Helsinki Summit: A Media Meltdown

As Trump traveled to Helsinki to attend a summit with Putin, the media and liberals amped up a hashtag which trended quickly on Twitter. 

Dubbed #TreasonSummit, liberals had apoplectic tweets about the ordinary summit that every leader has taken since Reagan was President. In reality, even with Rosenstein's press conference ahead of the summit and the indictment of 12 Russians for interfering in elections, it was still emphasized by Rosenstein that NO Americans were involved. Indicating once AGAIN, as he did back in March, that Trump was cleared of any collusion charges.

White House: Russia indictment 'consistent' with claim of no collusion

Tweets from Obama administration's top ex-intelligence officials, the same individuals ensnared into the ongoing controversy surrounding a politicized FBI interfering in the election of 2016, were among the many. 


Super convenient, right? To have the same FBI officials who brought the questioning of integrity among the FBI, be the first to bark about Trump and his ordinary summit. Of course, media threw their own gasoline on the fire with partisan reporting. 

Democrats also piled on the remarks, such as Adam Schiff. 


Rand Paul was crucified for agreeing that diplomacy has to happen, without putting emotion into the mix, in order to have open communication and avoid a war. 


Geraldo Rivera called out the partisan press saying anything that Trump did would have been spun negatively no matter what. 


Scott Adams had his own humorous take in the whole summit, pointing out the persuasion laid out in the press conference. 


The reality is the media will always find something negative to say about Trump. But what about the 400 million dollars Russia paid into the Clinton campaign? Putin isn't to be trusted for sure, and everyone agrees that. But wouldn't that statement warrant discussion? An alleged 125k paid to Stormy somehow seems more of a bigger story because of Trump's name next to it. But put Trump's name next to that 400 million, the press would be covering it for the next two weeks. This is why media and its predictable outrage will not serve the Democrats well for midterms.


  Written By Fulcrum Contributor @PinkAboutIt

Highlights From The Strzok Hearing/Page Closed-Door Session Friday

The Full House Judiciary Committee Hearing can be viewed HERE. And if you weren’t able to catch the full day of testimony presented during the Strzok hearing on July 12th, here’s your Fulcrum summary version:

The first 90 minutes of Thursdays hearing was nothing short of explosive with Democrats conveniently running the clock down every chance they got, interrupting others set time, calling points of order, shutting down oversight and demanding recorded votes be taken before moving forward.

pasted image 0.png

When House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy began to question Strzok, only a few minutes into the hearing, Democrats erupted in objection. The question posed to Strzok by Gowdy was in regard to the number of witnesses that Strzok interviewed the during the time he was sending shameful and clearly biased text messages to his lover, Lisa Page.

Gowdy asked Strzok, “Between July 31st and August 8th, how many interviews did you conduct related to the alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign?” After turning to speak with his council, Strzok replied, “Congressman as you know, council for the FBI, based on the Special Council’s equities, has instructed me not to answer questions about the ongoing investigations..((Gowdy interrupts to ask the question once again))...Congressman, I understand your question, I appreciate it, and I would very much like to answer, but as I’ve stated, as you know the council of the FBI, based on the Special Council’s equities, have instructed me not to answer questions about the ongoing investigations into Russian attempts to interfere with the election.”

“This is true for the Clinton email investigation, for the investigation into Russian interference, and for every other investigation I’ve worked on,” he told the panel. “It is not who I am, and it is not something I would ever do. Period.”

Chairman Gowdy continues his line of questioning, asking Stzrok about Mueller letting him go, “If you were kicked off when he read the text, shouldn’t you have been kicked off when you wrote them?”

Strzok replied: “Not at all.”

Gowdy: “Well, it wasn’t the discovery of your text Mr. Strzok, it was the existence of your bias that got you kicked off.

Strzok: “No, Mr. Gowdy, it wasn’t. I do not have bias. My personal opinions in no havway ever impact..”

Gowdy: “Why did you get kicked off?”

Strzok: “Mr. Gowdy, my understanding of why I was kicked off was based on understanding of those text and the perception that they might create..”

Gowdy: “Hang on a second, Agent Strzok, hang on a second–perception? You’re saying it was the perception of thirteen Democrats on the Special Council Probe, including one who went to what he hoped was a victory party. That’s a perception problem too. They weren’t kicked off, you were. Why were you kicked off?… How long did you talk to him [Mueller] when he let you go?

Strzok: “My recollection is it was a short meeting somewhere between fifteen to thirty minutes, probably around fifteen minutes.”

Gowdy: “And it’s your testimony is Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your text, he kicked you off because some appearance that he was worried about?”

Strzok: “My testimony, what you asked, and what I responded to was that he kicked me off because of my bias. I am stating to you, it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias, that it was done based on the appearance. If you want to represent what you said accurately, I’m happy to answer that question, but I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed.”

Gowdy: “I don’t give a damn what you appreciate Agent Strzok. I don’t appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.”

After Strzok’s lengthy reply, the Democrats in the room did something that you don’t see often in settings such as these, they began to clap for Strzok. As if that wasn’t strange enough, what came after Strzok’s reply was even more stunning. A motion was called to subpoena Steve Bannon for his refusal to answer some of Chairman Gowdy’s questions while under subpoena--the motion was struck down and denied by Chairman Goodlatte.

Strzok’s reply: “In terms of the text that ‘We will stop it’, you need to understand that was written late at night, off the cuff, and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero. And my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior, that the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be President of the United States. It was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process-for any candidate. So, I take great offense and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn’t. As to the 100 million to 1 that was used clearly a statement made in jest, and using hyperbole, I of course recognize that millions of Americans were likely to vote for candidate Trump. I acknowledge that it is absolutely their right, that is what makes our democracy such a vibrant process that it is. But to suggest somehow that we can parse down the words of shorthand textual conversations like they’re some kind of a contract for a car, is simply not consistent with my or most people’s use of text messaging. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, at no time, in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took. Furthermore, this isn’t just me sitting here telling you-you don’t have to take my word for it. At every step, at every investigative decision, there were multiple layers of people above me. The assistant director, executive assistant director, deputy director and director of the FBI and multiple layers of people below me, section chiefs, supervisors, unit chiefs, case agents and analysts. All of whom were involved in all of these decisions. They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would have tolerated in them. That is who we are as the FBI and the suggestion that I, in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI, would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards, and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn’t happen and the proposition that that is going on, that it might occur anywhere in the FBI deeply corrodes what the FBI is in American society, the effectiveness of their mission and it is deeply destructive.

When Goodlatte called for a verbal vote to be tallied, the Democrats would have none of it and demanded a recorded vote be taken, so the clerk began to call the roll and recorded each member’s vote.

Rep. John Ratcliffe ( R- Texas) pressed Strzok about the 50,000 text messages on official FBI devices, where his bias seemed crystal clear, with Strzok sending and receiving hundreds of text messages each day:

“…F ‘ing Trump, stopping Trump and impeaching Trump-on official FBI phones, on official FBI time. Other than that, you never crossed that line. I’m sure there are 13,000 FBI agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you’ve drawn that line. Agent Strzok are you starting to understand why some folks out there don’t believe a word you say, and why it is especially troubling that you, of all people are at the center of the three highest profile investigations in recent time that involve President Trump and that you were in charge of an investigation investigating, gathering evidence against Donald Trump-a subject that you hated, that you wanted to F-him, to Stop him, to impeach him. Do you see why that might call into question everything that you touched on all of those investigations? Chairman, I’m done with this witness.” Rep. Ratcliffe then walked out of the hearing, without waiting to hear Strzok’s response.

A recess was then called by Chairman Goodlatte until 2 p.m.

After returning from the short break, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa from California was given the opportunity to ask Strzok about the context of the texts sent out to his mistress Lisa Page. Issa asked a shocked Strzok to read some of the texts that were sent from his government issued phone aloud for everyone to hear. -Genius move on the part of Issa.

Strzok was clearly embarrassed,(as he should be) to have to read the messages sent to his mistress out loud for all to hear. He began with texts sent to page between March and August of 2016, including “OMG! He’s an idiot”, “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.”, ‘Hi how was Trump other than a douche. Melania?”, “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be.”

When asked to read a text message from Strzok’s government issued phone specifically from August 6th, 2016, Strzok says, “I don’t believe I wrote this text sir.” Issa acknowledges it, but moves forward, “Ok, it’s been attributed to you, so we’ll go on to the next.”

Strzok continues reading the text messages and picks back up with one sent to Page on August 8th, 2016 where Page asks Strzok, “Not ever going to become president, right? Right?” Strzok reads his now infamous response to Page out loud, “No, no he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Issa immediately asks Strzok to repeat his reply to Page, which he does.

Strzok picks back up with a text from August 15, 2016: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

October 20th, 2016 “I can’t pull away…What the..and I defer to the chairman.., (chairman says to use one letter for the word)..What the F happened to our country Lis?”

When Issa asks him to repeat the text again “that way”, Strzok goes on the defensive and asks Issa, “I..sir, did you not--was that not intelligible? You just want to hear it? For me to repeat it?”

Issa responds, “Please.”

Strzok says, “Ok sir. Sure, I’m happy to indulge you.” Then he rereads the text message again. “I can’t pull away. What the F happened to our country Lis?”

Issa then asks a rhetorical question of Strzok, “Why in the world do you believe that this committee should not ask for the record of similar text from your private account to find out what else you might have said about ‘insurance policies’, or about the president of the United States, or the investigation? That is a rhetorical question. You need not answer, and I yield back.”

Strzok asks Chairman Goodlatte if he can answer the question, even though rhetorical, to which Goodlatte agrees.

Strzok: “Congressman, what I think is critical..and I’m glad you brought up a lot of these, because I would like to make up the point that I did earlier…”

Issa: “I didn’t bring them up, I just asked you to read your own words.”

Strzok: “I appreciate it, sir..if I…if I may, what is important is that these texts represent personal beliefs just like those that you’d find on my personal phone. What these texts do not represent is any act, any suggestion of an act, any consideration that we need to do this..or not do this-and furthermore, I would encourage you as I believe-I forget who I said this to earlier this morning-you need to read these texts in the context to what was going on at the time. So, when I make the comment about Trump having no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be, that came on the heels of a speech where then-candidate Trump said that he didn’t know whether or not the United States should honor its commitment to mutual defense under NATO.”

The next line of questioning came from Eleanor Norton, Democratic Congressman from Washington D.C.

She asks Strzok, “We’ve been reading from your personal phone and your official phone. Did it occur to you that your personal, political messages, if they became public might be misinterpreted in light of your role in the investigation?”

