2017 is the year cryptocurrency joined the global financial system
This week, the value of a single bitcoin officially cleared $10,000,
a new high point that’s over an order of magnitude greater than its price at the start of this year. Bitcoin has defied market expectations before, but in 2017, it didn’t just become more valuable. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have become an acknowledged part of the financial system — albeit a nebulous one.
Bitcoin traded at around $960 at the beginning of the year, and it’s risen steadily since then, with a steep jump in the past two months. There are multiple, complementary explanations for this, but this latest boom was sparked partly by the CME Group, a futures marketplace that announced its intent to start listing bitcoin by the end of the year. It’s a stamp of approval that could help cement bitcoins’ position at other major financial institutions, many of which are already handling bitcoin-related trading in some capacity. Even JPMorgan Chase, whose CEO Jamie Dimon has said he would fire anyone who traded bitcoin, is reportedly considering a plan to let its clients access CME’s futures.
Bitcoin isn’t replacing cash,
but it’s gotten a big stamp of investor approval
Not everyone believes that bitcoin is ready to enter the futures market. Themis Trading principal Joe Saluzzi warned that the currency is dangerously unregulated: “It reminds me of the financial crisis all over again,” he told CNBC. And bitcoin is so volatile that spending it doesn’t make sense. Nobody knows how valuable a single bitcoin might BECOME — while Thomas Glucksmann of currency exchange Gatecoin said $10,000 was still “cheap in my opinion,” bitcoin has also suffered extended catastrophic crashes, including a long slump after passing $1,000 in 2013. As an example of just how surreal bitcoin fluctuations can be, Gizmodo writer Kashmir Hill tweeted about buying a sushi dinner in 2013 for the equivalent of $99,000 today.
There are still places where bitcoin payments make sense, although they’re sometimes unsavory: far-right groups have used them after being dropped by payment processors, for instance. And the underlying blockchain technology has myriad uses that aren’t cryptocurrency-focused — from quickly processing international money transfers to tracking legal marijuana. But people have also found uses for cryptocurrency that go beyond replacing cash. The best-known example of 2017 might be initial coin offerings or ICOs, in which companies sell digital tokens based on cryptocurrencies like Ethereum. ICOs range from serious fundraising efforts to absurd but startlingly successful jokes, and some have earned endorsements from the likes of Paris Hilton and Ghostface Killah of Wu-Tang Clan. And unlike Dogecoin or other earlier novelty currencies, they’ve attracted serious regulatory attention.
Some countries have outright banned ICOs — China barred the offerings as a form of “illegal public financing,” and South Korea announced “stern penalties” for running them. But other countries have attempted to clarify how existing rules apply to them. The US Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that some ICOs fell under securities law, setting them apart from general crowdfunding efforts. Japanese regulators also outlined how ICOs may fall under existing financial rules. In the US, the SEC has even issued guidance for how celebrities can hawk them.
Cryptocurrencies’ overall legal status is still complicated, but several countries have made major policy decisions around them in 2017. Some of these are negative: China shut down currency exchanges earlier this year, although traders have moved to other platforms, and the SEC rejected a high-profile application for a bitcoin stock fund. Many other countries have given more ambiguous signals. Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered regulators to develop a wide-ranging set of rules for miners and traders, even as officials have signaled a crackdown. India’s government launched a committee earlier this year to study digital currency regulation, and the Supreme Court recently urged it to speed up its work.
People have been prosecuted for cryptocurrency-related crimes like Ponzi schemes in past years, and governments have issued guidance about bitcoin. Some of these new decisions just raise new questions: the SEC, for instance, didn’t address how it would punish a decentralized network for violating securities rules. Likewise, getting attention from investors and regulators doesn’t tell us whether bitcoin will succeed in the long run, or whether cryptocurrencies will play a major role in most people’s lives. But even if cryptocurrencies aren’t directly competing with their traditional counterparts, the past year shows how serious they’ve become to both regulators and investors.
Bitcoin could 'easily' reach $40,000 by the
end of 2018, hedge fund legend Novogratz says
Former Fortress hedge fund manager Michael Novogratz said Monday that bitcoin can multiply more than four times in roughly the next 13 months.
"Bitcoin could be at $40,000 at the end of 2018. It easily could," Michael Novogratz says on CNBC's "Fast Money."
"Ethereum, which I think just touched $500 or is getting close, could be triple where it is as well," adds Novogratz, formerly a macro hedge fund manager at Fortress Investment Group.
But Novogratz doesn't recommend retail investors put any more than 1 to 3 percent of their net worth in cryptocurrencies, or wealthier investors to put more than 5 to 10 percent.
