Podesta! Podesta! Podesta!

It’s the only reply, and I mean the ONLY reply to “Russia! Russia! Russia!” Opponents of President Trump bring up Russia as though repetition and loudness make something true, a shouting match in battle of talking points to Trump’s opponents without taking on the very serious matter of collusion as an act of Treason against the United States of America and the American People.

While supposed “intel people,” “spy chiefs,” and other fake news talking head “experts” are cited as authenticating Podesta’s claim Russia hacked his email throughout every Podesta email media story, there remains a simple truth: The entire gang of “Russiaist Democrats,” their basis of reality, is to promote acceptance without question of Podesta’s Russia hacked me claim, to accept it as a certainty and thereby a narrative irrespective of it originating from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chair John Podesta.

Of course these same intel/DOJ/Deep State folks who worked with John Podesta, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Christopher Steele, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, John Brennan, Samantha Power, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, John Kerry, and, since Podesta worked for Bill Clinton when Eric Holder did, and Podesta is the bogus crier of conclusive certainty “Russia hacked me,” yes Bill too, all in their “professional capacities” (note this is a list of witnesses as well). And now this list includes a less known name in all of this but a person whose role establishes the gravity of what I am about to bring up, that person is attorney Scott Schools, who I understand recently resigned from being a career employee at the DOJ.

Schools appears to have authorized Robert Mueller’s “participation in the investigation of Russia’s role in the Presidential campaign of 2016:”

“Russia’s role in the presidential campaign of 2016” does not exempt Mueller from investigating everything Clinton, to also add the Clinton Foundation to the list of suspects of Russian Collusion, especially when the claim of a State Actor, was invoked by Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me narrative. One would think Mueller’s investigation would start with whether Russia did or did not hack Podesta. Without Mueller pursuing Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me narrative as an allegation to be proven true or false, the idea that Russia was interfering in our presidential elections, and more specifically, as another part of Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me narrative, that Russia hacked Podesta for the benefit of Donald Trump is not even able to be investigated until Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me narrative is proven true. Even though Podesta has said in interviews Russia hacked his email for the benefit of Donald Trump, he cannot prove that and it remains solely a hearsay allegation suspect of being rife with political bias without any legitimate basis to have opened any investigation of Donald Trump, his campaign, or any of his staffers by any agency of the United States government.

Said another way: A certain and specific politically biased claim by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chair John Podesta naming a State actor, Russia, should immediately be suspect of being a politically biased and charged narrative, of trickery, a sensationalized ploy, to which no investigation of Russia’s role in the presidential election of 2016 should occur without first verifying with absolute certainty Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me claim made clearly on behalf of Hillary Clinton who is running for President of the United States.

What we all know since the Inspector General’s report on the Hillary Clinton Email Investigation is that Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe, Page et. al. listed above – DOJ’s documented folks who held political bias against Donald Trump – and irrespective of the conclusion of Inspector General Horowitz, were the investigators and decision makers in both the Clinton and Trump investigations, and that these folks appear to have used (rigged) the investigation process to benefit opponents of Donald Trump, even using the IG investigation to their advantage. None of this would matter if the very same people had not been the same investigators instigating and initiating investigation of Donald Trump and his campaign as though an echo of Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me narrative nor would any of this matter if it did not also appear these investigators and their agencies additionally rigged a fake instrument (i.e. the “Steele Dossier”) to be presented to FISA for warrants to spy on Americans around Donald Trump and his campaign.

The point of the “Steele Dossier” appears to have been for these government paid Progressive actors to submit something that can be pointed to as “probable cause,” as bait for all of us, media, everyone. The entire thing a switch and repackage of unverified opposition research as a “dossier” to obscure the truth by all appearances that the entire invocation of Mueller is based solely on Podesta’s Russia Hacked Me narrative.