Strzok replies, “Congresswoman, to be very honest, I..I didn’t anticipate that because I never thought these text would become public.”--probably one of the very few honest answers we get from Strzok the entire hearing.

Norton goes on to ask about the phone that was used for the texts, “Some of them were not on your personal phone?” Strzok replies, “Correct, yes that’s correct.” Norton points out that since they were sent on his official phone that they belong to the public.

When it was time for Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee to ask Strzok questions, he decided instead to spend his 5 minutes of allotted time to empathize with Strzok, even telling him that if he had the ability to, he would issue Strzok a Purple Heart, telling Strzok, “You deserve one.” Cohen continued, “This has been an attack on you, and a way to attack Mr. Mueller and the investigation, that is to get at Russia Collusion involved in our election, which is what this committee should be looking at. A direct strike at democracy,” Cohen said. Cohen added that Mr. Putin was the president’s “very good friend, and a man he cannot say anything bad about?” Cohen closed his 5 minutes by partially quoting Jack Nicholson’s famous line from the movie A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth”, when referring to the investigation and said, “The truth is, this is the most corrupt administration ever and it’s going to be exposed by Robert Mueller, thank God.”

When Republican Congressman from Ohio, Jim Jordan tried to get some solid answers from Strzok about the dossier, he was given the same excuse that Strzok used earlier, that he was advised not to answer the question. 

Jordan: “You already told me that you read it, I want to know who Corn and Simpson are,” to which Strzok repeats he’s unable to answer the question.

Jordan: “I know what you’re saying, I know what you’re saying. Ok, let me ask you this, did you ever communicate with David Corn?

Stzrok said no, he had no communication with David Corn, Glen Simpson or Nellie Ohr, but he admitted he had been in communication with Bruce Ohr.

Jordan asked when he communicated with Bruce Ohr, to which Strzok answered, “My recollection is somewhere between three, four or five times in the late 2016, early 2017 time frame.” When asked what they talked about, again Strzok said he was not able to answer any further than they spoke about investigative matters.

Jordan asked one last question of Strzok: ” Glen Simpson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22nd, 2017 he was asked: ‘Did anyone from Fusion ever communicate with the FBI, his response, ‘No, no one from Fusion ever spoke to the FBI.’ So here’s what I’m having trouble understanding, if Glen Simpson says no one ever spoke with the FBI, how is it you got a copy of the dossier from Simpson?”

Strzok: “Sir, I can tell you I never had contact with Fusion, with Mr. Simpson, with Mr. Corn.”


Jordan: “This is the frustration that every single member of this committee feels,is when Agent Strzok won’t answer, well more importantly, the American people feel Agent Strzok won’t answer fundamental questions like-the guy he references in an email, Corn and Simpson, and won’t tell me who they are…this is unbelievable, but that’s where it’s gotten to now and it’s as frustrating as it can get. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”

pasted image 0-6.png

Trey Gowdy tries again to get answers to his earlier question about the dates of July 31st and August 6th of 2016, but again, Strzok said he was unable to answer the question and would have to refer back to his case file in order to give Gowdy the answer he was looking for.

During this period, the Democrats interrupted three times to ask why Gowdy was being allowed to ask Strzok questions during “their time” and even asked Goodlatte if he simply made up rules as he went along. Goodlatte clarified that this was in fact, not “their time”, but that they were making time for Strzok to be able to answer a question which in the first segment of the hearing he was told he could not answer. What changed? Who knows. The answer was still the same, he would have to check his case file and report his findings.

Gowdy specified why he was asking the specific question,  “Chairman, I appreciate you letting me make that clear, and again the context when you would not answer it was you used the word impeachment on May the 18th, 2017 and you used the impeachment on May the 22nd, 2017. Your testimony is you can’t recall a single interview you would have done as part of that investigation that was supposed to lead to impeachment, and I think that line of questioning, and I’m glad the FBI finally realized it, albeit a couple hours too late. When you are prejuding not just a result, but a punishment, which is what impeachment is, when you are prejudging the conviction and the sentencing, when you have not conducted a single, solitary interview, I’m sorry Agent Strzok, but that is letting your bias impact your professional judgement.”

Strzok: “Sir, so look, I never prejudged anything. Not in this case, not in any others.”

Jordan: “Impeachment for what Agent Strzok? Impeachment for what?”

Strzok: “At the time I was a deputy assistant director, I have section chiefs, unit chiefs, in the field, supervisors, agents, people who typically do interviews, not me. If something is notable or high level, I might be involved, but it would be rare-if never that it would be typical that I’d get out there and conduct interviews. Second, you mentioned the use of the word impeachment, that was used in the context of my not knowing what this would lead to. I was not prejudging impeachment, when I used that term it was saying it might be nothing, it might lead all the way to something on the…..(unintelligible)

Jordan: “Agent Strzok, are you kidding me?”

Things really got heated when Congressman from Texas, Louie Gohmert, questioned Strzok about his affair with Lisa Page, the first time it had been pinpointed since the hearing began.

pasted image 0-7.png

“There is the disgrace,” Gohmert said. “And it won’t be recaptured anytime soon because of the damage you’ve done to the justice system. And I’ve talked to FBI agents around the country. You’ve embarrassed them. You’ve embarrassed yourself. And I can’t help but wonder when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife’s eye and lie to her about Lisa Page?”

As you could probably guess, the Democrats lost it. “You need your medication,” yelled  New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman.

Strzok finally responded, “I have always told the truth. The fact that you would accuse me otherwise, the fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look I would engage within a family member who I have acknowledged hurting, goes more to a discussion about your character and what you stand for and what is going inside you.”

Gowdy had the opportunity to question Strzok one last round of questions and Strzok seemed to do a lot of ducking and weaving around questions claiming most of his text messages were hyperbole.

Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman took to screaming at Trey Gowdy, “If you can’t control yourself, how can you expect this committee to control itself? You’ve been out of control since you’ve been on this committee. This is not Benghazi.”

pasted image 0-8.png

Clearly getting the attention of Gowdy, the Congresswoman from New Jersey took to attacking the president rather than asking Peter Strzok any questions. “You have nothing to do with the president of the United States disgracing this country every single solitary day when he embraces our enemies and is disrespectful to our allies.” She went on a rampage over President Trump by mentioning that it wasn’t Strzok’s fault Trump imposed higher tariffs on Canada, carved out opportunities for Ivanka’s business opportunities with China, and that Puerto Rico is still “underwater with no power.” She then gave her remaining 2 and a half minutes to Strzok, giving him the opportunity to use it however he saw fit. Strzok took that time to reiterate that he was telling the truth, and just how much he loves the FBI.

After another recess, Congressman Eric Swalwell from California asked if Strzok had considered pleading the fifth at the hearing, to which Strzok replied that it was never an option for him. “No, I’ve done nothing wrong. Let me rephrase that. I am sorry. I am sorry for these texts, and the way they’ve been used for the harm and hurt they’ve caused my family, for the perception of people in the public, and I am sorry and deeply regretful for that. But when it comes–that’s a personal acception to responsibility that I take, that I need and that I’m working to make right. But when it comes to official conduct, when it comes to any action which would violate a law or crime, absolutely, I’ve never done that and have no need to take the fifth.”

pasted image 0-9.png

Swalwell, apparently thinking that the hearing wasn’t ridiculous enough, took to pulling out several large photos, while asking Strzok equally ridiculous questions when each was held up.

While holding up a photo of Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, Swalwell asks, “On November 3rd, 2015 did you send an email to Michael Cohen and say that ‘Our boy can become president of the United States and we can engineer it. I will get Putin’s team to buy in on this,’ Did you send that email?”

“No.” replies Strzok.

Swalwell moves to his next question, holding up a photo of Donald Trump Jr.,“Did you set up a meeting on June 9th where the email setting up that meeting was sent to Donald Trump Jr.? Where Donald Trump Jr. was offered dirt on his father’s opponent? Did you set up that June 9th meeting at Trump Tower?” 

“Without stating whether or not that meeting happened, I did not set up a meeting,” Strzok replies.

Swalwell continues, “Did you reply to the emails setting up that meeting when dirt was offered and said, ‘I love it’?” Strzok replies, “I did not.”

One last photo was held up, this time of Donald Trump and Swalwell asked Strzok if he’d written one of Donald Trump’s speeches. “And in the summer of 2016 were you working as a speech writer?,” asks Swalwell. 

Strzok replies, “No.” 

Swalwell asks, “So, would you have happened to have written the speech for Donald Trump that candidate in the summer of 2016? Where he told an audience, ‘Russia, if you’re listening and then went on to tell the Russians that if they hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails they’d be rewarded, Did you write that speech?”

Strzok answers, “I did not.”

Another notable line of questioning came from Congresswoman Karen Handle from Georgia.  While addressing Strzok said, “Your assertion that your statements do not constitute bias is, well, absurd.” Handle went on, “Truly ironic, did I hear you say earlier that you’re in a senior position for the HR division for the FBI? ((Handle giggles)) That’s very ironic.” Handle asked Strzok, “Did you ever advise Mr. Mueller about your relationship with Ms. Page?” Strzok replies, “I did not.” Handle asks Strzok, “Why?” To which Strzok replies, “It did not strike me as relevant.” Handle, in her own “mic drop” moment responds saying, “You have a lot to learn about human resources. I It is absolutely relevant.”

Sheila Jackson Lee had her chance to make a statement at the very end of the hearing, but when Chairman Goodlatte asked her if there was any statement she would like to make, she responded by trying to ask Strzok a question about General Flynn. Goodlatte swiftly shot her attempt at asking Strzok anything and reminded Lee that this was not the time for any questions. Lee said she would leave it on the floor, but that she thought it “would be good to clarify it, because I’ve asked others.”


She, without missing a beat continued, “But, let me finish my remarks. In the concluding comments, Mr. Strzok, again, I believe this hearing, in this long period of time showed no bias in the decisions regarding the final report on Hillary Clinton’s emails. She was vindicated. Nothing changes the Russian interference in our election of 2016. Unfortunately, no questions were asked by the Republicans about the Russian interference. In the GOP, in many instances would not let you, Mr. Strzok, answer the questions. Finally, the hearing did not give the American people, I think, the important answers that they needed. And that is how will we secure our elections in 2018. That unfortunately plays into Putin’s hands. It also did not respond or did not answer, ‘what do you do when White House officials have not gotten their own security clearance?’ And finally, let me be very clear. When our country is attacked, I want to make sure that the FBI and not the KGB shows up. We need to do a better job of answering the concerns of children that have been snatched away from their parents, the violation of voting rights, the need to end gun violence, and many other issues. But today, you stood the test of time, atleast. You’ve admitted fault and certainly admitted that you would have wanted to do things in a better way. But it cannot take away your service in the United States Military, your service in the FBI and your willingness to offer, if you will, your deference and concern about the continuation of the FBI and its service to this nation.”

