Stephen Colbert, the Podestas, and the Clinton Foundation

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Late-night talk show host and rabid Trump-basher Stephen Colbert has been mocking Pizzagate as "fake news" since the story first received MSM attention. Pizzagate itself, of course, originated from apparent code words in the email exchanges of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Pizzagate researchers over on Voat have found that Colbert's sister ran for Congress in South Carolina in 2013, and the Podesta brothers led her fundraising efforts.


Elizabeth Colbert Busch, ‘political outsider,’ to hit D.C. for lobbyist fundraiser

Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the Democratic nominee for Congress in a South Carolina special election, is headed to Washington D.C. for a fundraiser with some of the top liberal lobbyists.

John and Tony Podesta are two of the three people identified as host committee members on the fundraising invitation, which was obtained by The Washington Examiner from a lobbyist. Here’s how The Examiner’s Tim Carney described the Podesta brothers after writing his book, Obamanomics.

“The biggest winner on K Street, though, may be the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, an Obama confidant who ran the presidential transition team,” Carney wrote. “The firm, with top clients in the healthcare and energy industry among others, is now in the hands of John’s brother Tony, whose 65th birthday party in October was graced by Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The Podesta Group also snatched up the first Obama administration alumnus to pass through the revolving door to K Street that Obama promised to shut down.”

The April 15 fundraiser — donors are asked to contribute up to $10,000 — will also be populated by dozens of Democratic lawmakers. Some are relative moderates, such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who leads the Progressive Caucus in the House, ensure that the most liberal wing of the party helps Colbert Busch’s campaign.

Lobbyist-led fundraisers with liberal Democrats are common enough, but this one undercuts Colbert Busch’s brand as a political outsider. Her website emphasizes that she has “pragmatic policies” and the business experience to negotiate with political opponents. “Elizabeth has decided that the dysfunctional display in the halls of Congress must end. She believes that this is our time,” her website explains. That’s the image she should be cultivating in her bid to carry a Republican district.To defeat former Gov. Mark Sanford, R-S.C. — who resigned after an affair made national news — Colbert Busch “must rely on the ability to portray herself as a businesswoman and political outsider, and the potential ability to put together a well-funded campaign,” according to the Rothenberg Political Report . With the Podestas helping her, Colbert Busch should have a solid day with regard to the second point, but it comes at the expense of the first.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-colbert-busch-political-outsider-hits-d.c.-for-lobbyist-fundraiser/article/2526552


This also goes a little way toward explaining Colbert's hostility towards a candidate who vowed to "drain the swamp" in Washington.

Stephen Colbert was also shown in Wikileaks to be up the Clinton Foundation's ass:


Wikileaks Bombshell: Even Stephen Colbert Took Orders from Clinton Group

A new revelation from Wikileaks suggests liberal TV host Stephen Colbert has been working behind the scenes with the Clintons.

Red Alert Politics reports:

Wikileaks: Colbert Report took orders from Clinton group

Stephen Colbert’s role as the conservative newsman on the Comedy Central hit show, The Colbert Report, was a prime source of news for many millennials. It was also a chief avenue of propaganda for the Clintons years before Hillary ran for president.

Wikileaks revealed on Tuesday that Colbert and his team at Comedy Central were making episodes at the request or order of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) back in April of 2013.

Craig Minassian of the Clinton group e-mailed John Podesta, the close ally and future campaign manager for Hillary, to see if he saw a specific episode of the show that they pitched.

“I hope you got a chance to see the The Colbert Report’s two special episodes I had them do about CGI U that we taped in St. Louis this weekend,” Minassian said in the e-mail. “This is the link to last nights with a sketch about commitments and the monologue and WJC (Bill Clinton) interview aired Monday. Hope you enjoy and looking forward to your feedback. Next will be your Colbert appearance!”

You can see the Wikileaks document below:

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/wikileaks-colbert-575x369.jpg

Update…. Couldn’t agree more–

Pathetic. Comedians doing the bidding of Power is about as pathetic as it gets. https://t.co/gapMMmQxuz

— CNN Is HitlerMaximus (@NolteNC) December 8, 2016

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/wikileaks-bombshell-even-stephen-colbert-took-orders-clinton-group/


I used to watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart over 10 years ago, back during Bush II's first term, and I thought they were funny and made good points. Now in hindsight I see that I was naive to trust the establishment opposition so much. All of these people are just a step or two removed at most from very sick networks.