Theman who called bitcoin $10K nowees this for the cryptocurrency."Bitcoin could be at $40,000 at the end of 2018. It easily could," Michael Novogratz said Monday on CNBC's "Fast Money." "Ethereum, which I think just touched $500 or is getting close, could be triple where it is as well."Bitcoin was trading near $9,656 late Monday afternoon, after hitting a record high above $9,700 earlier in the day, according to CoinDesk. Ethereum hit a record high of $493.40 Monday, according to CoinMarketCap, and last traded near $482. The total market capitalization of all digital coins on CoinMarketCap hit $304 billion Monday. Novogratz said he expects that could increase by about six times to $2 trillion at the end of next year.
Market capitalization of all digital coins
"There's a big wave of money coming, not just here but all around the world," said Novogratz, formerly a macro hedge fund manager at Fortress Investment Group. He is planning to launch a $500 million digital assets fund through his new firm, Galaxy Investment Partners. Demand from Asia has contributed to bitcoin's gains. Japanese yen trading in bitcoin dominates trading volume at about 62 percent, according to CryptoCompare. U.S. dollar-bitcoin trading accounts for about 21 percent, and trading in South Korean won accounts for about 9 percent. "What's different about these coins than other commodities … there is no supply response here," Novogratz said. "So it's a speculator's dream in that as buying happens there's no new supply response that comes up. So every price move gets exaggerated. It's going to get exaggerated on the way up. There will be 50 percent corrections. It will get exaggerated on the way down."
In contrast to oil and renewable energy products, Novogratz pointed out companies cannot produce more bitcoin in order to meet demand since the digital currency's supply is limited to 21 million coins. Novogratz said Monday that "probably over 20 percent" or "maybe even 30 percent" of his net worth is in cryptocurrencies. He said he's split roughly in half between bitcoin and ethereum. But Novogratz doesn't recommend retail investors put any more than 1 to 3 percent of their net worth in cryptocurrencies, or wealthier investors to put more than 5 to 10 percent.
Back on Oct. 10, Novogratz said on CNBC's "Fast Money" that he expects bitcoin will top $10,000 in the next six to 10 months. Bitcoin traded near $4,874 that day. During a mid-November plunge of more than 20 percent in bitcoin's price, Novogratz said he bought $15 million to $20 million worth of the digital currency, according to Reuters. Bitcoin has since more than recovered to an all-time high of $9,732.76 Monday, according to CoinDesk. At that level, the digital currency was up more than 10 times in price for the year and about 50 percent for November.
Last Wednesday, Fundstrat's Tom Lee raised his mid-2018 price target for bitcoin to $11,500 from $6,000. That followed a similar upgrade last Monday by Standpoint Research's Ronnie Moas, who raised his 2018 price target for bitcoin to $14,000 from $11,000. CNBC also reported that Novogratz agreed on Oct. 4 to join the board of advisors for a new token-exchange project based on digital currency ethereum.
$10,000 Bitcoin Price Now Looks Inevitable
Never say never, but bitcoin looks set to topple the $10,000
mark across global exchanges today.
While BTC is yet to pass the notable milestone on western exchanges, trading in Asia has already seen the cryptocurrency hit as high as $10,086 today on data source CoinMarketCap. Bitcoin first started peeping above the psychological hurdle on several South Korea-based cryptocurrency exchanges last night. As per CoinDesk's Bitcoin Price Index, however, the cryptocurrency is still trading at $9,917 levels. That said, the chart analysis shows the dominos are falling, and bitcoin is set to pass the historical price point sooner rather than later.
The chart would show:
A minor drop to $9,500 levels yesterday was quickly undone as the cryptocurrency found takers around the upward sloping 50-MA (moving average).
The 50-MA, 100-MA and 200-MA favor further upside in prices (sloping upwards).
More importantly, the rising trendline (drawn from Nov. 12 low and Nov. 24 low) is intact. The trendline is seen offering support today $8,800 levels.
Potential bearish price RSI divergence: The RSI would form lower highs if the current 4-hour candle closes below the 4-hour 50-MA level of $8,625. That would confirm a bearish divergence
Bitcoin has potential to extend gains to $10,400 levels, as suggested by the bull flag breakout earlier this month. The slight cause of concern would be confirmation of the bearish-price RSI divergence. In such a case, the cryptocurrency could witness a deeper pullback to $9,000 levels. However, that may not necessarily yield a trend reversal for
In the past, bitcoin has made major tops following the confirmation of the bearish price RSI divergence on the daily chart. A 4-hour bearish divergence is unlikely to yield anything more than a minor pullback.
The outlook remains bullish as long as the rising trend line is intact. Only a break below the trendline support would signal a near-term bullish-to-bearish trend change.
After spending much of the last week seeking direction in the $2,700 to $2,900-range, the average price of bitcoin across major international exchanges edged up over this threshold finally at roughly 17:00 UTC.