For those who wish to compare and contrast, consider note everyone in the Trump Campaign who had a conversation that could be spun by these same DOJ et. al. of speculative predatory “investigators” acting as political 3rd world Police State operatives, provided more false information for the misnamed “Steele Dossier” by citing Steele’s own leaks to the Press (i.e. “corroborating press reports”) to FISA in the warrant applicaiton, all ignoring that Steele was fired for leaking information to the press (note foreigner Christopher Steele was not prosecuted for leaking, just fired.).

The term, “Replete with bias” would be disingenuous and an underestimate of the corruption continually perpetrated by the list of people I named above, which is likely only a partial list.

Here’s why the entire Podesta narrative doesn’t make sense. I haven’t seen any mention/communication of any sort that Podesta, Clinton, et al above listed wanted to reverse the Uranium One sale, have you? Nor have I seen any communications of Bill Clinton refunding the $500,000 speaking fee he received from Russians to speak in Russia, nor anything said by Chelsea Clinton, as Clinton Foundation Manager/Trustee, returning the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by a Russian company related to Rosatom prior to the Uranium One sale. Magic Question: What is gained by Russia getting Donald Trump, the man who can and likely will reverse the Uranium One sale, put in office?

If I lost you in discussing this, I promise it wasn’t me. What lost you, lost me, lost all of us, and has made for great fake news media propaganda, is convolution of the facts, not conspiracy theories.

For instance the fact CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) voted to give control of 20% of our uranium to Russia, and numerous people who were involved in or voted in this CFIUS vote and transaction that negatively impacts our National Security, are the same people investigating “Russia’s role in the presidential campaign of 2016.” So the very people who colluded with Russia by recorded vote to give Russia control of 20% of our uranium, who were backed by a body of politically & ideologically aligned office holders all the way up to and including President Obama, are the ones investigating the presidential election of 2016 and decided to investigate only 1/2 of the campaigns involved: Donald Trump and his campaign.

If you can’t see the conflict of interest to have those who blatantly sold out America for political and ideological purposes to Russia now investigating their political opponent for collusion with Russia, I’d recommend you see Psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer if he were still alive.

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. List of articles I skimmed to glean what I’ve posed above, which so blatantly is based on the assumption Podesta is being honest in what he’s said and while glancing over the impossibility that Podesta is also so stupid he’d click a “google” link without the word “google” in it (shorteners include a reference to well trafficked internet sites in the link, this link obviously didn’t do that).

– Consider how Podesta, a man who used to be Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, could have done this, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/private-security-group-says…

– Consider, if you were Russian hackers, State sponsored or not, would you put “bear” in your name?


– Consider this shows the actual email, but apparently doesn’t… As you read you discover there were 2 links given, and that somehow the supposed wrong link was included with the right one when the email was passed to Podesta from Hillary Clinton’s IT folks (though that link isn’t in the email image). And that IT person, claimed to be a typo, said the email was legitimate…. And we’re to take their word for it when the entire set of events visualizes like a Keystone Cops episode?


– This guy here made some great considerations regarding Podesta’s email being hacked, at the Huffington Post of all places, Kudos to H.A. Goodman,


– I haven’t seen credible refutation of Julian Assange’s explanation Podesta’s password was “Password.” What gets me is if true, or Podesta’s password was “testing123,” how can we assume Podesta didn’t set up to be hacked? Again, he was the Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, he’d only be this stupid on purpose.


– Podesta’s Twitter hacked the next day…. Former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton didn’t think to change his password on all his accounts after being hacked the day before? The former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton is this incompetent? Really? REALLY?