The ten-hour long hearing finally came to a close promptly at 8 p.m. with Chairman Goodlatte being sure to stress his disappointment with the way the hearing had gone--not only with Strzok’s refusal to answer most questions, but also with some of the behavior that had been witnessed throughout the hearing.

“Many members on the other side of the aisle have attempted to denigrate this investigation and in particular this hearing today. One going so far as to calling it ‘stupid’. This investigation and hearing aren’t just about reviewing the 2016 election, however important that is. This is a much bigger matter. Our investigation and this hearing goes to a larger global and existential issue of the quality under the law. So, for my democratic colleagues to call this review ‘stupid’ denigrates the importance of our founding principles in the core of a system of justice. I’d venture to guess that most Americans don’t view equality under the law and fair and unbiased investigations as ‘stupid’. Mr. Strzok, this has been a lengthy hearing, so thank you for your time today. It has been extraordinary frustrating though in trying to get answers to many important questions. I understand that you have refused to answer many questions on advice of the FBI. You have also said that you cannot answer questions on advice of council, because it could disrupt the ongoing Mueller investigation. So, we are presented with a situation where you have not answered questions from Congress under the cover of the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller. Neither the FBI nor the Special Council is mentioned in the constitution. Congress is, and we have a constitutional right to have answers to the many questions that have been posed to you. While you have consistently referred to the FBI as the ‘ultimate arbiter’ who is preventing you from answering questions today, the FBI director reports to the deputy attorney general. The FBI is a component of the Department of Justice. So, at the end of the day, deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Federal Bureau of Investigation and over the Mueller investigation is where the buck stops. We now consider the Department on the line in addition to the FBI for failing to permit you to answer questions that don’t even go to the substance of any investigation, but have focused on your involvement in the process of those investigations. This is unacceptable. Congress has been blocked today from conducting its constitutional oversight duty and more importantly, the American people have not received answers on why our chief law enforcement agencies and agents and lawyers operating within them permitted improper bias to permeate through three of the most important investigations in our nation’s history. The constitution’s construct of congressional oversight over the executive branch has been severely undermined today. We will resist attempts to prevent us from getting to the facts. This is not over and you as well as future witnesses are on notice that fulsome answers are expected promptly. With that, this hearing is adjourned.”

Peter Strzok’s mistress Lisa Page, after completely defying her subpoena to testify publicly to Congress (just the day before the hearing), was given one last chance to appear before Congress on Friday--one day after the hearing--after being threatened with being held in contempt if she did not show.

pasted image 0-11.png

Lisa Page, however, did appear before Congress on Friday and was rather helpful. Although lawmakers declined to give details of the testimony, the questions themselves were centered around the infamous text message exchanges between her and lover Peter Strzok.

“She’s been willing to help in the spirit of transparency….We’ve certainly learned additional things today,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). Her willingness to help with the investigation into the FBI during the Clinton email scandal “speaks well of her”, Meadows added.

Rep. Mark Meadows thinks that the American people “would be happy” with what investigators learned during Friday’s closed-door hearing, adding that he found Lisa Page to be both “cooperative” and “credible.”

Meadows referred to Page as a “credible witness” as he left the hearing on Friday. “There is new information,” he told reporters. “And that information is credible.”  He continued, “She’s doing her best to help us find the truth and I think in ways she’s been falsely accused of not being willing to cooperate.”

Congressman from Florida, Matt Gaetz questioned the bureau’s presence in Page’s private testimony on Friday. 

“Lisa Page is not an FBI employee, but the FBI was here providing counsel and giving her direction as to which questions to answer or not answer and there is a question as to the propriety of that before the House,” Gaetz said, according to the Hill. He also said he found Page to be “more credible” than Strzok, as reported by the New York Post. “I didn’t agree with her characterization of every text message and every piece of evidence, “Geatz said as he left the House hearing. “But we did not see the smug attitude from Lisa Page that we saw from Peter Strzok.”

As Page left the session, she did not answer any questions posed to her by reporters. She is due Monday afternoon for yet another closed-door testimony, according to the Washington Post.


Written By Haley Kennington

"Even Presidents Fear The Rothschilds"

 The Rothschilds' 1972 "Surrealist Ball"

The Rothschilds' 1972 "Surrealist Ball"

What we perceive as freedom is more like an open-air prison, complete with harsh penalties for exploring your mind, rigged currencies our masters own most of, and even rigged leaders.

When you look at the game theory of the last 30 years, US Presidents have been doing things that are illogically harmful toward the American populace, as well as toward the world.

The trillions of dollars lost in the Middle East and millions of casualties in Iraq alone, and what do we have to show for it? Those were open-ended wars that never concluded in decisive victory, by design.

The financial crisis in 2008, and millions of foreclosed on families—that was a consolidation wave for these ‘ruling’ families. Legalized theft.

If you have a lot of money—I mean, more than anyone—and if you really hate the United States, yet you’re old and weak and mostly wear black and mumble incoherent nonsense because you’re high on walnut sauce (adrenochrome) half the time, then you don’t take us on militarily.

You do it gradually, through proxies.

 Lynn and Evelyn Rothschild with the Clintons

Lynn and Evelyn Rothschild with the Clintons

You find compromised sickos like Obama, or the Bushes, or the Clintons—plenty of sickos in this world without values, I’ve learned through covering the Pizzagate scandal—and once you have them properly compromised enough (Bill Clinton flew on the Pedo Express to Lolita Island a documented 26 times; a US President went to a pedophile blackmail island run by a billionaire associate of the Rothschilds, not once, but 26 times).

When you look back through the Boystown scandal, which was hastily covered up by the pre-Internet age media with the force of a military air campaign, it is clear that the Bushes and many of their business associates are simply sick, deranged people.

For people who literally invented many of our modern fiat currencies, as the Rothschilds did, spending a couple hundred million (at most) on propping up a Clinton or Bush or anybody else is not unreasonable—it is practical.

The close working relationship between Lynn Forester de Rothschild and the Clintons revealed by Hillary Clinton's WikiLeaks is precisely what they didn't want the world to see.

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, of the United States, when she was carrying out personal favors for Lynn Forester de Rothschild's family on the world stage. Fact.

Why stop there? Why not buy up the media that covers these politicians?

So they have. The Economist is literally published by Lynn Forester de Rothschild and the Rothschild family, and it’s a leading voice against Trump economic nationalism, and American prosperity in general, in favor of “globalist” values.

Maria Bartiromo, a popular CNBC host favored by the President, has been photographed with Lynn Forester de Rothschild looking so chummy, the two could be long lost sisters.

 Until the surprise election of Trump, Bartiromo and CNBC had no problem giving the Rothschilds air time.

Until the surprise election of Trump, Bartiromo and CNBC had no problem giving the Rothschilds air time.

President Trump’s own adult daughter Ivanka has dated a prominent member of the Rothschild clan in the past. And close Rothschild associates have found themselves in some of Trump’s cabinet positions.

Nowhere is free from their influence. John McAfee, the successful anti-virus maker with a spun off software company that bears his name, has become a vocal advocate of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin over the past several years. Just the other day, he tweeted about coming across the Rothschilds in the Arizona desert—joke or serious, either way, you can tell he was unsettled by the whole thing, whatever the interaction was.

“Will they let us leave? If so, at what Cost? And when? And will we be allowed to take our complete selves with us when we go,” McAfee tweeted yesterday from his verified account.

 "If so, at what Cost?"

"If so, at what Cost?"

Oh, that’s not foreboding at all! A wealthy software engineer just terrified of the Rothschilds.

Back when Pizzagate first broke, I was told “there are some families you should not mention,” and obviously we don’t agree with that at all at FULCRUM.

It goes against the basic tenets of Western journalism, and the basic tenets of Western life, as well as the values of life in a republic.

The Rothschilds have more money than everybody? They allegedly rig politicians, own major media outlets, compromise law enforcement offices, kill their competitors, and engage in PEDOVORE practices (as in, they molest and eat children; scared children are a source of adrenochrome).

Oh, I think that’s the sort of thing we should talk about all day long, until these hacks are fully outed for what they are.


Adrenochrome is very important in elite Luciferian circles; it’s a psychedelic drug with effects reputed to be similar to LSD.

Many business executives and politicians secretly rely on adrenochrome “trips” to gain insight into future business or policy decisions. “Walnut sauce” is one popular nickname for adrenochrome in such elite circles.

It is highly addictive, as far as psychoactive drugs go, and the unacceptable process by which it is harvested requires secrecy.

Hence all the secrecy.

 For such busy people ahead of a US national election, there's an awful amount of focus on walnut sauce recipes.

For such busy people ahead of a US national election, there's an awful amount of focus on walnut sauce recipes.

The reality is that millions of people already know about the Rothschilds—a documentary about them on YouTube has been viewed more than 4,000,000 times already, and countless books have been written on the historical Rothschild family.

Their banking dynasty began in the 1700s under Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who began his business in humble circumstances out of a small dwelling in a Frankfurt ghetto.

The business grew significantly under subsequent generations of Rothschilds, and Mayer Rothschild himself was honored by Forbes Magazine in 2005 as one of the 20 most influential businessmen of all time.

The perversion and political distortion our planet has endured under the bizarre Rothschild family is very real.

It needs to end, and we suspect it will end—a family this sick cannot withstand mass public discussion and mass public scrutiny.

Nor can a family of currency monopolists economically survive the Big Bang of cryptocurrency economics.

Although not financial advice, Bitcoin is simply better money than the slave debt tokens the Rothschilds created out of thin air. It’s a better way of doing business. It’s rare and capped at an eventual 21 million coins, so your wealth can’t be eroded over time due to Rothschild bank inflation.

The Rothschilds very well may be the biggest real-life villains of all time. “Eyes Wide Shut,” Stanley Kubrick’s last film before his death, was reported to be a light “outing” of what the Rothschilds are into—very light, to be sure.

 A scene from 'Eyes Wide Shut' with Tom Cruise.

A scene from 'Eyes Wide Shut' with Tom Cruise.

Do you want to live under these people?

I don’t.

And neither did Satoshi Nakamoto, who invented and launched Bitcoin nearly a decade ago, then disappeared a couple years after it was launched—once Satoshi was satisfied that the community understood his software sufficiently, and could maintain it, he disappeared without a trace and has not been heard from definitively by anybody in eight years.

Bitcoin, and other rare cryptocurrencies, present humanity with an alternative to the Rothschilds since their banking family began its sad, strange reign.