The new record comes at a time when alternative digital assets are seeing robust inflows, with ethereum's ether token setting a new all-time high of more than $300 today as well.
Indeed, analysts spoke to the ongoing broadening of the cryptocurrency market as a tide that is benefitting bitcoin.
"The inflows into 'alts' are greater than those into bitcoin. In other words, bitcoin is growing at a very nice pace, but non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies are growing even faster," cryptocurrency hedge fund manager Tim Enneking told CoinDesk.
Jehan Chu, managing partner at cryptocurrency fund Jen Advisors, agreed, noting that bitcoin is likely benefitting from new investor interest and the surging interest of "cryptos like ether".
Still, Arthur Hayes, founder of Hong Kong-based digital currency exchange BitMEX, stated that bitcoin is still the "most talked-about cryptocurrency", even as returns become more substantial in other areas of the market.
Hayes told CoinDesk:
"As investors marvel at bitcoin's historical returns and the returns of altcoins, their natural first purchase is bitcoin. Bitcoin has under performed other coins this year, it is now playing catchup."
Investor Sean Walsh largely agreed, pointing to bitcoin's growing price as a sign of its place in the market as the first stop on a road to other assets.
"Bitcoin still seems like the dominant gateway to [alternative digital assets]. So, many first purchase bitcoin in order to then trade their bitcoin for altcoins," he noted.
The development coincides with signs that the cryptocurrency market is maturing to support new inflows and increasing interest.
As noted by CoinDesk research analyst Alex Sunnarborg today, the cryptocurrency exchange market has never been more globally diverse or buoyed by such an array of possible inflows.
Such tailwinds have combined in recent weeks to bring new investor attention to bitcoin, with expectations for bitcoin's growth becoming more and more exuberant. Danish investment firm Saxo Bank went so far as to publish a forecasting report in which it placed the possible value of bitcoin at $100,000 in the next 10 years.
News that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has requested a recount in Wisconsin, and will likely do the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania, has raised faint hopes among Hillary Clinton supporters that somehow Donald Trump will not become the next president of the United States.
Now that Clinton's campaign has said it will participate in the recount efforts, those supporters' hopes have been lifted even higher.
To put the matter bluntly: They should give up that hope.
There is essentially zero chance that the recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change Trump's lead, which number in the thousands, not hundreds, in all three states. Trump is winning Wisconsin by a little more than 27,000 votes; his lead in Michigan sits at around 11,000; and his lead in Pennsylvania is insurmountable at over 68,000.
This is not Florida 2000. On Election Night in 2000, George W. Bush held a 1,784 vote lead over Al Gore in Florida's election for president, representing just 0.031 percent of the 5.8 million votes cast in the state. After a recount — which the US Supreme Court halted by a 5-4 vote — Bush ultimately won Florida by 537 votes, securing the presidency. Yet even if the Court had allowed the recount to proceed, the margin would not have swung by much.
This is not Washington 2004, where a recount reversed the result, handing Democrat Christine Gregoire a 129-vote win over Republican Dino Rossi after he initially had a 261-vote lead on election night.
This is not Minnesota 2008, where a recount gave Democrat Al Franken a 225-vote win over Republican Norm Coleman, reversing Coleman's initial lead of 215 votes.
All of these recounts had one significant fact in common: the margin of victory was in the hundreds, not thousands. And the shifts in vote totals after the recounts were very small.
In the past 15 years, a statewide recount has reversed the winner from the election-night tally only three times — in the Washington 2004 governor's race (a 390-vote shift), the 2008 Minnesota US Senate race (a 440-vote shift), and a 2006 election in Vermont for Auditor of Accounts, which initially had a 137-vote margin on election night that changed to a 102-vote win for the other candidate after the recount (a 239-vote change).
FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for electoral reform, found that from 2000-2012 there were only 22 statewide recounts across the country, and the average shift in those recounts was just 0.026%.
But, a Clinton supporter might say, what if the machines were hacked? What if the election was actually rigged? It is an ironic sentiment given that Trump was the one claiming widespread election rigging before the election and Clinton supporters blasted Trump for refusing to say whether he would honor the results.
Irony aside, there is simply no evidence of election hacking, as Clinton's top lawyer, Marc Elias, himself conceded. Of course, now that Stein has begun the process, it is perfectly reasonable for Clinton and her lawyers to stay involved. But her supporters should not take that fact as a sign that the election is still in question.
Prolonging the campaign by seeking a recount breeds unwarranted doubt about the legitimacy of our elections — without any real evidence to back it up. Our democratic system relies on everyone accepting the result. That legitimacy suffers when mere speculation calls the result into question with little evidence of rigging and Electoral College vote totals that decisively determine a winner.