– And could what BBC sees as information that can be gained from Podesta’s emails be why the Russia collusion assumption is being given any weight at all? Are people’s citation of the derogatory emails explanation Podesta was hacked to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump or is it actually that the release of the emails by whatever means displays a the reality that the emails are Podesta, Clinton et. al’s candid view of the American People, of their opponents, revealing operations & strategies they are all ashamed of? It appears any derogatory emails within a month of the so called “hack” could just have been put into the mix to help make the “released to help trump” narrative appear true once Podesta was, using “password” or something like it as a password, ready to be hacked? Wouldn’t it be interesting if Assange is telling the truth, that there was no State actor, as then the entire hack is fake news, and the entire leaking of Podesta’s emails intentional to make a fake case of aiding Donald Trump, all because a month or even 2 before the election internal polling revealed to Podesta and the rest of the Hillary Clinton 2016 Campaign that Hillary was going to lose the presidential election of 2016,



All public forums should be open and uncensored

A US District Court judge has ruled that President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment. The Justice Department says it might appeal, but I argue that the DOJ, White House and Trump Administration should instead embrace the decision, expand on it, and apply these legal principles and free speech guidelines to other arenas.

After all, with the multitude of race, sexual orientation and other civil rights now protected by force of law, shouldn’t arguably the most vital and fundamental civil right also be protected? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse over important political and public policy matters?!?

Thank you for posting my provocative article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,


All public forums should be open and uncensored

Trump should embrace (and expand) court ruling that his Twitter account is free speech forum

President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment, US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has ruled. The President’s use of his Twitter account to comment on important policy, personnel and personal announcements made it a public forum, akin to a park or town square, she concluded.

Blocking unwanted tweets is thus viewpoint discrimination, which public officials are not permitted to engage in. Indeed, his Twitter account is not just a public forum. It is also “government space,” and thus may not be closed off, Judge Buchwald continued – rejecting a Justice Department argument that, since Twitter is a public company, it is beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules.

Free speech proponents hailed the ruling as a groundbreaking decision, saying it expands constitutional protections deep within the realms of social media. The executive director of Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection called it “a critical victory in preserving free speech in the digital age.” Blocking people from responding critically to presidential tweets is unconstitutional, because it prevents them from participating personally and directly in that forum, others said.

The Justice Department said it disagreed with the decision and was considering its next steps. Here’s another option: Embrace and expand on the decision. Assess how these District Court principles and free speech guidelines can be applied in other vital free speech arenas. Take it as far as you can.

Some will then predictably want to construe the decision narrowly, saying it applies only to government officials, perhaps especially conservatives who support this president. Conservatives, the White House and the Trump Administration should not feel bound by such partisan, self-serving assertions.

As Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act and other laws, no person may employ race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability status or other categories, to discriminate in admissions, hiring or anything else under any program or activity receiving any form of federal financial assistance, including loans or scholarships. Those that do discriminate will lose their Internal Revenue Service non-profit status and their government funding.

Should that list of categories not include one of the most vital and fundamental civil rights of all – the one addressed and protected by the very first amendment to the United States Constitution? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse and debate over important political and public policy matters?

Our colleges and universities were once society’s crucible for developing and thrashing out ideas. Sadly, as anyone with a milligram of brain matter realizes, they have become bastions of one-sided ideological propaganda and intolerance. Every conceivable element of “diversity” is permitted and encouraged – nay, demanded – except for our most fundamental civil right of personal views, free speech and robust debate.

That right now applies only to liberal-progressive-leftist views and ideologies. Anything that challenges or questions those teachings is vilified, denounced and silenced, often violently – as being hurtful, hateful, objectionable or intolerable to liberals. Faculty members are hired, protected, promoted or fired based on their social, scientific or political beliefs. Viewpoint discrimination, bullying and mobbing are rampant.

It’s time for pushback. Judicial and Executive Branch decisions and guidelines hold that even private universities that receive federal money for faculty research, student loans and scholarships, or campus facilities, are subject to Civil Rights Act rules. Presidents, administrators and faculty members of public universities are arguably public officials. Campuses and classrooms are clearly public forums.

If they tolerate or encourage viewpoint bullying, mobbing or violence, they are violating the civil rights of students, professors and speakers whose views have been deemed inappropriate, discomforting, hurtful or intolerable to the fragile sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.