In only nine years, Bitcoin’s network has gone from a value of zero to a value of $109 billion as of earlier today.

Millions of people use it, in part because millions of us don’t want to scramble for made-up debt tokens preferentially held by the Rothschilds.

For what it’s worth, Putin is aware of the Rothschilds and routinely calls out their underling George Soros on Russian television, which is part of why the Rothschild-controlled press in the West has been so anti-Putin, and anti-Russia more broadly. They can’t have a superpower that knows what they are about, and Putin knows.

Many in America’s halls of power know now also, and like so much else lately, it will be America that decides the fate of these degenerate banking families. Do we need this occult banking family with its roots in 1700s Europe? Or is it time for a clean break, and something new?

FULCRUM state of the network

Bitchute: 6,887
YouTube: 3,037
DTube: 509
Facebook: 10,600+ following
Twitter: 15,800+ following
Gab: 1,629 following

 From a FULCRUM promo on YouTube earlier this year.

From a FULCRUM promo on YouTube earlier this year.

As of today’s tally, FULCRUM News reaches a minimum of 38,462 smart, awakened or awakening readers and viewers. And this tally is not inclusive of other company assets, including the popular weekly newsletter, monthly podcast, and the web site itself — we have been publishing ad-free real news on since we launched in January 2017.

After relocating to the nation’s capitol earlier this year from Colorado, where we were headquartered previously, we invested heavily in originally sourced reporting and fact checking.

Going where the facts lead is sometimes unpopular, and often uncomfortable, yet that’s the proper role of a self-respecting news organization. Our numbers would be undoubtedly larger if we went for low hanging fruit like QANON, and avoided contentious topics including child trafficking and central banking billionaires, yet these topics are worthy of public scrutiny.

In fact, we can’t think of topics more important than central banking usury or systemic abuse of children by political elites, and we find it weird when others in the so-called media try to paint us as jokers or irresponsible for covering the issues they should be covering 24/7, rather than the triviality and manufactured outrage they pursue.

With real news, the outrage doesn’t need to be manufactured, because the reality is disturbing enough.

For example, Pizzagate—the claim that ultra-wealthy elites connected to the Clintons traffic in children, for occult and sexual purposes—is demonstrably true, as revealed to millions of objective and intelligent people on the Internet with the release of the Podesta emails by WikiLeaks back in October 2016. Can’t deny reality, yet many have tried.

As another example, the reality that the Federal Reserve is an undemocratic foreign-controlled financial institution working in the best interest of private shareholders rather than American citizens, and the reality that US “dollars” under the Federal Reserve have lost more than 95% of their effective value since the Reserve was chartered into being in 1913, are both true and public knowledge.

Yet the media chooses to fret and wring their hands every time Bitcoin, a promising and still tiny open source currency, dips in value—which is to miss the forest for the trees. The entire market capitalization of all bitcoins in the world is around $107 billion at the moment, or many billions of dollars less in value than the market capitalization of McDonald’s public stock (about $124 billion). That’s right: the futuristic Internet money the mainstream media has their panties in a bunch over is still worth less than one publicly listed fast food chain, yet the media follows it closely and exaggerates every pullback because their masters are terrified.

If Bitcoin works, and work it has so far, the entire reason for the Federal Reserve’s existence falls by the way side.

Sign up for Coinbase >>

You may ask: why build a news organization and a community where you avoid the easy pitches that would lead to growth (QANON, Trust Sessions theology, bashing weed, etc.) while reporting the truth consistently? And why maintain a global community of readers and viewers who are smart, independent, and impossible to convince of something untrue?

Well, the answers should be obvious here: we wanted a real news title people can depend on in these times, and we desired a community where we would feel at home—rather than alienated.

In the long term, consistently reporting truth and tackling the Big Stories are not things that will hurt us. A community with a sense of purpose, seeking out truth with humility, is bound to grow—it seems the entire Internet is looking for the truth about things. So we are in a good position.

Help the community grow, or just watch and read. Either way, thank you.

CASH TIPS:$fulcrumnews

Not yet a subscriber? Join in seconds to get the weekly research newsletter and monthly podcast!

Not financial advice; no warranties or guarantees provided. Bitcoin is still experimental technology and can increase or decrease in value over time.

How QANON Almost Destroyed The Truth Community

You have to wonder about QANON, who parrots the ambitions of David Brock and George Soros. Don’t focus on the Podesta emails and the blatant pedophilic criminality flaunted throughout them (“walnut saucing,” “pizza” appointments, etc). Those emails are real, and admissible in court if we ever get a real Attorney General who isn’t a Clinton buttplug. Don’t focus on the Hillary Clinton WikiLeaks and the blatant favoritism shown to the Soros, Rockefeller, and Rothschild families by Hillary as Secretary of State—so blatant it’s like something out of a bad fan fiction chapter, which brings us to Q.

QANON spun a narrative that “paytriots” have been profiting from the great Q’s message (whatever that convoluted, 9 months in narrative happens to be), yet FULCRUM lost money and took significant heat from misguided members of the public for explaining that Q is no more than a fraud run by a stay at home daddy and his Internet friends in alleged need of those precious ad revenue dollars.

Q supporters, from large social media accounts all begun on or around January 2018 (a full year after the inauguration of President Trump in Washington, DC), urge prospective “believers” to review the “Q proofs” on a number of malware-laden sites which have popped up, exalting Q’s correct predictions with some egregious leaps of logic, and honesty.

Q appears to take many vague guesses, and the majority of those guesses have come out wrong, which is what you’d statistically expect from a guesser (not a psychic savant or administration insider) at the roulette table of worldly events.

When Q gets something right, or in the neighborhood of right, its promoters hype it as if it is lost gospel material.

When Q gets something wrong, which is often, it is silently ignored and the herd is urged to visit the CBTS (“Calm Before The Storm”) message board communities, a staging ground for complex character attacks and completely made-up narratives causing real harm to leading Trump supporters, and leading members of the pro-Trump independent media.

CBTS thought leaders throw around terms like “paytriot” and “traitor” with reckless abandon, yet seem to conveniently always sidestep the biggest actual traitors in the room: the Clintons, the Podestas, SOROS, and the lingering deepstate.

Why would so called patriots, in need of justice and a restored country free from Clinton crime, focus on attacking the reputations and livelihoods of the very Internet journalists who tirelessly promoted Trump before the election, and have supported him afterward as well?

It’s almost as if Q is a psyop to herd all these angry people, and to redirect their righteous anger expertly away from the incriminating Podesta emails — the closest the public will ever come to a free, no holds barred peek down the rabbit hole — and instead deploy them against the very thought leaders who will be needed to secure a successful midterms sweep…

Oh wait, that’s exactly what it is.

We are not paid to discredit QANON, not paid by anybody, and the numerous posts on CBTS suggesting otherwise are so unhinged and desperate in their claims, that any objective observer can see through them and can glimpse the amateur, cruel, idiotic core of the “Q movement,” which again, arrived a full year after Trump was already inaugurated.

Q promoters never seem to focus on Podesta or demanding prison time for the Clintons. Instead, they focus on Alex Jones’ custody battle, they focus on FULCRUM’s fantastical connections to Israel which exist only in the minds of CBTS cat ladies, and with increasing bizarreness Q’s communications seem designed to make the right appear paranoid, and downright awful.

The Pope didn’t have a terrible May, as Q anticipated he would. We know this because it’s now mid-July. Minorly inconvenient May, sure; the papacy had to sign off on some bishops and clerical staff resigning in South America, a move that had been announced as early as January 2018 publicly.

There aren’t 30,000, nor 35,000, nor even 40,000 sealed indictments. No Q promoter has shown a coherent list of that many sealed indictments across all US jurisdictions, nor anything close. What happened evidently is that dishonest Q promoters on Twitter and elsewhere began circulating screenshots of “tallies” suggesting these numbers, and the source numbers were either a) completely made up in many instances, a LARP or b) the dishonest cumulative total of all sealed activities in the court system, not sealed indictments—i.e. adding up search warrants, subpoenas, all other requests for information as if they are individual indictment actions, when there is no evidence to suggest that. And simply emailing us saying “Search PACER” isn’t a rebuttal, because we have lawyers who do have subscriptions to PACER, and the indictments simply aren’t there.

Those numbers, again, were arrived at by dishonest or ignorant means.

Members of the natsec community can corroborate these claims, as can former members of the legal system: stacking up super secret indictments for nearly 2 years just isn’t how the justice system works here in the USA.

The Q-driven narrative that the court system can’t “handle” the white collar Clinton corruption, nor the Podesta emails, until some unknown date when the system will be purged and replaced by “whitehats”—that’s a childish and dangerous narrative for any rational adult to hold.

The court system handles serial killers, rapists, terrorists, Bernie Madoff level fraud on a daily basis. To think it can’t handle the big fish yet, because some huckster on a message board says so, is so stupid it defies explanation.

In reality, the indictments aren’t popping up because aside from isolated instances like the now unsealed indictments of Keith Raniere and Allison Mack on sex trafficking charges, the justice system is stuck—and stuck fully in favor of the elites doing all these alleged crimes.

Why? Ask Jeff Sessions. “Trust Sessions”—another Q ploy—was disastrous to President Trump’s short-term aims and his base; instead of taking Trump’s repeated criticisms of Sessions seriously, and backing Trump up vocally in a way that would show the establishment a shake-up would be supported by the base, members of the public who followed Q thought they were witnessing a multilevel drama—one message for the public, the other for the Q “army” sitting at home on the message boards.

These people believe the President is speaking to them in code, on 8chan, an unsecure public message board community known for hoaxes, LARPs, and impersonation attempts. They believe anyone calling into question the motive of this bizarre phenomenon is paid by Israel’s Mossad or a deepstate faction of the CIA. So damaging are Q’s incorrect predictions to the deepstate that all detractors must be paid!

In reality, the opposite may be the case. Some popular YouTubers have turned vehemently “pro-Q” in recent weeks, as Q’s stranglehold over the truth community has been (finally) weakened. These YouTubers started their broadcasts with broadly pro-Q statements, allowing no room for uncertainty, without a focus on any specific claims or reasons.

Aside from the botched predictions, a widely circulated image of Trump pointing to a rallygoer wearing a Q t-shirt—as if to endorse Q—is deceptive at best. The full video clip from which it was taken reveals Trump was gesturing to the entire crowd, and the rallygoer was screaming for Trump’s attention only feet from the President’s face; not indicative of someone who knows him.

Meanwhile, the Clintons remain on never-ending global book tour, which is not indicative of people under secret federal indictment. Soros has been spotted publicly recently, as have the Podestas.