Moreover, all of this talk of recounts and election rigging obscures the more important fact about our elections: We impose too many obstacles on voters for no good reason. We need to work harder to eliminate onerous voting laws and make voting easier, not focus on long-shot recounts that provide only false hope. For instance, this recount effort does nothing to address issues surrounding Wisconsin's controversial voter ID statute, which improperly prevented some people from voting.
While Stein's futile recount effort should give no solace to Clinton supporters, there is a silver lining to the current debate: It might finally prompt Congress and state legislatures to devote greater resources to election technology.
We desperately need better voting equipment and stronger post-Election Day audits. Going into this election, experts warned about the woefully out-of-date equipment that most states use. Indeed, old machines — especially if they do not allow for a paper trail — raise the possibility, however small, of election hacking. Old machines can lead to long lines, lost votes, and other Election Day problems.
Updated voting technology can increase turnout by making voting easier. As just one example, Doña Ana County, New Mexico uses Voting Convenience Centers instead of precinct-based polling places, meaning that anyone in the county can vote at any of the 40 centers instead of having to go to their assigned home precinct. This makes it easier to vote near work or school and eliminates the possibility of having to vote via a provisional ballot — which could potentially not count — if a voter shows up at the wrong place.
This system shows that improved technology can both enhance the integrity of our election system — a standard Republican talking point — and also make voting more accessible to more people, thereby increasing the electorate — something Democrats usually strive to achieve.
The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will do nothing to assuage the fears of Clinton supporters who recoil at the thought of a Trump presidency. But at a minimum, they should force politicians on all sides to re-examine how we run our elections.
Like it or not, Donald Trump will become our next president. Hopefully, when he runs for re-election in four years, we will have a stronger election system that makes voting easier, more convenient and accessible, less susceptible to manipulation, and more easily verifiable. That's the closest to a "win" that Clinton and her supporters can expect.
FBI Document Dump Proves This Woman Has No Business Anywhere Near Power
I'm guessing that many of you do not know this, but there was another dump of 100 pages from the FBI yesterday relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton. Folks, I'm here to tell you, there is no way this woman ought to be anywhere near the Oval Office. She ought not be anywhere near the White House. I don't care what Donald Trump's faults are. I don't care what people think of Donald Trump. This woman has no business. I can't believe, after looking at these documents
This is astounding what the FBI dumped yesterday. Why this hasn't been dumped earlier is obvious. It is damning! It is destroying of Hillary Clinton, as a person, as a secretary of state. I go through all these emails. Have any of you who've spent any time going through any of the emails, part of the WikiLeaks dump, are you seeing anybody that works for her talk about what a nice person she is? I am not. I see references to friends of Bill that need this and friends of Bill that need that. I don't see any references to friends of Hillary.
I'm reading a bunch of people who are doing what they can to advance this woman's career because it is their job and because through her they maybe get to advance what their agenda is; but I'm here to tell you, there doesn't appear to be any personal attachment beyond Huma in any of these, including Podesta. You know, Podesta is actually a Bill guy. Podesta was Bill's chief of staff sent over there, runs the Center for American Progress, a leftist think tank, and is now over there steering the Hillary campaign.
I'm telling you, folks, it's incredible. And this 100 pages — and most of it's redacted. The stuff that they haven't redacted is damning. It makes Watergate look like Romper Room. And I'm wondering, what in the hell were they doing at the FBI when they decided none of this was actionable? This goes so far beyond quid pro quo. Of course that's a big, big deal.
But all the stories that we heard back when the Clintons were in the White House about Hillary disliking the Marines, disrespecting the Marines, throwing ashtrays, apparently it's true, because she did it at the State Department. She was so mean to people that State Department security agents, which they have, every bureaucracy has security agents that travel with the ambassadors, with the secretary of state. None of them wanted to work for her. They all quit over the four-year time she was in the secretary of state's office. None of them.
The people that ended up on her detail were brand-new and had no idea. They were the last ones to go there because everybody else begged off, because she was just plain and simple mean and rude and disrespectful. She was violating protocol at every turn. As an example, one of the parent protocols is that when the secretary of state's traveling, you get off the plane and you always join the ambassador to whatever country you're in. The ambassador gets in a limo with you, it's a security thing, too, from the airport into the embassy or wherever you're going.
In other words, when you get off the plane in a foreign country, you are joined at the hip with the ambassador. She never would do it.
The only person allowed to get closer to is Huma Abedin and whoever this guy that runs around with her, this big, big black guy who is there rubbing her back and telling her just keep talking, just keep breathing. He's obviously some medic, and he's constantly around her. Other than this guy and Huma Abedin, she just blows off everybody and everything. You can't find any references, or very few, to people with any affection for her. They're all working for her and they're all trying to rig the game for her, but there doesn't seem to be any affection.