[boutreality]

Good find on the Colbert assertion, however Podesta is a chief figure across most if not ALL DNC campaign financing.
It's sad to say but its quite possible that every candidate he headed up fundraising/campaign management for are pedos/sympathizers to their "cause".
There's nothing proving this is the case, but perhaps it's a worthy angle to investigate.

I'd like to see campaigning limited to actual lists of donors -not hidden in SuperPacs and Lobbies- actual corporations and Special Interst Groups and their agendas. At least then the public would be making an informed choice, so long as the election isn't rigged.

It's worth noting that the "Next guy is our salvation" psychological effect was in place with Clinton I; (Less with Bush II) Obama; AND Trump- it's a page in the controlling regime's playbook and it's time it gets recognized.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I should clarify that I'm not saying that Colbert himself or his sister are directly involved in pedophilia. All I'm saying is that he has a clear conflict of interest when it comes to looking at Pizzagate-related stuff, or any corruption around the Clinton Foundation or DNC. So it's no wonder he's won't even touch that stuff except to mock it. He knows all of these people and tries to crawl up their asses for his own interests.

What you say about "the next guy is our salvation" mentality may be true for some people, but I subscribed more to the South Park philosophy of "it's a douche versus a turd" until Trump came along. The only candidate I really liked before was Ron Paul. Trump is like Ron Paul on crack, and with a much bigger set.

[boutreality]

To me it's obvious that the only difference in Trump is he proved he was never ready to be the RNC's candidate in his "unconventional, in your face" stances, mannerisms and delivery that would have been weeded out had he been the party's actual choice.
-That aspect only serves to nuance the controlled establishment opposition set he serves.

I like the idea that he's been put in place to see an agenda to which he is party (rule by the elite- where they can do anything and get away with it) fall apart, in the fashion of a psychological war tactic executed against the worlds's ruling class, I'll never buy that he is our answer.

[Craig]

I don't know if I am missing something here but in the wikileaks document the email address is @americaporgress - is this a spelling error or means something else?

[OMG]

It's pretty well common knowledge that any famous, powerful or well known person who has been against Trump has something serious in their closet they wish to hide. And their campaign to discredit him unjustly, (since there are certain just causes that should be carefully weighed with certain actions of his), and control or manipulate the social narrative is blatantly obvious to anyone with a sense of discriminating reason.

http://i.imgur.com/sLI4Dbi.jpg

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I don't know if I am missing something here but in the wikileaks document the email address is @americaporgress - is this a spelling error or means something else?

That's how it is in the Wikileaks releases:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46703


It could have been a typo while setting up the email server, and once it's established it's difficult to go back and fix. We've already seen that a lot of these people are morons when it comes to tech anyway. Podesta's password to his email account was "p@ssword."

[Fellow Aspirant]

"Colbert and his team at Comedy Central were making episodes at the request or order of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) back in April of 2013."

I guess I missed the part where the Clintons asked/ordered/commanded Colbert to co-operate with the aims of the CGI.

I do see an after-the-fact nudge of common cause recognition.

How does that put Colbert into the Clintons' pocket?

To make such a claim based on your own evidence is to twist reality to your own filter's alignment.

Colbert was and is willing to take on the abusers of power wherever he finds them.

B.

[boutreality]

It's entirely possible and I'd say plausible that Trump's hands are tied as to intervene in a way to stop the Pizzagate revelations before they reach where they will lead.
From an outside view he looks easy to control, much easier to control than Clinton, in the terms of a "Shut down the NWO" faction in the State Department, DoJ and DoD that simply needs a head to puppet about insomuch as they can.

Rid of the ghosts of Clinton as Sec of State and Kerry no longer Sec of Defense, the people whose jobs outlast presidents made sure T's pre-inauguration briefing went something like:

"These 20 or so pedo trafficking ring cases are going forward immediately upon you taking office, here's the AG we know will get confirmed."
Add to that a hopefully earnest disdain for the Clintons he harbors and here you have a man who by all appearances fits the bill for "White hat president" and that's awesome!
Still:

He ran on "Make America Great Again" -Reagan's slogan was "Make America Great" his "platform" was "build a wall, they'll pay for it"; "ban Muslims" and tit for tat exchanges with all the fervor of high school "put-down" contests.