Detailed thoughts on Bitcoin and life beyond central banks. The reality of the US political climate, from our Beltway sources, rather than message board speculation. The legalization wave and its impact. Get your subscription before prices increase!

Launched in January 2017, FULCRUM is committed to the truth and following the facts. Small tips from readers & viewers keep us in business, as well as the premium subscription. Send a small tip securely using any debit card in seconds here. Or use PayPal.

Hillary for 2020?

Recently, rumors began spreading across Twitter and news media outlets of a possible third presidential run by Hillary Clinton.  Could this be true? [ Read Article Here ]


Whether it is true or not, the idea of another run is pretty comical. I mean, we are talking about a woman, who rigged an election and STILL lost against a candidate with zero political experience. We are talking about a woman who in the aftermath, wrote a bitter book blaming others for the historical defeat to Donald Trump. We are talking about a woman, who spent almost two years on a blame tour, alienating the Democratic base from their own party. 

If the Democrats had any sense, they would not let that happen. Hillary Clinton running in 2016 with the cloud of several scandals over her head, did much damage to the credibility of the Democrat party. Not to mention, her international blame tour just made them look bad. Especially after Hillary infamously once said, "Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election, is a direct threat to democracy." Proceeding with a blame tour in the aftermath, aged her tweet faster than milk left to spoil. 

If Hillary decided to run, it would only help Trump, and in fact, widen the net of electoral votes. Even Donald Trump Jr, embraced the idea of a 2020 run.

Not to mention, Democrats themselves slammed Hillary back in March over comments during her India trip. During a speech, she slammed females for "voting for whoever their husbands and bosses voted for", implying that women were not independent voters in red states. The statement further alienated more democratic supporters away from Hillary in the aftermath. [ Read Article Here ]

If Hillary were to run, she would be contending for the first time, with a President having a current, higher approval rating at the same time in presidency than Obama. Alongside with the economic growth, and a victorious list of accomplishments within the first 15 months of Trump's presidency. Obama's abysmal economic growth the first time may have been an easier contest, but not the Trump economy. It would be interesting to see how Hillary would even be able to offer a message that could possibly stand up to the historical, economic accomplishments the Trump administration has already made. 

FACT SHEETS: President Donald J. Trump’s 500 Days of American Greatness [ HERE

However, for the sport of pure comedy, it would be fun to watch. Perhaps even be the last final nail in the demise of the Democratic party as we know it. 


Written By FULCRUM Contributor @PinkAboutIt


#WalkAway: A New Revolution

Recently, a new campaign has taken Twitter by storm: A hashtag campaign called #WalkAway has thousands of people rising up and telling their stories of why the Democrat party, in essence, had them walking away from the once progressive party.

Started by a hairdresser in New York, Brandon Straka began the viral campaign during his video rant about how the Democrat party has pushed him away. His video is urging others to denounce the lie of progressive ideology, which victimizes people of color, LGBT, immigrants, and women. Brandon calls out the groupthink that you should identify as a Democrat because of being a minority, as an insidious lie. His experience in the choice to #WalkAway is recent, as he did not initially support Trump and was disappointed himself, in the outcome of the election. 

                                               Twitter Post Here.  &  More Information Here. 

                                             Twitter Post Here. & More Information Here. 

Since then, confessions have taken Twitter by storm and has in fact been hidden from Twitter's top trends. The campaign has grown exponentially in just days, as people are confessing why the Democrat party has disappointed them and pushed them away. A few of the messages:


Brandon Straka also recently posted about an experience at a camera shop, as he was denied service because it was for "alt-right" purposes. He asked that the camera shop was not retaliated, as he graciously turned the other cheek, and asked instead for people to lift each other up and open dialogue instead of hate. 


Not surprisingly as the liberals are SO predictable by this point, they have begun to counter with the argument, "Russian bot accounts" are running the #WalkAway campaign, just like they believed other hashtags were during the primaries when Donald Trump won the election. A few examples:


Clearly, ignorance will be proven once again, as a downfall for the Democrats during midterms. #Walkaway is real, it is powerful, and might be this years own revolutionary movement that decides history. Perhaps, even the final demise of the once esteemed Democratic party. 


Written By FULCRUM Contributor @PinkAboutIt

It’s Okay Really: Kim Guilfoyle Doesn’t Care About Conspiracy Theories

What’s the first thought that comes to mind when you hear the following words or phrases?: good, acceptance, approval, blessing, correct, affirmation, allow, right, not bad, green light, suitable, proper, countenance, go along with, accede, nod, agreed, alright, yes, all right.

If your first thought was white nationalist, you might be Davis Richardson, from the Observer. You could also be Chris Spargo, a reporter at the Daily Mail, or possibly you’re the young Emily Birnbaum, reporter at The Hill. 

All three of these writers/reporters saw the photo posted by David Seaman, American journalist, researcher, and founder of Fulcrum News and their first thought was, "Woah, check out the white nationalism on that guy!"

pasted image 0.png

Funny, this chance encounter with Fox News co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., (on our nation’s Independence Day) has been spun into a ridiculous and preposterous "conspiracy theory", in and of itself.

The photo was snapped by a friend of Seaman’s during a 30-second encounter with Guilfoyle at the gathering, and Seaman later uploaded the photo to his Twitter page along with the caption, "Cool meeting @kimguilfoyle ("ok" emoji, "party popper" emoji)." Guilfoyle took hundreds of photos that day with fans, why is this particular picture interesting enough to make headlines? The "OK" hand gesture that Seaman struck, while posing for the photo--now that was something that deserved a story!! This was the thought of not just one reporter, but several who considered the photo worthy of being front and center.

A little background on the hand sign itself:

The "OK" hand gesture is created by connecting the thumb and index finger into a circle, while the remaining fingers are relaxed in the air. This is a commonly used form of nonverbal communication and in many parts of the world is synonymous with the word OK or okay, denoting agreement, approval, or that all is well, according to Wikipedia.

The "OK" hand gesture is also used synonymously with the ever popular "thumbs up" gesture, which is commonly understood as a sign of approval. 

In military survival situations where silence must be maintained, all types of hand signals have been adopted and are commonly used in situations that require visual communication instead of verbal.

pasted image 0-1.png

Although outdated, the Army’s FM 21-60 manual provides several useful hand signals. The FM 21-60 manual shows a "thumbs up" signal to mean "I understand", making it and the "OK" hand sign interchangeable when used in a military maneuver. 

pasted image 0-2.png

Why would anyone in their "right mind" possibly connect the "OK" hand gesture with white nationalism? 

The connection, made by the easily influenced and always offended, has been peddled by anti-Trumpers since around 2015 when a meme of "smug Pepe" began circulation on pro-Trump message boards.

pasted image 0-3.png

President Trump uses the hand signal quite a bit while talking and if he’s giving a speech, you might just see him flash the "OK" sign every other sentence, depending on the subject at hand. Sometimes, he’ll do it a few times within a short amount of time when he’s delivering a speech and trying to stress a certain point being made. This doesn’t mean he’s sending a secret signal for alt-right, white nationalists or white supremacists to rise to action. If you’ve ever watched President Trump speak, he gesticulates every time he opens his mouth while addressing others-whether it’s a large crowd, small gathering, someone interviewing him, or even one-on-one.

The "OK" hand gesture is one that triggers Davis Richardson, writer for the Observer, as this is not the first time he’s written about the hand signal. In the hit piece written by Richardson on July 5th, he cites his own article, "How Internet Speak Furthered the Language of Fascism 2.0", published May 29th, 2018. Although this article seems to be another whiny, "feelings over facts" piece about the new version of fascism, I find it absolutely fascinating that those quick to pin anyone right-of-center as a fascist, are indeed, the fascists themselves. In the May article by Richardson, he does include a quote from Milo Yiannopoulos, that should be highlighted: "[When] CNN went crazy about the ‘OK sign’ supposedly being a white power movement, it was me and my friends having a laugh. It was literally seeing what crazy shit we could make CNN publish."--sometimes it’s simply trolling. Sometimes, it’s triggering people because they can’t separate their feelings from logic. Other times, it’s just a guy showing his happiness and joy over meeting someone who's work he admires and respects. Sometimes it’s just someone letting another person know that they’re alright. 

On the Anti-Defamation League website, they address whether or not the "OK" hand gesture is a white supremacist hand sign and do an excellent job explaining where the hoax originated. That’s right, HOAX-and one of several that began on 4chan that the simple minded, easily influenced and easily offended ran with.

In February 2017 when an anonymous 4channer announced "Operation O-KKK", he expressed to others that "we must flood Twitter and other social media websites...claiming that the "OK" hand sign is a symbol for white supremacy." He included a graphic showing how the sign could be read as the letters WP, (standing for "white power") by outlining the letters W and P over the "OK" sign. Useful hashtags were then promoted to help spread the hoax by posters on 4chan which included #NotOkay and #PowerHandPrivilege. "Leftist have dug so deep down into their lunacy," wrote the poster, "We must force [them] to dig more, until the rest of society ain't going anywhere near that s***."

pasted image 0-4.png

Shortly after, 4channers created fake email accounts and sock accounts on Twitter to bombard journalists and civil rights organizations with messages furthering the "OK" hoax. This hoax was just one of many where those on 4chan have tried to take innocuous symbols and gestures and falsely attach them to white supremacy, trying to trigger liberals and get them to spread the false message, which they inevitably have done.

Other hoaxes such as this originating on 4chan include the polar bear emoji from the Kik app being adopted by white supremacists as their symbol, and the "purity of white milk" hoax.

These recent hoaxes all stem from the mainstream media’s constant attention on how to divide the nation, all the while pinning white supremacy on anyone who supports Trump. The red MAGA hats are now being said to promote white nationalism and supremacy. This is a product of the mainstream media’s agenda to divide and conquer. This insane need to attach white nationalism to Trump is just another tool in the toolbox of liberalism and one that saturates mainstream media constantly.

So the real question is why is this something that was deemed remarkable and worthy of not just one story, but several by different political news outlets? Slow news day? These outlets took a nothing burger and spun it into a conspiracy theory all their own. David Seaman is actually Jewish, and one short web search would have produced that tidbit if any time at all had been invested into researching the subject being written about. This is defamation, and will be handled as such. There’s a plethora of notable, and worthy stories to be covered every single day, and these outlets normally stick to relevant stories to inform the public of what’s happening in the world around them. It’s not often that you see total character assassination by these outlets, and certainly not over a hand gesture, showing one’s joy during a 30-second encounter. 