It's amazing what's in these 100 pages alone, and these are from the FBI. This is not WikiLeaks. This is not the result of a hack. They can't say that the Russians are behind this. Now, I don't think that any of this is gonna end up in the Drive-By Media. Because they are part of this. Well, that's part of the WikiLeaks dump, too. But reporters are sending their stories to John Podesta for vetting before they're published. One guy, Glenn Thrush from Politico says (paraphrasing), "Hey, look, now that I've become a (hack) for you guys, I've got this story. Here it is. Make sure it's right before I run with it."
This is happening constantly, not just recently, but constantly with Mrs. Clinton. He's not the only one. All of them, practically everybody in the mainstream media is on her team and coordinating with her and her campaign about how to do stories, what stories to do, what to leave out of them and so forth.
Now to the FBI document dump.
It's a hundred pages and it's dynamite, and it's just astounding, folks. You look at this and you wonder how in the world did this woman not get charged? How in the world did this not get sent to the grand jury? Of course, we know. President Obama didn't want it. He didn't want any of it going anywhere because he's implicated in it. He lied. He said he learned about Hillary's private server while watching the news just like all of us, except that's not true.
He was regularly communicating with her via her private server and all this suspicious email activity using a fake name, a pseudonym, if you will. He was fully aware. And that's why to go after her would have included him, and ah, ah, ah, ah, not going to happen. I did as much looking into this as I could, and I have to tell you, John Hinderaker at Power Line has probably put together the best summary of this.
Yesterday "the FBI released another 100 pages relating to its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State." This was not just an investigation that was limited to her emails and server. By definition, it ended up including her conduct as secretary of state. Why it has taken so long for the FBI to review, to redact, and publish — I mean, a hundred pages is a small quantity. It's dynamite. What's in these 100 pages, even what is not redacted is dynamite. But the question, why it has taken so long for the FBI to review, to redact and publish a hundred pages is inexplicable.
The pages that were released yesterday are explosive, big-time explosive. Folks, it's serious stuff. And it all — you can't conclude anything other — this woman ought not be anywhere near the levels of power. This woman is as corrupt as anybody. This makes Watergate, as I say, look like Romper Room. Now, you may have seen headlines that Hillary's State Department tried to pressure the FBI to say that various documents located on her home server were not classified. That was critical. It is critical, obviously, because one of Hillary's lines of defense was to claim — falsely, as it turned out — that she never sent or received classified documents on her off-the-books email system.
She said that in her first press conference that she held at the U.N., and she said it subsequent times. (imitating Hillary) "I never dealt with. I I I I I I never sent or received classified documents. It was a mistake, I'll never do it again, I learned from it, but I never sent classified documents."
But to get the full impact, you have to see the relevant portions of the FBI investigation, and they're all here, in all cases. They've been published and I'm gonna just read to you a so-called executive summary of them. "In the first page, an unidentified FBI employee says he was 'pressured' to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified. This pressure came from someone within the FBI."
This is in FBI documents. This is not somebody's speculation. It was in what was released yesterday. You remember, now, she has denied trafficking in classified documents, sending or receiving. And yet in one of the pages yesterday, an unidentified FBI employee says he was pressured by someone within the FBI to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified.
This person within the FBI "who said he had been contacted by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who 'had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a "quid pro quo."'" You may see people denying this left and right at the State Department. It's in the FBI documents. It happened! Somebody within the FBI called over to state, talked to Patrick Kennedy and asked for his help in changing the classification of the email in exchange for a quid pro quo.
And what was the quid pro quo? "The quid pro quo was that, if the FBI would say the email was unclassified, the State Department would allow the FBI to 'place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.' Subsequently, the interviewee was summoned to an 'all agency' meeting at the State Department to discuss the classification review of the Hillary Clinton emails. This fact," and that's what it is, "is astonishing: the meeting was attended by representatives of the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency 'and other government agencies,' including, obviously, the FBI."
So you had an all-agency meeting at the State Department to discuss reviewing the classification of Hillary Clinton's emails and changing from classified to unclassified, with all of these government agencies at the meeting. "Patrick Kennedy presided. Someone asked whether any of the Hillary emails that were being reviewed for production were classified. Kennedy replied, 'Well, we’ll see.'"
Meaning, when we get through here, after we've declassified a bunch of 'em, probably not. So they had classified emails, agency-wide meeting with all of these different elements of the government to discuss declassifying certain Hillary emails. Why would they do that? To protect her. To protect them. To protect Obama. There were classified emails. She was trafficking in classified email on her unsecure server that she had lied about and denied doing, that Obama claimed he knew nothing about when he did.
And so it was an all-agency meeting where they circled the wagons and after the fact they're gonna change from classified to unclassified email by email by email in exchange for a quid pro quo for the FBI.
