupt "nature" of power.

    12. ps - The OIG's are a toothless JOKE. They're not allowed to cross-agencies despite the existence of a gazillion inter-agency agreements. And so a CIA Director can corrupt FBI agents to surveil a political campaign... ala Crossfire Hurricane

  9. Obama should be subpoenaed in The Impeachment if there are witnesses.

    1.) He knew what was going on in The Ukraine with The Bidens

    2.) He gave the order to Joe Biden to get The Ukraine Prosecutor Fired

    3.) He gave the order to take out Trump
    with The Russian Propaganda he purchased.

    Biden should be called as a witness.

    1.) He extorted The Ukraine with a Quid Pro Quo to Fire The Ukraine Prosecutor investigating his son.

    2.) His family received millions in benefits from China and Ukraine simply because Joe Biden was head of Ukraine and China initiatives for The Obama Administration.

    1. Mack, for two years the GOP had unified control of government after the Obama Admin. If you believe both Obama and Biden acted in bad faith, and potentially broke the law, please explain why the GOP did not call for investigations of them when they had control?

    2. Mack, let's go one step further... would you agree with Professor Dershowitz that if President Obama believed he was acting in the public interest of the US, even if he did everything you allege, he cannot be prosecuted or impeached... because as president, he's immune?

    3. @DM,
      Because until very recently, the extent of the Obama administration was not known and the Trump administration was fighting the bogus Russia, Russia, Russia, hoax off. Or did you forget all that crap?

    4. Warren... does it matter what the Obama Admin did? Can't Fmr Pres Obama, and all future presidents for that matter, now argue the Dershowitz defense?

      That they believed what they were doing was for the good of the country, so it can't be a crime?

      That's essentially what the GOP is arguing now.

      That even if Trump committed corrupt acts and potential crimes in furthering his reelection, it should not matter, as long as he "believes that reelection would be in the best interest" of America.

      What sitting president would not make that argument?

      Where are all the limited government power folks who normally post here?

      Most of you have said since I've been reading AOW that the government is taking on too much power. Only Free/Franco has argued to do whatever, take whatever to win. While I don't agree with him, at least he's consistent.

      But most of the folks here have steadfastly bemoaned the growing power of the Federal government. Isn't this a huge expansion and a defacto removal of our system, however inefficient, of checks and balances?

      Doesn't the argument made by Dersh concern any of you?

    5. Dave,

      It's not about 'belief.' If a president takes a legitimate action that also happens to redound to his benefit, its not impeachable. Asking Ukraine to investigate a know cesspit of corruption is a legitimate request, especially doing it as he did, with rats and moles on the inside spying on his every action.

    6. DM, You don't seem to realize what is going on here. This is what it looks like when you drain the swamp.

      Silverfiddle was correct in his answer to you but I don't believe you can understand the difference. Basically, you can't accuse the President of a crime for carrying out his enumerated duties.

      This whole thing started before Trump was even elected. Our entire government is infested with these "Progressive" criminals that line their pockets with tax payer money. Sometimes directly but more usually indirectly through influence peddling.

      does it matter what the Obama Admin did?
      Apparently not. He used the power of his presidency through his sycophants to undermine the Presidential Campaign of Donald Trump and it didn't work.

      I'm not going into this with you. It's a waste of my time. You're going to believe whatever you believe and everything else be damned while you play concern troll.

    7. Lamar Alexander summed it up best:

      there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander said.
      “There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine," he continued. "There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
      “It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation," he continued. "When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate."

    8. Alexander’s remarks were perfect. Trump is guilty as charged, and it was a dick move.....but not impeachable.

      Can we turn off the lights in D.C. now and send everyone on an extended vacation before they restrict anymore of our Liberties?

    9. Remove a president from office for a "Dick Move?" In an election year? When diaper rash ranting Democrats have been screaming that they will impeach him since election day?

      He had a legitimate reason for asking for the investigation. Too bad the Bidens had their snouts in the trough.

    10. I can’t really tell if you’re agreeing with me or aground against what I wrote.

      I would however, quibble with the legitimacy aspect, but it’s precedence now.