Judge Buchwald’s ruling and the reactions of free speech advocates provide useful guidelines to buttress this approach. The Trump Administration, state attorneys general and free-speech/individual rights advocates should apply them to help restore intellectual rigor and open discourse to our campuses.

The ruling and reactions could also help expand constitutional protections even more deeply in the realms of digital age social media. As they suggest, today’s most popular social media sites have become our most vibrant and essential public forums: today’s parks, town squares and town halls. People, especially millennials, rely on them for news, information and opinions, often as substitutes for print, radio and television (and classrooms). But they now seem far better at censorship than at education or discussion.

Google algorithms increasingly and systematically send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia. Unless you enter very specific search terms (author’s name, article title and unique wording), those sly algorithms make it difficult or impossible to find articles expressing non-alarmist viewpoints.

Google thus allies with the manmade climate cataclysm establishment – which has received billions of taxpayer dollars from multiple government agencies, but has blocked Climate Armageddon skeptics from getting articles published in scientific journals that often publish papers that involve hidden data, computer codes and other work. Even worse, it facilitates repeated threats that skeptics should be jailed (Bill Nye the Science Guy and RFK Jr.), prosecuted under RICO racketeering laws (Senators Warren and Whitehouse), or even executed (University of Graz, Austria Professor Richard Parncutt).

Google is a private entity, there are other search engines, and those seeking complete, honest research results should see if those alternatives are any better. But there is something repugnant about mankind’s vast storehouses of information being controlled by hyper-partisan techies, in league with equally partisan university, deep state, deep media, hard green and other über-liberal, intolerant elements of our society.

Meanwhile, Google YouTube continues to use its power and position to block posting of and access to equally important information, including over 40 well-crafted, informative, carefully researched Prager University videos – because they contain what YouTube reviewers (censors) decreed is “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental topics and public policies.

Scholar-educator Dennis Prager sued YouTube for closing down yet another vital public forum to views that question, contest or simply fail to pay homage to liberal ideologies and agendas.

District Court Judge Lucy Koh concluded that YouTube did indeed apply vague standards and the arbitrary judgments of a few employees, and did indeed discriminate against Prager U by denying it access to this popular social media platform and digital public forum. However, she ruled that Google YouTube is a private company, and thus is under no obligation to be fair, to apply its services equally, or to refrain from imposing penalties on viewpoints with which its partisan officers and employees disagree.

In other words, YouTube may operate as a public forum but it is a private business and thus may discriminate as it wishes – since it does not bake cakes or provide food or overnight accommodations … or deal with any civil rights that Judge Koh would include among protected constitutional rights.

These actions are the hallmarks of communist, fascist and other totalitarian regimes that seek to control all thought, speech, economic activity and other aspects of our lives. They drive policies that further limit our freedoms, kill countless jobs, and cost us billions or trillions of dollars in lost productivity.

The Left is clearly afraid of conservative ideas and principles. It refuses to participate in discussions or debates that it might lose, and instead resorts to mobbing, bullying and violence to silence our voices.

Up to now, lower courts have not always been supportive of the analysis and prescriptions presented in this article. But appellate courts and the Supreme Court have yet to weigh in on the Trump Twitter, Prager YouTube, Google search bias and similar cases. So we are still in uncharted territory.

Conservatives, climate chaos skeptics and true free speech advocates should build their own social media forums – while helping to create the legal precedents that will protect our hard-won rights and freedoms, and exposing, ridiculing, embarrassing and challenging the dominance of the Intolerant Left.

Paul Driessen, JD is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

Fake Patriots are Everywhere

Be weary of the false patriot…. they are full of hubris and fail to be self aware enough to see their own complete hypocrisy. It’s very easy to see who the patriots are in America right now. The False patriots should check their alliances before it gets too late.

It’s all about laws.

People should get familiar with them.