"Following the all agency meeting, Undersecretary of State Kennedy renewed his effort to pressure the FBI to change its classification of the document in question. The FBI representative wouldn’t budge." The FBI said, "No, we are not gonna help you declassify this classified document."
"So Kennedy asked who else at the agency he could talk to. The interviewee gave the name of Michael Steinbach." All of this was in these hundred pages dumped yesterday. "The interviewee then participated in a call with Kennedy and Steinbach, in which Kennedy 'continued to pressure the FBI to change the classified markings on the email to unclassified.' Steinbach refused. What happened next is — deserves to be, anyway — a bombshell.
"Prior to ending the conversation, Kennedy," of the State Department, "asked whether the FBI or State would conduct the public statements on the matter. Steinbach advised Kennedy that the FBI would not comment publicly on the matter."
Well, I mean, folks, right there is corruption admitted to. Here you had an all-agency meeting to discuss the declassification of an email in order to protect Hillary's claim that she had not trafficked in them. And everybody at the meeting admits to and knows what's going on. And the FBI says, "Don't worry, we're not gonna talk about it. Steinbach of the FBI told Kennedy we would not comment publicly on the matter." Meaning, whatever you do, nobody's gonna know about it. We're not gonna blow the whistle on you. Whatever you do, go ahead, we're not talking.
"That was enough for the astonishingly corrupt Hillary Clinton. This is what happened next: The conference call ended and, according to [ ], the Associated Press (AP) published the story within the hour. Former Secretary of State Clinton appeared in front of the press shortly thereafter to deny having sent classified emails on her private email server."
So before she goes out and speaks, they had this agency-wide meeting to declassify something classified, it ends up happening in exchange for quid pro quo. The FBI sitting in on the meeting, "Okay, we're not gonna say a word.' That's the signal to Hillary to go out and lie that she had never sent classified emails on her private email server.
What you have here, folks, is a clear pattern of corruption that, as I say, makes Watergate look like Romper Room. Hillary's aide at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI with the promise of a quid pro quo, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification. It was a Benghazi document, by the way. What's being discussed here is a Benghazi document.
So Patrick Kennedy, Hillary's aide, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary to lie and say that she did not send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. The FBI refused. James Comey was not involved at this stage, by the way. This was before the serious investigation even began. But they learned of it. Comey learned of this later on. He wasn't involved at this point.
"Hillary’s aide then asked whether the FBI would be saying anything publicly about the classification issue," what they just had, the all-agency meeting. "Once assured that the FBI would be silent –" Steinbach said don't worry, we're not saying a word "– Hillary took the stage and alleged publicly, and falsely, that she never used her illegal home server to send or receive classified information."
They had just taken a classified document and agreed to declassify it just because they needed to for her, not because it deserved to be. It was still a classified bit of information, but they declassified it, enabling her to go out and lie. This is just one document. How many critically important documents have been given the same treatment, have been discussed in the same way? The State Department has put some documents, archived them way back down in the basement, nobody to ever see them again
Folks, this is just one element of what's in this hundred page dump. But this one, this story illustrates the full-fledged corruption of Hillary Clinton's State Department, working with the FBI. She says she never trafficked in classified data, sending it or receiving it. She said that after an agency-wide meeting, an all-agency meeting in which a document about Benghazi was declassified.
Richard Nixon only dreamed of this kind of stuff. On the surface it may not sound like it's that big a deal when treated to governments doing things, our government especially in private, prying eyes don't see it. She's been lying through her teeth. Everybody on her side, everybody has been lying about what went on, trying to maintain the idea that she never trafficked in classified documents.
She did, she knew she did. She knew she was lying about it. She corrupted a bunch of agencies to collude and get together to change the classification on her behalf so that she could go out and lie. She was enabled as a liar with the mass participation of a bunch of other government agencies.
An O.S.H.I.T. Moment? Folks the USA appears far more corrupt than even Russia or Venezuela!
Guess what, my friends? Obama's got a press conference, or just finished one with the prime minister of Italy in the Rose Garden. He was asked about what I just shared with you. Question by Kevin Freking of the AP. "Mr. President, does it distress you that folks at the FBI and State Department talked about the proper level of classification of emails that were on Secretary Clinton's server? Would you acknowledge the appearance of impropriety and should the State Department officials look into this further."
OBAMA: You've heard directly from both the FBI and the State Department that the notion or the accounts that have been put out there are just not true. And, you know, you can question them again, but based on what we have seen, heard, learned, some of the more sensational implications or appearances, as you stated them, aren't based on actual events and based on what actually happened and I think derive from sort of overly broad characterizations of interactions between the State Department and the FBI that happen a lot.