    11. I agree it was a "dick move," and sleazy, but I do not believe its anywhere near impeachable.

      Previous administrations had been ordering Ukraine governments to investigate this or that and hire and fire their government officials, so there is a precedent and an established US government concern about corruption.

      Burisma was at the center of it before Trump assumed the presidency, so it was already on our government's radar screen.

      The Ukraine government has established that people in their previous government took action to harm Trump's campaign and help Hillary.

      For the record, I don't think Joe Biden is corrupt, his son was merely cashing in on his daddy's lofty position, and people in the various Ukraine governments will do whatever they need to do and say whatever they need to say to curry favor with whatever US regime is in power and keep the money flowing.

    12. So, my bottom line: President Trump took a legitimate action in asking for the investigation.

      Did he have underhanded motives? Probably, but again, the request was legitimate and within his purview.

      In a normally-functioning government, he could have gotten everybody on board, got Congress to attach some incentives to the aid, but I think we can all agree our government has been dysfunctional for a long time.

    13. Appreciate the clarity....and I agree. I would lump POTUS in with your last line (and you may have intended that). A moderately savvy operator would have broadened the corruption investigation beyond just Hunter Biden, whatever the true motives.

    14. How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections

      Makes it really hard to argue for Joe's innocence. He would have to be so obtuse that any claim to innocence would have to be tempered by a plea to his personal gullibility.

  10. Taking the speck out of Obama's eyes while ignoring the log in Trumps.

    Par for the con/repub course.

    1. Not even that, RN. All this rah-rah-finally-gonna-get-them-damned-Dems only plays out well in the alternate universe where Trump is not a blithering imbecile. Here in the real world, we have a guy that was going to lock up Hillary Clinton and instead totally exonerated her beyond credible doubt. This is all hat no cattle territory. Even if there was something real to pin on Obama, the current occupant of the Oval Office couldn't hit it if you glued it to his knuckles.

    2. If you're both done with your knob polishing, could you get a room next time?

    3. Talking about Trump makes you think of a knob?

      There's hope for you, Warren.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Warren addressed "You're both..." So its pretty clear who the knobs are.

    6. Warren is tough, bless him, but more important he's also a noble soul with a fine sense of discernment, and a very low tolerance for BALDERDASH. [That's one of several polite words for BULLSHIT in case you were born after 1960, and thus had little or no chance to learn proper English].

      When you address Warren, I'll thank you to treat him with RESPECT, although I realize that may be impossible for certain fractious elements who post here compulsively seeding the comments section with witless, worthless, ill-intentioned detritus –– trite smarmy sentiments, banal idiocy, and grotesque perversity that sometimes crosses the line into the realm of outright INSANITY.

      Both Warren and AOW have a great deal more patience than I in dealing with dreary dissident seditionists and egomaniacal attention whores.

    7. @ Franco,
      May I use that in my personal eulogy? :^)

      It's OK, Franco, I can give as well as I get and I haven't been elevated to sainthood.... at least, not yet. ;^)

    8. You csn chisel it on granite if you like, Warren. I' be honored. ;-)

  11. In my email this morning:

    Chief Justice Censors Question About 'Whistleblower,' So Rand Paul Releases It to the Public.

    From the above:

    My exact question was:

    Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2

    and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. 2/2


    1. Do you think Eric Ciaramella was blowing Misko's whistle while all these seditious machinations were going on?


  12. I typically do not cite Breitbart, but I will this time:

    ...Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry....


    Further, Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak has written President Trump has a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront his accuser at a trial where he is the defendant....

    There are embedded links in the above.

    1. Fine, but the Defecrats have proven themselves to be an essentially lawless bunch.

      The ONLY time Defecrsats cite The Law is when it works against Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians. Defecrats may adore RINO's, who often give aid and comfort to Defecrats, –– God only knows why! ––, but their adoration tends to be opportunidtic, capricious and ususlly short-lived.

      Hypocrisy and Disingenuousness are the Defecrats' primary modus operandi.