Time to SERIOUSLY start draining the swamp and see what the hell we are sending them our money for.

To sit around and align themselves with foreign agents to sell out Americans all day?

I don’t think so.

Career bureaucrats should take account. We’re coming after you. Prove your value… you’re on our dime. Don’t be a traitor.

Seems more likely that mueller is working for trump. It’s what a little bird hasn’t told me.

Great Mark Levin here. Educational. Factual. We aren’t the standard republic… this is America. We’re exceptional.


The Clinton Cartel Finding Themselves on the Receiving End of Their Own Witch Hunt


“This Ain’t a Hill Worthy of Dying On”
-James Comey  translation (Oh LORDY, gee whiz, I’m glad I bailed!)

Everyone, grab your “VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY” hat and let’s take a journey to the center of it all…. Putin is giving SPIES AND BOTS a graduation speech to all his wizards. They were able to influence an entire election but definitely didn’t sway the vote of 9 board members to sell off U.S. unharvested Nuke minerals.


The Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation),[2] and from 2013 to 2015, briefly renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation[3]) is a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to “strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.”[4] Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals.[5] The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy.[5][6] The foundation “has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support”.[5]

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]

This foundation is a public organization to which anyone may donate and is distinct from the Clinton Family Foundation, a private organization for personal Clinton family philanthropy.[8][9]

According to the Foundation’s website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member she, too, received no income from the Foundation.[10]

Clinton Corruption

Something strange is going on with the Clinton Foundation.

Donors to any cause have expectations.

Money does not change hands without reason.

The people, organizations and countries who make up the network of donors are not fools, and they don’t settle for failure.

Relative to the budget, the Clinton Foundation’s philanthropic successes are dismal at best.

The Clinton’s have done nothing outside of politics.

Their ability to generate wealth personally, as well as for their associates, is rooted solely in political office.

Most their massive fortune was accumulated while Hillary held positions in the US Government.

A large portion of the remainder can be linked to programs initiated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Hillary Clinton was a US Senator from 2001 – 2009, she served on 5 separate committees, wielding legislative power in a wide range of policies, foreign and domestic.

Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013. The duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State include: supervision and organization of the entire community of United States Department of State and the United States Foreign Service including the oversight of weapons transfers to foreign nations, supervision of US immigration policy, and communication of foreign policy issues to Congress and US citizens.

In other words, Hillary Clinton supervised the agency that is responsible for regulating U.S. arms exports.

From 2009 – 2013 the pattern of arms exports shifted dramatically.

State Department exports approvals substantially increased to governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

The U.S. government approved $40 billion in worldwide private arms sales in 2009, including more than $7 billion to Mideast and North African nations that are struggling with political upheaval, the State Department reported.

Under Clinton’s leadership (2009 – 2013), the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation.

During Clinton’s tenure at State, the foundation operated in at least 29 countries, including places that contained rampant corruption such as Nigeria, Uganda, Ukraine, Haiti, Mozambique, China and South Africa.

In Diplomatic Cables published by Wikileaks dated December 2009, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan had no interest in cracking down on terror financing occurring within their respective borders.

More recently, Wikileaks published an email correspondence between John Podesta and Hillary Clinton dated August 29, 2014 in which the continuation of terror financing is acknowledged again.

The US Defense Contractors who benefitted from these deals, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and General Electric also paid millions of dollars in lobbying fees to the Podesta Group.

Within the law?

The Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and a significant number of their close friends and direct associates are knowingly involved in numerous, separate schemes, the purposes of which are to leverage the power of political office and/or positions of bureaucratic authority to accumulate personal political and financial capital.

Investments yield return.

It can be said with 100% certainty that a considerable portion of the proceeds moving into the Clinton Foundation (and the Podesta Group), from persons and organizations, foreign and domestic, were invested (donated) with the expectation of return in some form, the value of which ultimately being greater than the initial deposit. Which again, is not necessarily illegal. Under certain conditions, it is.