He's flat-out calling everybody involved in this a liar. He's saying it never happened. The evidence is from the FBI, documents released from the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's conduct as secretary of state, deriving from and originating with her email server. So here's Mr. Obama who told us that he didn't know about any of this until he heard about it on the news, which is a lie because he was emailing Mrs. Clinton. By definition, everything he sends is classified. Everything the president sends, everything he writes, it's classified at origin by virtue of the fact he's sending it. "I didn't know 'til I read about in the news, just like all of you."
He was using a fake name! The man who said you like your doctor, keep your doctor, you like your plan, keep your plan. The man that told you your premiums are gonna be reduced $2,500. The man has lied I don't know how many times about how many things. He and Hillary are in a race to see who's the king or queen of lying, plus we know this is a corrupt bunch! He's just called everybody involved "Oh, they have these interagency meetings all the time, you know, these rivalries, they've already denied it." The allegations were not even made. The information comes from the FBI in a 100-page document dump yesterday, and he just called everybody involved a liar. "It isn't true. They said it didn't happen." Come on, folks, come on. We know what's going on.
For the record, ladies and gentlemen, there are four people, at least four people who have talked about the pressure to take a classified Benghazi document and make it unclassified. Two of the people at the FBI, two of the people the State Department. Four people independently have said they were pressured to do this. Barack Obama has just called them liars as well.
RUSH: Well, there seems to be some confusion where these hundred pages came from. They are official. And the best I have been able to determine is that the FBI released these 100 pages that everybody's talking about. (interruption) Well, I usually am. But some people are saying, "No, no, no. The FBI didn't officially do it. Somebody at the FBI did it 'cause they're ticked off and they think Hillary should be arrested."
In other words, somebody's trying to tell me that a rogue element released documents. Everything I've seen is the FBI itself did this and that Comey was not aware or involved. Comey wasn't involved in this all-agency meeting that took place. Look, let me summarize this and try to tell you why this matters.
This is standard operating procedure for Bill and Hillary Clinton. This is a woman who destroyed subpoenaed documents in a court case way back in the nineties. These are the people that hid billing records and other relevant documents sought by a court for years that mysteriously turned up on a table in the Map Room in the White House during their first term in the White House. Then the whole Lewinsky scandal happened, and we know how everything was — if it hadn't been for that blue dress — seriously, folks.
I'm not trying to be funny here. If it hadn't been for that blue dress Bill Clinton would have gotten away with saying (Clinton impression), "I never had sex with that woman, not a single time, not ever, and I never asked anybody to lie," he would have gotten away with that. We would have never known the truth. If it hadn't been for the fact that Linda Tripp, I think it was, convinced Lewinsky to give up that blue dress, and she kept the blue dress because it was historical, it was a souvenir. She loved the guy and having his semen was, I guess, a memento.
So there it was. This is how the Clintons operate. They accuse. This is a woman who was thrown off the Nixon Watergate committee as a Democrat lawyer. She was thrown off by Peter Rodino, the chairman, because she was trying to engender things that would deny Nixon and his legal team constitutional rights during the Watergate investigation. This woman is every bit the Alinskyite that Barack Obama is. She was an Alinskyite before Obama was. Her thesis, and she was at Wellesley, was on Alinsky.
But the woman is dishonest. She is dishonest and she is corrupt. Look at the Clinton Foundation. This is an organization set up to take donations in the multiple millions of dollars from foreign governments and foreign wealthy individuals while she was secretary of state and while she's campaigning for president. Now, folks, the people giving the Clintons money are not doing it 'cause they like her. They're not giving her $300,000 to make speeches at banks because, wow, she says such interesting things. They are buying the Clintons. They are buying access because the Clintons have made it known their entire public life they can be bought.
The Clintons do not do much of anything aboveboard.
At any rate, so there's a history, a documented history. Now, if you're a Millennial — Millennials do not know of the existence and the nature and the truth of Soviet communism. It's not been taught to them. So "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," the Berlin Wall falling, the Cold War and its meaning and relevance all during the sixties is irrelevant to them.
They simply don't know. They haven't been taught about it. And that's, of course, by design. If you're not gonna teach communism, if you're not gonna teach what it really is, it makes selling socialism easy. This is exactly what they've done. Same token here. Millennials, a young group of people, do not know of the Clintons of the nineties. To you and me, we know it like the back of our hand. But young people don't. And some low-information people don't as well.
So, in addition to all of the things starting with Whitewater, all moving forward, everything the Clintons have done — well, can't say "everything" — the vast majority of what the Clintons have done has had many purposes, but at the top of the list is personal enrichment.