The circulation of these ludicrous claims have caused Seaman and other members of the Fulcrum News team to receive violent threats, including death threats. What may have started as a simple hit piece for certain outlets to use as filler between actual news stories, has quickly escalated to a dangerous situation, and one which has resulted in serious psychological harm to both Seaman and the Fulcrum team.

Legal counsel for Fulcrum has been contacted and are aware of the issue at hand. No further discussion will be made on the issue aside from today’s article, as the Fulcrum team intend to file a Complaint in federal court.

When asked for a comment on the defamatory articles Seaman stated, "I find it objectionable that Emily Birnbaum at The Hill seems to think two pro-Trump journalists who incidentally meet each other at the Trump Hotel cannot be photographed together, without institutionalized defamation hours later. We disagree, and will litigate this issue in court, especially when Birnbaum’s social media postings made in 2016 are troubling."


Written By FULCRUM Research Team

A Day of Twitter Hilarity

Early Tuesday morning, a hashtag game begun by the liberals gained steam on Twitter, prompting some hilarious "letters" penned in an imaginary second civil war. While liberals began the hashtag, conservatives got into it as well and left the day ripe with laughter as the world procrastinated their day away reading the timeline. 

Some of the gems: 


Even James Woods and Senator Orrin Hatch got into the hashtag game:

To be honest, both sides had some incredibly creative letters. This was probably the funniest thing to happen in awhile on Twitter. Comments such as, "I can't believe I'm going to be late for work" and "this is so freaking hilarious" were among many under the hashtag game. So many cultural references such as selfie sticks, Starbucks, soy, climate change and Trader Joe's were woven among the stories. 

I think overall, both sides thoroughly enjoyed the hilarity and creativity that ensued. If anything, it may have shown that Americans certainly have the funniest humor, even when political currents can get intense. 


Written By FULCRUM Contributor @PinkAboutIt

Mad Maxine, Queen of Corruption

President Trump decided to celebrate Independence Day a day early by setting off fireworks of his own!! Maxine Waters, the outspoken darling of the left was once again called out by President Trump in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he mentioned her being "one of the most corrupt people in politics", and warned that her recent "ranting and raving" would cause supporters to "flee" the Democratic party altogether. 


How corrupt is Maxine Waters?? Throughout her 27 years in Congress, she’s rated the most corrupt member in Congress by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, for not just one year, but also for the years 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2011. Since being elected in 1990, only three of the bills she’s sponsored have become law- a Haiti relief bill, a modification of the national flood insurance program, and the renaming of a post office. 

According to Washington Free Beacon, America hating Maxine Waters is as corrupt as they come (without being charged). With 90% Democrats in her district and assured to be in the top two for General Election, she spends $56,000 for slate cards. The usual amount for slate cards is under $20,000, and that’s on the high end. This money, donated by her supporters wasn’t used for the election, it was transferred to her daughter, Karen Waters. So, to not appear to be a campaign payment. Mailers sent out to more than 200,000 people in South Central Los Angeles contain an "official sample ballot" with quotes from Waters on candidates or causes she supports. In exchange for placement on the mailers, her campaign committee receives a donation. The most expensive slate cards are usually around ten cents each--for the very best cards. She’s sent out 200,000--so that should be about $20,000. If the payoff to her daughter is $36,000, you do the math.

Charges for a spot on the ballot range widely between $171,000 for an affluent California businessman running for elected office, to tens of thousands of dollars for candidates like former Gov. Gray Davis, to $250 for a school board candidate, according to the CREW Beyond Delay Report. Of the $1.7 million collected by L.A. Vote over the past eight years, mainly from the slate mailers, approximately $450,000 has gone to Karen Waters and her consulting firm, Progressive Connections, and $115,000 to Rep. Waters’ son, Edward.

Karen Waters also collected $20,000 from a small non-profit that she established with her mother called African American Committee 2000 & Beyond. Donations to the non-profit stem from organizations and corporations seeking to win Waters’ favor. The money collected from donations made to the non-profit have been used to pay for numerous parties hosted by Rep. Maxine Waters at the Democratic national conventions. One of the largest sponsors of the convention parties is Fannie Mae, a company who’s been cited for manipulating earnings in the past and accounting misconduct as well. Read the full House Ethics Committee’s statement here.

Payments to Citizens for Waters range from $2000 to $12,000 this past cycle and have come from a tiny percentage of California judicial candidates. From the seven committees, Water’s campaign has collected $56,000 shown by official filings. Karen, Maxine’s daughter, has collected over $750,000 in "professional fees" from the campaign since first given the go-ahead by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). 

Several prominent California politicians have paid to be on Waters’ mailer in the past, including none other than Sen. Kamala Harris, who in total had paid $63,000 to Maxine’s campaign and appeared on the mailers on two separate occasions. 

Harris first appeared on the mailers on May 5, 2010, when she was a district attorney in San Francisco and ran for attorney general. Harris for AG 2010, Kamala’s committee, made three payments to the Waters campaign throughout the cycle, totalling $33,000. Harris next appearance on the slate mailers came in 2016 when she ran for the U.S. Senate. This time, Harris’s committee, Kamala Harris for Senate, paid $30,000 to appear on the slate mailers.

In 2010, while seeking his current position, Gavin Newsom, current Democratic lieutenant governor of California, (who is again running for governor), paid Waters campaign $45,000 for his "share" of slate mailer.

Waters began running the operation through the state committee L.A. Vote, but after asking the FEC to issue an advisory opinion on whether or not she could run it through her federal committee in 2004 (which the commission allowed), this changed.

Although the practice of using slate mailers is common in Oregon, California and other states, it is unique to Maxine Waters on the federal level. She appears as the only politician running it from their federal committee, according to search results for payments on the FEC’s website for "slate mailers".

In 2005, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a 93-page report entitled "Beyond Delay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress", in which it documented the most unethical and possibly illegal activities of Members of Congress. 

The report on Maxine Waters, specifically, states that "Her ethics issues stem from the exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son. Rep. Waters’ family has earned a total of more than $1 million in the last eight years through business dealings with companies and issue organizations Rep. Waters has assisted."

Karen Waters is not the only family member of Maxine Waters who has benefited. Her husband, Sidney Williams works as a part-time consultant for a bond underwriting firm. Siebert, Brandford, & Shank--despite having no background whatsoever in the bond business prior to his work as a consultant for the company, he collected close to $500,000 by making valuable connections between politicians who have received Water’s support and Siebert, Brandford, & Shank. He was able to capitalize on her connections to close many lucrative business deals for Siebert, since government bond deals are awarded based on negotiations, he racked up. As an example, when Waters guaranteed a $10 million loan from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to school board members in Inglewood, ( a city within her district), an underwriting firm was necessary to handle the $40 million school bond sale. Guess who they chose? You got it, Siebert. From this one transaction, Sidney Williams earned $54,000 in commission.

Waters’ husband is also a stockholder and former director of OneUnited Bank where the executives were major contributors to her campaigns. Waters arranged meetings between U.S. Treasury Department officials and OneUnited Bank so the bank could plead for federal cash. The bank was heavily invested in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but when the U.S. government took them over, their capital was "all but wiped out". The bank received $12 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money and the matter was later investigated by the House Ethics Committee who charged her with violations of the House’s ethics rules in 2010. After almost three years of investigation, Waters was cleared on all ethics charges.

When a 20-year lease to run the county-owned Chester Washington Golf Course in South Los Angeles was won by Maxine’s husband, Sidney Williams and her son Edward Waters, they reaped earnings between $140,000 and $400,000. The County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, (the district where the golf course was located) was endorsed by Rep. Waters just a few months prior, establishing a win for County Supervisor.

In January 2008, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote to the Committee on House Administration requesting that grandchildren be added to the list of relatives members of Congress are prohibited from employing which can be read in its entirety here.

Despite all of the rampant corruption, Maxine Waters has been able to market herself as the champion for black Americans, even chairing the caucus from 1997-1998. Since her time as chair for the Congressional Black Caucus, the black poverty rate has remained stagnant.

With Reps like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, the "face" of the Democrats is one covered with clown makeup. The only difference being that clowns actually put on a good show, where this is more like a train wreck---a long, misguided, pathetic trainwreck filled with lies and corruption. I guess in clown terms, they’d all have a frown and a tear painted on them. The Democratic party, in and of itself, is the proverbial joke with no punchline.

Maxine’s ridiculous comments come a dime-a-dozen, with highlights that include telling everyone she is a "millennial" and when she claimed that the rioters attacking Koreatown during the L.A. riots were only "mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes." She also apologized to Fidel Castro for opposing his regime and thanked him for protecting Assata Shakur, convicted murder. She also blamed the CIA for the crack epidemic. 

A good way to describe Maxine Waters would be "crazy", which is exactly the term the president used this morning when calling her out for her recent behavior.

This is not the first time the president has mentioned Maxine Waters in a tweet, but this is the first time that he’s called her out for being corrupt.

Maxine Waters has been back in the news recently, but for all the wrong reasons. Her outspoken and downright insulting rhetoric has not been received well by anyone, including the Democratic party that she represents. 

Her criticism and disgust for President Donald Trump had hit a dangerous level of "crazy" that many had no idea existed. Congresswoman Maxine Waters emerged after White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were asked to leave a Lexington, Va. restaurant, The Red Hen, strictly because of her position in the Trump administration. In response to the restaurant kicking Sanders out, Maxine Waters called for all members of the Trump administration to be heckled when seen out in public. 

 "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," Waters told a small group of supporters. 

Trump immediately fired back on Twitter writing that Waters is an "extremely low IQ person" and hinted that she may also be targeted in a similar fashion--"be careful what you wish for Max!"

Independent journalist Laura Loomer wanted to ask Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal) about her recent comments and confronted her face to face. After identifying herself and her support of Trump, Loomer asked Waters several questions during the minute-long walk towards the elevator. "Where are conservatives allowed to go? Do we sit at the back of the bus? Where do conservatives eat at a restaurant in D.C.?", Laura asked while Waters kept repeating the same thing over and over, "Please come to my office and sit down to talk with me...and be civil." The entire time, Waters is putting papers in Loomer’s face and hitting Loomer’s phone (that she used to document the confrontation on film), with the stack of papers, almost knocking it from her hand at one point. Watch Loomer confront Waters, here.

The brief confrontation ended with Waters entering a "members only" elevator, surrounded by her team. One man repeatedly says "This is a members-only elevator. Members have to vote," which got louder and louder as the doors of the elevator shut and Maxine Waters, now at the very back of the elevator, surrounded by her team, can be seen smiling and sticking her tongue out like a child.

Many people, including her own constituents, were appalled by her call to harass Trump officials. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.), even condemned her behavior during remarks on the Senate floor. 