Contrary to Hollywood’s portrayals of the wealthy, the overwhelming majority of wealthy individuals do not go around writing million dollar checks for absolutely no reason.  Most likely:

They believed it was for a good cause.

They hoped to gain favor and collect return.

Sure, some people, maybe even the majority, donated with the hope of contributing to something good. Among the small donors, this is likely the case, especially early on. The Clinton Foundation was founded in 1997. Since then, what positive difference has it made? What evidence can be produced? Relative to the size and budget, it has done nearly nothing. They certainly haven’t solved any problems. It is safe to say that the contributors writing million dollar checks are no fools. They are industry elites. The corporations and key executives responsible for the largest companies in the world. Slick Willy aint that slick.

What are they selling?

The Clinton family, not having done any sort of work outside of politics, do not produce any products, physical or intellectual, nor do they perform any services that do not derive value from past political positions or relationships developed as the result of those positions.

Graduates of Yale, and lawyers by trade, Bill and Hillary Clinton have both spent their entire careers in politics. After graduating in 1973, Bill was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, ran for the House of Representatives, and was elected Arkansas Attorney General before being elected Governor of Arkansas.

Hillary, after graduation, taught law at the University of Arkansas, served as a defense counsel and eventually joined the Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence, before becoming the First Lady of Arkansas.

Somehow the Clinton family has amassed a combined fortune estimated to be over $200,000,000, not including the tens, or even hundreds of millions spent on their lavish lifestyle. This also does not include the Clinton Foundation (which apparently paid for Chelsea Clinton’s multi-million-dollar wedding).

Earning this money primarily from speaking fees averaging just over $210,000 each, the Clintons have been jetted around the world at the expense of private banks, big business and foreign nations. From 2001 to 2014, they spent $95,000,000 on taxes. By any estimation, they made more money flapping their jaws than anyone else in history.

Career Politicians

Realistically, what did the Clintons have worth paying for? What could they possibly offer to people in exchange for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars? The only answer to that question is political influence.

Conflict(s) of Interest

A substantial portion (likely the vast majority) of this wealth was collected while Hillary held public office.

As Senator of New York, she served on the Committee on Budget (2000 – 2002), Committee on Armed Services (2003 – 2009), Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001 – 2009), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001 – 2009), and the Special Committee on Aging. She was also a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2001 – 2009).

As Secretary of State from 2009-2013, using the authority of her office, Hillary Clinton brokered the sale military equipment and technology, including fighter jets, attack helicopters, missiles, missile defense systems, many of which were transferred to nations deemed complicit in support of terrorist activities against the United States and allies. The annual sum of these sales shattered records.

During this time these same foreign nations donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

Coincidentally, again during this same time frame (actually, dating back to the late 1990s and early 2000s), the defense contractors who ultimately received contracts for these deals paid tens millions of dollars to the lobbying group owned and operated by John and Tony Podesta. (among other lobbying firms)

John Podesta served as White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton from 1998-2001. During the Obama Administration, John Podesta served as co-chair to the transition team and Senior Advisor to the President.

The Podestas also received millions of dollars from several corporations and organizations owned in part by many of the same foreign nations who were approved by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to purchase American military weapons and technology.