Nevermind that Reaganomics set in motion what is still gradually making the middle class vanish and the apparent "fresh worldview" his disavowing of accepted decorum offered during his campaign:

He is worth HUNDERDS OF MILLIONS.
His "blind trust", where his assets are meant to be held while in office, was appointed to his son- clear malfeasance.
He has appointed characters around him that have been fixtures of the same "make them think its getting better while we ensure it gets worse slowly enough for us all to cash in and so that no one notices" regimes that have run this country for over a century.

[Karma Ninja]

It may just be a spelling error that likely means the recipient never received the email. It is far more likely that due to this minor error you are looking at information that has been doctored or faked. How many other emails to John Podesta use this same email address? How many use the correct spelling of 'progress'? Some of the wikileaks information released is surely fake and serves an ulterior motive.


I don't know if I am missing something here but in the wikileaks document the email address is @americaporgress - is this a spelling error or means something else?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

To make such a claim based on your own evidence is to twist reality to your own filter's alignment.

Colbert was and is willing to take on the abusers of power wherever he finds them.

B.

Looks like you missed this part in the email:


“I hope you got a chance to see the The Colbert Report’s two special episodes I had them do about CGI U that we taped in St. Louis this weekend,”

You're not going to make this a question of what the definition of the word "is" is, are you? :P

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It may just be a spelling error that likely means the recipient never received the email.

It's in the actual header of the email. When you set up an email server the admin types all of this stuff into some input field and that's when the typo would have been made. They just never went back and fixed it, probably because it would have been a pain in the ass once the server was already up and running with emails being sent and received. Check other emails from the collection and you'll likely see the same typo in that address. Without even checking for myself I'll make that claim and let someone else prove me right or wrong. Like I said before, these people (Podesta, Clinton, etc.) are not the most tech-savvy people to begin with, and who knows who they hired to set up these servers.

And no, the Wikileaks emails are not fake. This has been discussed many times elsewhere. First of all they are verified through an encryption key that Google independently maintains, which proves that the emails were actually sent and received. So effectively Google independently proves these emails are legit through an encryption key.

Aside from that Podesta and others have admitted that the emails are real by calling them "stolen." If you make up a fake email it's not "stolen," it's "fake." By calling the emails "stolen" they are admitting that the emails were once in their possession and therefore are legitimate.

There is more info out there but just those two things (independent verification from Google and admission from Podesta himself) should be enough to satisfy any reasonable doubt.

[Fellow Aspirant]

To make such a claim based on your own evidence is to twist reality to your own filter's alignment.

Colbert was and is willing to take on the abusers of power wherever he finds them.

B.

Looks like you missed this part in the email:


“I hope you got a chance to see the The Colbert Report’s two special episodes I had them do about CGI U that we taped in St. Louis this weekend,”

You're not going to make this a question of what the definition of the word "is" is, are you? :P

Personal jibe aside, I still don't see any indication of how the Clintons forced Colbert to do anything. One of their agents was pretty puffed up about how he had "gotten" Colbert to do two shows that focus on the good works of the CGI, but it couldn't have been too hard a job selling Colbert's people on the idea, given how much Colbert likes the Clintons. He has been giving the whole family great exposure for many years; how is this supposed to be any different?

Colbert's generosity toward causes he believes in is well known and extensive. Here's a short list:


ALS Association
Amnesty International
Autism Speaks
Charity Folks
Clinton Global Initiative
Collaboration Foundation
Comic Relief
DonorsChoose.org

Feeding America
First Book
Global Fund for Women
Joining Forces
Parkinson Society Maritime Region
Save the Children
Stand Up To Cancer
Yellow Ribbon Fund

All Wikileaks has done is to have named the staffer who is patting himself on the back for proposing and backing the idea. Colbert would not have done it if he hadn't believed in the cause. This is not a "stop the presses" kind of revelation of secret, behind the scenes skullduggery, so pardon me if I don't find myself out of breath from the shock of the big leak of collusion. It's a business as usual "heads up" by a staffer seeking personal recognition.

And that is how it is. :waving:

B.