"If you disagree with a politician, organize your fellow citizens to action, and vote them out of office, but no one should call for the harassment of political opponents, that’s not right, that’s not American," Schumer said.

Maxine Waters’ disapproval of the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump is not something she’s been shy about. "Impeach 45!!! Impeach 45!!!" is something you’ll hear from Waters any and every chance she gets, even leading a women's march with the ridiculous chant.

Waters stood by her remarks and told reporters that she’d never called for violence or harassment of Trump administration officials, that she had simply asked her supporters to "peacefully" protest them if they were seen in public. "I believe in peaceful, very peaceful protests," Waters told reporters. "I have not called for the harm of anybody. This president has lied again when he’s saying I called for harm to anyone."

The quote "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" sounds as if it was written just for Maxine Waters. 


Written By FULCRUM Contributor Haley Kennington

Killing the Mainstream Media's Narrative on Children Separated from Parents at the Border

President Trump has been pressed to make changes to his immigration policy with critics claiming that he is separating children from their families at the border. President Trump is only enforcing a law that was inherited when he took office. 

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 2.55.31 PM.png

Since the 1990s, the federal government’s use of immigration detention on children and families has been overseen by the federal courts (thanks to a settlement called the "Flores settlement"), where restrictions kept most detention facilities and jails from being used to house families. When the Obama administration attempted to expand the detention of families in response to the "border crisis" in 2014, the federal courts stepped in to rule that under the Flores settlement, no family could be kept in detention for longer than 20 days.

Congress set a particular process as a way of fighting human trafficking that left Obama with not a lot of leeway. As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the law tasks DHHS with finding a suitable family member for the child to be released unto or putting the child in long-term foster care.

Homeland Security Act of 2002:

Prior to 2002, children who cross the border from Mexico or Canada are apprehended and screened within 48 hours and sent back unless they are considered human trafficking victims or have claims for asylum. Any unaccompanied Central American children who cross the border--and any other child who isn’t coming from Mexico or Canada--were turned over to a branch of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (which is no longer active). Children are then either released to a responsible family member or given long-term housing and care while going through the immigration court proceedings.

In 2005, President George Bush launched "Operation Streamline" along the Texas/Mexico border in response to a spike in apprehensions in the area. "We’re going to get control of our borders and make this country safer for all of our citizens," Bush stated.

The Bush administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated, "One of the things we committed to do was end "catch and release" by the end of the fiscal year 2006."

Building on the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress added some additional protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA) where Border Patrol is required to take child migrants not from Mexico into custody, screen them and then transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a part of DHHS. 

ORR Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied

By 2008, Congress passed a law called the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victim Protection and Reauthorization Act, or the TVPRA. Included in the law was the attempt to close "loopholes" for Mexican children by coming up with newer, faster screening processes for children from contiguous countries, with the intent of having no children sent back to the danger they were trying to seek asylum from. Congress and the Obama administration agreed that it was important to send back tens of thousands of Central American children as quickly as possible, which would require changing the TVPRA to expand their screening process to Central American children, not just Mexican children. The TVPRA has been criticized by international observers for not protecting trafficking victims. 

Obama responded to a young immigration activist who demanded Obama use his executive powers to halt deportations during a speech in San Francisco in 2013 about immigration reform: "If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws through Congress, then I would do so." Obama went on to add, "I’d use our democratic process to achieve the same goals that you want to achieve, but it won’t be as easy as just shouting. It requires us lobbying and getting it done."

Watch HERE.

According to, from October 1, 2013, to June 11, 2014, Border Patrol detained 378 unaccompanied children ages two or younger, according to data obtained by Fusion from the office of a high-ranking Democratic senator. Of those children, 95 were infants under 1-year-old. Official data from this time frame showed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) logged 27 deportations of children under the age of two, suggesting the federal government has processed infants in the past. These children are often times sent across the border with paid smugglers, or older siblings. 

In May of 2014, more than 52,000 immigrant children had illegally crossed the border with many thousands more expected. A bill, which had bipartisan support and unanimously passed in 2013 by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a national plan to secure the border, and ultimately result in a 90% apprehension rate of illegal crossers within five years.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), wrote in a letter to President Obama in July of 2014, "The policies of your administration have directly resulted in the belief by these immigrants that once they reach U.S. soil, they will be able to stay here indefinitely."

As of 2014, a little over half of all children in immigration court ended up getting a "removal order"-a formal order of deportation. Just over a quarter have been allowed to stay, where the judge gave them legal status or because the judge would close the case while legal status was sought another way. All others were given "voluntary departure"--having to leave the country but didn’t have to face lasting legal consequences of deportation.

2005-2013 Results of Children in Immigration Court:

The government opened up a series of emergency shelters on Air Force bases to accommodate the surge of immigrants that became the child immigrant crisis of 2014 and Obama eventually asked Congress for an extra $1.4 billion to handle the rise in child migrants. In July 2014, Obama also announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA, would coordinate a new multi-agency response.

Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, (R-VA) and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, called the increase of child migrants "an administration-made disaster." "And now President Obama is calling in FEMA to mitigate the damage," he said. "Word has gotten out around the world about President Obama’s lax immigration enforcement policies, and it has encouraged more individuals to come to the United States illegally, many of whom are children from Central America."

In November 2014, President Barack Obama administered executive action as he unveiled his plan to overhaul the U.S. immigration policy with three main goals:

  1. Build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel. 
  2. Make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy.
  3. Take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who live in our country.--"Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws and I believe they must be held accountable, especially those who may be dangerous. Focus on felons, not families..criminals, not children."

Hillary in 2014 on immigration, "Send them home."

The DHHS placed 90,000 migrant children into sponsor care between 2013 and 2015. Exactly how many of those fell prey to traffickers is unknown, because of course, the agency doesn’t keep track.

There was a 92% increase in the amount of migrant children traveling without parents caught crossing the southwest border from October 2013 to October 2014 with most coming from three Central American countries: Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. More than 33,000 minors were apprehended that year in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas according to DHHS reports. 

During the child migrant crisis in 2014, many blamed the influx of child migrants on the Obama Administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA, which gave temporary protection from deportation and work eligibility to some unauthorized migrants. One of two bills that were passed by the House of Representatives in response to the crisis in August of 2014 was a bill to end the DACA program. (Neither bill was able to be passed in the Senate.)

In 2015 there was a class-action lawsuit filed challenging detention conditions in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention facilities by the American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP. The complaint alleges the Tucson Sector Border Patrol, specifically, holds men, women and children in freezing, overcrowded, and filthy cells for days at a time in violation of the U.S. Constitution and CBP’s own policies. 

 Photo provided by The American Immigration Council

Photo provided by The American Immigration Council

This is where many of the photos that are being pushed daily in the mainstream media outlets actually originated. In November of 2016, the Court ordered that photographs and other evidence of the conditions, which Plaintiffs had submitted to the Court under seal, could be released into the public. The evidence includes photos that depict individuals crowded into cells, huddled together to try and stay warm, lying on concrete benches and the concrete floor without any mats. 

It is important to note, this was before President Donald J. Trump was even elected. The photos have made their rounds all over mainstream media with "Children in Cages" as one of their main fraudulent headlines. President Trump reacted swiftly with a tweet in May in response to the claim that these were recent photos:

When Trump took office, groups of immigrants all but ceased coming into the United States. Border apprehensions in the first few months of 2017 were at almost unheard of low levels. 

Sessions told US attorneys last week that they must now prosecute every single illegal entry case referred to them by DHS, regardless of whether an immigrant came seeking asylum, or with children or no children.

Officials from the White House say Congress needs to ultimately close all "loopholes" that currently are preventing across-the-board mass detention:

  • Amend the anti-trafficking TVPRA bill so that the expedited process for screening Mexican children would also apply to children from other countries
  • Override the Flores settlement so that families would be kept in traditional immigration detention facilities
  • Change the standard for a "credible fear" screening so that the "credibility" assessment is different from the "fear" assessment--to put it another way, if the asylum officer thinks there is something wrong with the immigrant’s story, they would be allowed to flunk the immigrant and put them back on the deportation track

These propositions to close "loopholes" wouldn’t completely end "catch and release" but would certainly severely restrict it.

Yesterday the Associated Press ran an appalling story on how immigrant children were allegedly handcuffed, stripped naked and strapped down with bags thrown over their heads while being beaten at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center in Virginia. The plaintiff suing the center is a teenager that came here from Mexico who is now suing the government for the abuse he received. What the Associated Press failed to mention is the plaintiff was moved there when Obama was president, way back in April of 2016. More FAKE NEWS. 

At a White House briefing on Monday, Kristjen Neilsen said that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held in custody were sent to the border WITHOUT their parents, killing the narrative that Trump’s policy is separating families.

Responding to reporters questions during the briefing Neilsen stated, "So I want to be clear on a couple of other things. The vast majority, vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of H.H.S. right now--10,000 of the 12,000--were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated. So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues. 10,000of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone. We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs, I visited the detention centers myself--that would be my answer to that question."

You can review U.S. laws on human trafficking starting with The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 HERE.


Written By FULCRUM Contributor Haley Kennington



Bitcoin Under Elitist Attack

New hit piece from The New York Times, suggesting Bitcoin's price last year was manipulated.


Nah--the entire financial system is manipulated, by the Rothschilds and a handful of other families.

Millions of us see through the facade, and we are sick of those families, and the rigged currencies they issue.

Bitcoin is mineable, meaning no free lunches. Bitcoins aren't created out of thin air, ever. Instead, they are created through a computer labor-intensive task known as "mining."

Learn more about Bitcoin and get your first balance here. (Bonus just for knowing us!)

Like gold and silver, no one person or organization controls the flow of Bitcoin. Anyone can mine for it, and anyone can use it.

Bitcoins are rare and capped: 17,091,012 Bitcoins exist in total as I write this post, and the software caps the total amount of Bitcoin at an eventual 21 million coins.

Bitcoins are disruptively easy to use: no bank required, no checkbook. All you need to know is the other party's Bitcoin address, and you can begin transacting with them in seconds.

FULCRUM has a Bitcoin wallet, for example.

You can send us funds just by knowing our wallet address, which is:


Different world ahead. You'll either be a part of it, and glad you are. Or you'll be bellyaching that you missed all the signs of that emerging different world. 

Not financial advice; no warranties or guarantees provided.

Trump & Kim Summit: Redefining History

Americans waited with high hopes as Trump and Kim Jong Un began talks late last evening at 9 PM ET.  As the leaders met for the first time face to face, Kim and Trump were all smiles. Shaking hands with each other, as the Korean and America flags stood next to each other as equals. 