  13. The mischaracterization of Alan Dershowitz's comments is a sterling example of what's wrong with our Infotainment News Media. They "reinterpret" what a hated political rival says, and it gets good people like Dave Miller all riled up:

    Here is Dershowitz's OWN WORDS:

    "They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.

    Let me be clear once again (as I was in the senate): a president seeking re-election cannot do anything he wants. He is not above the law. He cannot commit crimes. He cannot commit impeachable conduct.

    But a lawful act- holding up funds, sending troops to vote, breaking a promise about Syria - does not become unlawful or impeachable if done with a mixed motive of both promoting the public interest and helping his RE-election. Please respond to my argument, not a distortion of it."

    1. TRANSCRIPT of Dershowitz's argument in the Senate:

      Quoting a law professor:

      “Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare while in the back of their minds considering how these actions will affect their popularity. Often the two concepts overlap. What’s good for the country is good for the official’s reelection. All politicians,” he said, “understand that dynamic.” Like all human beings, presidents and other politicians persuade themselves that their actions seen by their opponents as self-serving are primarily in the national interest. In order to conclude that such mixed motive actions constituted abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the president and attribute to him a singular self-serving motive.

    2. Here I come to a relevant and contemporaneous issue. Even if a president, any president, were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously-
      Alan Dershowitz: (46:03)
      As a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power.

      Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abusive power. It’s part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives that the President was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase, abusive power, as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president.


    3. Read the Daily Mail's interpretation. Its indefensible.


      The Infotainment Media Complex is making us stupider, or at least those who don't do a little basic research on their own.

    4. Presidents act with "mixed motives" all the time. Remember when Bill Clinton bombed that aspirin factory and killed that poor nighttime janitor to try to distract us from his impeachment?

      He cited a national security concern, the establishment backed him up, and that was the end of that.


    Another Creature Rises Out of the Swamp—Chief Justice John Roberts

    Canada Free Press

    by Judi McLeod

    Meanwhile, shitty Schitt seems to have found a new protector for his Whistleblower, one that brings new meaning to the term “snake in the grass”.

    Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is back again heaping misery on a much beleaguered Republic. Not all Creatures of the Swamp come with pencil necks and shark fins. Roberts is one of the . . .


    1. Senator Paul's question--in his own words--to Adam Schiff that Roberts disallowed:

      “My exact question was:

      Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings?”

    2. I imagine senators of both parties are rankled and irked by having to sit silently while a judge from a separate branch presides over their august chamber and rules who can and cannot speak.

  15. "August chamber"?
    IMO, more like, whore house. :^)
    I would use the euphemism "cat house" but I find that term disrespectful to cats.

  16. Replies
    1. ...with good reason... Former White House national security adviser John Bolton pocketed $115,000 from Ukrainian steel oligarch Victor Pinchuk’s foundation shortly before entering President Donald Trump’s White House as national security adviser, a position first held in the Trump White House by General Michael Flynn. Bolton’s unpublished manuscript reportedly accuses Trump of wanting to withhold military aid to Ukraine, but Trump denies this had anything to do with a Quid Pro Quo situation. Democrats are clamoring to call Bolton as a witness in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial regarding his alleged pressuring of the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden’s alleged corruption in the country’s oil and gas industry. Ukraine’s president Zelensky adamantly denies that Trump pressured him...

      The Neocon foreign shakedown depends on handing out foreign aid.

    2. The Washington Cesspool -- wide and deep. **sigh**

  17. From Charges Filed Against Joe Biden:

    Ukrainian ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin has demanded that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) open criminal proceedings against former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden for illegal influence on him as the prosecutor general of Ukraine....


    Shokin said he agreed to resign as prosecutor general of Ukraine due to Biden pressure.

    “During the last months of 2015 and the first of 2016, Joseph Biden, using his official position, personally paid official visits to Ukraine several times with the aim of holding negotiations with the state leaders on my removal from my post. As a result, he curtailed an objective investigation criminal proceedings on the facts of unlawful activities of persons associated with the company Burisma Holdings Limited (Cyprus), including the son of the specified high-ranking official,” Shokin said.

    More at the above link.

    1. Now all they need to do is announce an investigation next Thursday... :)


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.