The Clinton Foundation since its inception, has received over $2,000,000,000 in contributions from a vast network of people and organizations all over the world. The organizations mission is a war on various world problems ranging from poverty to gender equality. The positive results of the Clinton Foundation’s programs remain unclear.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $25,000,001 – No maximum
Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) $25,000,001 – No maximum
Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation $25,000,001 – No maximum
Fred Eychaner $25,000,001 – No maximum
Nationale Postcode Loterij $25,000,001 – No maximum
The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation $25,000,001 – No maximum
UNITAID $25,000,001 – No maximum
AUSAID $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Cheryl and Haim Saban & The Saban Family Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
COPRESIDA $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Government of Norway $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Stephen L. Bing $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
The ELMA Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
The Hunter Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
The Victor Pinchuk Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Theodore W. Waitt $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Tom Golisano $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Inc. $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Commonwealth of Australia, DIICC $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Denis J. O’Brien $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Elton John AIDS Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Government of the Netherlands $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Irish Aid $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
John D. Mackay $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Michael Schumacher $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
S. Daniel Abraham $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
State of Kuwait $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Susie Tompkins Buell Fund of the Marin Community Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Coca-Cola Company $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Rockefeller Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Swedish Postcode Lottery $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Wasserman Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
100 Women in Hedgefunds $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Absolute Return for Kids (ARK) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Amar Singh $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
American Federation of Teachers $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Angelopoulos Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Anheuser-Busch Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Ariadne Getty $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Arnold H. Simon $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Barclays Capital $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Bernard L. Schwartz $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Booz Allen Hamilton $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Bren Simon $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Carlos Slim Helú & Fundación Carlos Slim $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Christy and John Mack Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Cisco $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Citi Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Dave Katragadda $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Donald L. Saunders $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Dubai Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Duke Energy Corporation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Entergy $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
ExxonMobil $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Frank White $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Friends of Saudi Arabia $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Fundacion Telmex $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
GEMS Education $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Gerardo Werthein $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Gianna Angelopoulos $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Gilbert R. Chagoury $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
GIZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Harold Snyder $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Hewlett-Packard Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Hult International Business School $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Humana Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
ICAP Services North America $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Inter-American Development Bank $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Issam M. Fares & The Wedge Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
James R. Murdoch $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Jay Alix $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Joachim Schoss $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Jonathan M. Orszag $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Joseph T. Ford $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Kessler Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Lakshmi N. Mittal $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Laureate International Universities $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Lukas Lundin $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
MAC AIDS Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Mala Gaonkar Haarman $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Mary Bing and Doug Ellis $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Michael and Jena King $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Michael Smurfit $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Microsoft $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Nasser Al-Rashid $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Newsmax Media Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Nima Taghavi $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
NRG Energy, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
OAS S.A. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
OCP Corporation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Open Society Institute $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Paul D. Reynolds $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Peter G. Peterson Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Pfizer Inc $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
PGA Tour, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Presidential Inaugural Committee $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Princess Diana Memorial Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Procter & Gamble $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Richard and Jackie Caring $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Richard Blum and Blum Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Rilin Enterprises $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Robert Disbrow $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Robert L. Johnson $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Robertson Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Roy E. Cockrum $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Salida Capital Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sanela D. Jenkins $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Smith and Elizabeth Bagley $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sol Goldman Charitable Trust $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Standard Chartered Bank $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Starkey Hearing Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Starkey Hearing Technologies, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
State of Qatar $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Stephen J. Cloobeck $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sterling Stamos Capital Management, LP $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Steven Spielberg $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Stewart Rahr $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Suzlon Energy Ltd. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Swedish Postcode Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Swiss Reinsurance Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
T.G. Holdings $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Tenet Healthcare Corporation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Annenberg Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Boeing Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Clinton Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Dow Chemical Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The ELMA Philanthropies Services (U.S.) Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The ERANDA Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Ford Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Government of Brunei Darussalam $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Howard Gilman Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The James R. Greenbaum, Jr. Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Marc Haas Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The New York Community Trust $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable & Educational Trust $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sherwood Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sidney E. Frank Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Streisand Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sultanate of Oman $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Walmart Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Walton Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Wyss Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Zayed Family $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Thomson Reuters $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Torres-Picón Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
UK Department for International Development (DFID) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
United Arab Emirates $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Verein Aids Life $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Victor P. Dahdaleh & The Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Charitable Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Vin Gupta $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Walid Juffali $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Wallace W. Fowler $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Walter H. Shorenstein $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Worldwide Support for Development $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
YPY Holding Limited $1,000,001 – $5,000,000

For Full List of Donors below $1 million visit our partner – iDrainTheSwamp