Trump's face to face meeting with Kim was historical, as it is the first time a sitting US President has ever met a North Korean leader face to face. Even if no agreement had been formally reached, the meeting itself was a huge step forward for foreign policy. 

Trump and Kim later discussed behind closed doors their agreements during a working lunch, while CNN interviewed Dennis Rodman, who dropped a bombshell on air.  

Rodman recalls asking Obama to listen to him, as he personally knew Kim Jong Un, and had offered to help with the North Korea crisis. Obama ignored him and did not pursue the offer.  Rodman broke down in tears as he spoke about the historical summit, praising the leaders for meeting together.  

Shortly after the private meeting, Trump and Kim announced their formal agreement to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 


In light of the historical summit, Trump has proven the instincts of a billionaire who wrote the Art Of The Deal, is a master negotiator. While his approach may be unconventional, it is undeniable that Trump is a force on the world stage. As Trump has pulled off what was once deemed impossible, there is no limits to what Trump can accomplish as a leader, who just made the Art Of The Deal into a historical footnote.  


Written By FULCRUM Contributor @PinkAboutIt

G7 Summit: Redefining Trade

Over the weekend, Trump arrived at the 44th G7 Summit, held in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada. His presence stole the center of the world stage as he stood poised and ready to ask for reciprocal and fair trade between all countries involved. 

Ahead of his visit, he tweeted that he looked forward to straightening out trade deals. He also tweeted that Canada taxed dairy farmers at a rate of 270%, ramping up attention towards Canada as one of the perpetrators of unfair trade practices. Trump has brought up many times over the past year unfair trade deals while hinting at pulling out of NAFTA as well as if more fair and equal pay did not happen. Ahead of the visit, Trump administration also recently imposed a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum for Canada, Mexico, and European Union. The move made for some tension ahead of the summit visit, but Trump remained resolved to fighting unfair trade. 


Trump kicks off G-7 summit with dings at Canada, Europe over trade policies

President Trump came out swinging as he entered the G-7 summit in Quebec on Friday, vowing to fight unfair trade policies despite terse warnings from U.S. allies over his administration's tough new tariffs.    

Upon his arrival, a reporter asked Trump if the Allies were "angry" with him over the recent trade spars. Trump questioned which organization he was with, to which the reporter confirmed he was with CNN. Trump roasted the reporter, responding "I figured, Fake news CNN. The worst."

This is particularly genius. As CNN gets called out on the world stage, many other leaders such as Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, have also been calling out the fake news media in recent months.  It is undeniable that Trump's stance on the practices of media misleading the public is gaining global attention. 

Trump reminded the allies at G7 summit that the United States was no longer going to be robbed with unfair trade practices, and was happy to walk away from the table if there were no good deals. 

The meeting between allies showed one stark picture, which showed the absolute resolve on Trump's face as everyone watched the exchange between Merkel and Trump. It was almost like his expression was saying "Try me." And I think, it will stand as one of the more iconic photos to date of Trump the negotiator. It truly shows a contrast between Obama who was always laughing it up with the allies, to a resolved Trump, ready to enact his infamous negotiation skills. 

Shortly after Trump departed for the historic Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, Trump called out Prime Minister Trudeau, on his dishonest news conference he held afterward. He also refused to sign G7 communique statement, stating that Trudeau is weak and knows better how he's ripping off the US in trade. 

Trump Refuses to Sign G-7 Statement and Calls Trudeau ‘Weak’

In a remarkable pair of acrimony-laced tweets, Mr. Trump threatened to escalate his trade war and derided Canada’s prime minister as "very dishonest."    

After Trump's arrival in Singapore, he again doubled down and reiterated his trade stance in a tweet storm, promising that it would change, while calling out the massive deficits happening under the current agreements.  


Trump's ongoing trade war with China so far has added an agriculture deal, which helps American farmers. China also conceded to lower automobile tariffs, lowering from 25 percent to 15 percent. 

Trump says China agreed to good deal for American farmers

President Trump touted in a tweet on Monday China’s promise to buy more US agricultural products following trade talks between the two countries, calling it a good deal for American farmers. …    

China Makes Massive Cut to Car Tariffs After Truce With Trump

China will cut the import duty on passenger cars to 15 percent, further opening up a market that’s been a chief target of the U.S. in its trade fight with the world’s second-largest economy.    

I think with Trump at the negotiation table, there is a lot of confidence that he will take home some wins from G7 Summit.  He is resolved to fighting for the American workers in securing trade deals that benefit countries equally. As long as Trump is at the negotiation table, I believe that he will bring home some of the best deals in years, further spurring on the economic growth jumpstarted by tax cuts and reducing government waste.  


Written By FULCRUM Contributor @PinkAboutIt

The President of Second Chances

In just one month, Trump has made historical pardons in the case of Jack Johnson and Alice Johnson. In doing so and righting wrongs, Trump is changing the unfairness of the justice system towards the black community.  

In the case of Jack Johnson, Sylvester Stallone approached President Trump and suggested consideration of the pardon of the first heavyweight black boxing champion. Trump agreed and granted a full posthumous pardon.


Trump Pardons Jack Johnson, Heavyweight Boxing Champion

Jack Johnson's miscarriage of justice began when he was convicted of the Mann Act, a law which was created to prevent trafficking and prostitution across state lines. In taking his white girlfriend at the time over a state line, Johnson was racially targeted and sentenced.  

In the past, Obama was approached about considering a pardon for the legend, to which he never took the opportunity to do so.  Former president George W. Bush was also approached and subsequently turned down the idea of a pardon. 

'It's about time:' The 97-year history of Jack Johnson's quest for a pardon

Alice Marie Johnson, a grandmother, served lockup for over 20 years after conviction of a drug trafficking crime. After her child was killed in a motorcycle accident and a divorce, Alice made bad choices which led to her lockup as a first time non-violent drug offender. During her time incarcerated, Alice became an ordained minister and found God.  

Kim Kardashian became interested in Alice Johnson's case after seeing her story on twitter. Kim understood that Alice went through a rough time with a divorce, a death of a child, and made choices that forever changed her life. Upon hearing Alice's story, Kim decided to get involved and help change Alice's life. As a result, Kim visited President Trump with an open mind and lobbied for the release of Alice. Trump agreed and Alice, on the same day as her birthday, was granted clemency, agreeing that Alice deserved a second chance at life. 

Why Kim Kardashian wanted President Trump to free me


I think in light of both Jack Johnson and Alice Johnson, Trump has shown that the injustice of both Jack and Alice didn't have to be permanently etched into history. Upon hearing both cases, Trump's heart reached out and corrected the wrongs committed. When we look at the justice system, it is true that many people are incarcerated harshly for smaller crimes, and I think that an overhaul in the justice system is needed when the incarceration rate is much higher in the United States than many other countries. It is true, that marijuana possession contributes to almost HALF of the drug arrests in the US.

Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers

In recent news, Trump is rumored to be deciding on ending the federal ban on marijuana soon. Ending the federal ban would free up some of the excessive incarceration of small-time drug offenders. Many of these offenders, were working and self-sufficient members of society. And if you think about it, it is a little silly to make pot illegal when alcohol does so much more damage, when you look at the drunk driving statistics. 


I think, in time, Trump may well be the first president in a long time to address the issue of an overpopulated incarceration rate. As it stands, per capita, the US is the highest next to Russia.  It also is true, that prison reform may well be another indelible mark of the Trump Doctrine. As the case stands with Alice Johnson and Jack Johnson, second chances can change a life by giving redemption to those who have proven they have more than served their time behind bars.


Written By FULCRUM Contributor @PinkAboutIt  

Seaman v. IAC et al filed in federal court


Our founder David Seaman took legal action this morning against Barry Diller/IAC, The Daily Beast, and Jennings Brown by filing a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Although David has no interest in litigating this case in public or over social media, we want our supporters to be aware of this lawsuit. We will be posting a copy of the Federal Court Complaint to FULCRUM later today. A copy of the Complaint is available now via PACER. They won’t get away with what they have done.

500 Days: And Just Getting Started

President Trump has had an eventful, successful, and historic first 500 days of accomplishments.  In fact, it is more significant in light of a stagnant Congress, a witch hunt that has wasted millions of taxpayer money, and an embattled government. Despite it all, the list of accomplishments is historical. 

Some of the accomplishments:

-Withdrew from Iran Deal

-Actively pursuing denuclearization of North Korea

-4 Americans released from both Venezuela and North Korea in just May, alone

-Issued 22 deregulatory actions

-Cut massive red tape to result in 56M annual savings

-Black Unemployment 5.9%. Women 3.5%. Hispanic 4.9%. Record numbers for the American public

-4 billion to fight Opioid Epidemic

-Child tax credit doubled

-Repealed Obamacare Individual mandate 

-Enacted massive tax cuts, which resulted in company bonuses, jobs growth, and private sector growth 

-6.6 Million Job Openings 

-U.S. Embassy Moved to Jerusalem 

-ISIS has been decimated 

-Unemployment levels lowest in 18 years

-3 million jobs added since taking office

-304,000 Manufacturing jobs have been created

-337,000 construction jobs, at a highest level since June 2008

-Pay raise for troops, largest defense budget in years

-Executive order to expand apprenticeship opportunities 

-17 year high on consumer confidence 

-Corporate tax rate lowered from 35% to 21% to enable more competitive growth

-Agriculture gained new markets

-Crackdown on bad trade deals

-Courts packed with more conservative judges

-Gorsuch appointed SCOTUS

- Gina Haspel, first female confirmed to lead CIA

-Legislation passed to bring more accountability to Dept. Of Veteran Affairs

-V.A. Choice and Quality Employment Act

-Withdrew from Trans-Pacific Agreement

-Crackdowns on imports of drugs to stop from reaching communities

-Right to try Bill signed into law

Trump's accomplishments are a much larger list than just listed, but the highlights alone show a dedicated president who is TRULY putting America first.  

500 days and the list is growing by the day.  While fake news media attacks President Trump daily, he rolls up his sleeves and continually keeps plugging away at making America Great Again. The media, who in the pastime attacked former presidents for failing to keep promises, Trump is actually keeping them, and the media attacks him still. The fortitude that Trump displays is nothing short of amazing. 


I know personally, when I first voted for Trump, I knew he would be a good President.  But his first 500 days has far exceeded my own expectations. This is a President who is working for free, and the media attacks him like never before. At this point, I would be worried if the media had anything good to say about the accomplishments that Trump keeps adding to his presidential resume. Trump's first 500 days was really just a warmup. 

And we are just getting started. 


Written By Fulcrum Contributor @PinkAboutIt