Do you know that she also stole furniture from the State Department when she left? That's in this document dump. She stole furniture from the State Department when she left just like they stole furniture from the White House when they left. She just picked up and took what she wanted. Violates all kinds of protocols. Would not hang around with ambassadors, would not travel with them, would not give them the perk of appearing with the secretary of state, would not let them fly in the plane, would not them ride in the limousine.
Only Huma Abedin was allowed body contact. Nobody else. The security agents for the State Department all wanted to quit her detail. She was so rude, mean, disrespectful, none of them wanted to work for her over the course of her four-year term as secretary of state, which comports with everything we'd heard about the way she treated Secret Service agents in the White House and Marines and other uniformed military personnel. The woman is a viper and she's dishonest and corrupt. And it's the way of the world in that world the Clintons occupy.
So just to review, hundred pages released by the FBI yesterday clearly detail an all-agency meeting wherein the State Department and a guy named Patrick Kennedy attempted to persuade other government agencies, including the FBI and the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency and others to go along with changing the classification of, in this case, one particular document detailing Benghazi, from classified to unclassified, so that Mrs. Clinton could go out and do a press conference and claim that she had never trafficked in classified information.
And in exchange for doing this, the FBI was offered, in exchange for doing this, an increased presence in foreign countries to do investigations and other things. You remember what the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were blown up, the FBI's right there investigating, because American citizens were dead. So the FBI can go, but they are limited in what they can do. State Department has purview. So a carrot was dangled that allowed the FBI a little bit more access and power in exchange for going along with declassifying a classified document.
Four people — two state, two FBI — have added to what's in these hundred pages claiming they were pressured to go along with this. Now, President Obama just had a press conference concluded recently at the White House with the Italian prime minister in which he was asked about this. Now, there's two sound bites.
So here's the question. "Mr. President, does it distress you that people at the FBI and the State Department talked about the proper level of classification of emails that were on Secretary Clinton's server? Would you acknowledge the appearance of impropriety, and should the State Department look into this further?"
OBAMA: You've heard directly from both the FBI and the State Department that the notion or the accounts that have been put out there are just not true. And, you know, you can question them again, but based on what we have seen, heard, learned, some of the more sensational implications or appearances, as you stated them, aren't based on actual events and based on what actually happened and I think derive from sort of overly broad characterizations of interactions between the State Department and the FBI that happen a lot. It happened between agencies.
The short version of that is "It didn't happen. It's all made up, not true, uh, these things happen all the time." So he's denying, calling people liars. This is in an FBI document dump. This is not something that some right-wing website found and is publishing. This is from the Obama FBI. And he's claiming everybody involved — and there are independent people. As I say, four others who are claiming they have been pressured to go along with the declassification of classified documents on Mrs. Clinton's server.
I can imagine some of you, "What does that matter? There's so many other things, what does it matter?" It matters because, folks, it's a culmination of things. The cumulative effect of behavioral patterns here that indicate this woman is dishonest, is corrupt and has no business even taking the oath of office because she cannot honestly do it. She has no business being president of the United States.
She uses the power that you get as an elected official or appointed official at the upper echelons of U.S. government to artificially alter and change things in her favor outside of courts of law, things that no one else could do or try. Things for which we have forced a president to resign simply because he thought he wanted to. Richard Nixon and Watergate, that's nothing compared to what has actually gone on here, but it gets better.
I pray that the majority of Americans have common sense, good sense, curiosity, empathy and self respect. This machine, this matrix, this system we live in has usually been subtle in controlling us.
Remember 911 (2001) just a terrorist attack folks, go back to work and keep shopping? But as well as that deception was done, it began to unravel. And continued to do so. At first we (including myself) rejected the notion it was a false flag, but even I came around to see it as such.
That was 2001, 15 years ago. A lot has transpired and I believe we have all had our "take the red pill" moments. The majority of us, know something is wrong.
And here is the sweetness of Trump. He is the "outsider", he beat 16 other Republicans, all of them puppets of the system. Even Ted Cruz with his hand tucked under his coat (AKA Glenn Beck Illuminati meltdown drama queen).
As this machine consorts and thrashes and screams ever louder with more frantic and obvious desperate attempts to destroy Trump, The huge revealed cheating (ie: the polls) the obvious gamed debates, the false accusations and manufactured witnesses, it is becoming so very clear, that a vote for Trump is a knife in the systems heart.
I ultimately trust the American people, that they have and are waking up, that this election is the beginning of a huge revolution. This election's outcome will have two stark paths; An America where WW3, ruin and civil war, despair, will be our reward, or an America were the people's unity is restored, the Rise of the Entrepreneur will lead America into a innovation and new wealth for all renaissance making America the greatest nation on earth (again). The choice has never been more clear.
Vote carefully, as this time your life depends on it.
The choices have never been more black and white, good vs evil, prosperity vs disparity, honesty vs deception, life vs death.