[TargeT]

Colbert's generosity toward causes he believes in is well known and extensive. Here's a short list:


ALS Association
Amnesty International
Autism Speaks
Charity Folks
Clinton Global Initiative
Collaboration Foundation
Comic Relief
DonorsChoose.org

Feeding America
First Book
Global Fund for Women
Joining Forces
Parkinson Society Maritime Region
Save the Children
Stand Up To Cancer
Yellow Ribbon Fund
.


And CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) helped in Haiti and definitely was NOT trafficking children..

There's a logical fallacy here, but my brain is too fuzzy to find it...

That list looks like *IT COULD BE* a really great cover, not saying it is... but a list like that does NOTHING to assuage my concern in matters like this. That list is the common sheild hoisted by the elites to show us plebs they are "good people".

I'm not buying it at face value, not anymore.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The people claiming to be helping children are often the same ones abusing them. A lot of charities employ double-think like that and are just a cover for criminal activity.

Case in point: "Friends of the Orphans" in Haiti, the charity that Laura Silsby was caught trafficking children from. The Clintons pressured Haiti to have Silsby's sentence reduced, and Hillary was getting regular email updates about Silsby's situation. The same charity is also connected to David Brock and James Alefantis, from Comet Ping Pong infamy.


Alefantis is GREAT friends with Michael Maccoby whose son is a Director of Friends of the Orphans, the charity Laura Silsby was given children from

TL;DR:

Alefantis is GREAT friends with Michael Maccoby, whose son is on the Board of Directors for Haitian orphanage, Friends of Orphans

Laura Silsby, convicted child-trafficker got her children from Friends of Orphans, according to an interview with her lawyer Jorge Puello (wanted child-trafficker) https://archive.fo/ox7Fa#selection-423.0-425.82

https://www.truthlibrary.info/articles/corporate-fraud/pizzagate-bombshell-james-alefantis-connected-to-clinton-connected-child-sex-offender-laura-silsby/


This is just one of many examples of "charities" being involved in organized crime. The Rockefellers, Bushes, Clintons, George Soros, etc. etc. are all involved in countless "charities" where they quietly funnel their money in order to influence society.

[ceetee9]

If this is off topic, I apologize upfront AVFTM, but when I saw Stephen Colbert in the title I wanted to say something about him.

I used to like and watch Stephen Colbert fairly regularly, but when he started going off the rails with his relentless Trump bashing the last year or two he lost me. I'm not a Trump supporter (and am absolutely no Clinton supporter), but I have little respect for any celebrity who uses their bully pulpit in a veiled (or overt) attempt to proselytize their political bent to their worshipers. There are many young (and not so young) impressionable minds out there who look up to these celebrities and, sadly, will readily adopt their beliefs and, no doubt, this is why many of them do this. I wonder how many, however, realize (or care) that by being so divisive in their rhetoric that they are turning off and losing a sizable portion of their audience and supporters.

I understand that comedians, like Colbert, are going to do political jokes, but when their jokes become so one-sided, and often vicious, they stop being funny and start being malicious propaganda—and that is unconscionable, IMO.

Colbert (and a few musicians and actors as well) lost, at least, this supporter. I don't care about, nor do I want to be browbeaten with, these people's political (or any other divisive) views—particularly when I pay good money to be entertained by them.

[KiwiElf]

I stopped donating to, (or doing design work for), ANY charities a long time ago when it was found that a well-known NZ Rescue Helicopter Foundation was "misappropriating its donation funds". It all got swept under the rug.

(I noticed that the director's company cars switched from low-key Hondas to high end BMW's ;))

[TargeT]

I stopped donating to, (or doing design work for), ANY charities a long time ago

SHAMELESS self plug here...

BUT:

I think small scale charities (http://www.cruzancowgirls.com/cruzan_cowgirls_horse_rescue/) are (extreme bias) probably safe to work with... but those people aren't the types wearing $1,500 suits going to luncheons in D.C. ;) I only own one suit and haven't worn it in 4 years. But only because they are too small to be co-opt'd and probably still true to their mission statements.

Anything "popular" I now instantly question, especially if it's quick to tell you about it's (the popular item of topic) charity work and have a quick story to tell on "how good it is".

Normal people don't do that.

[KiwiElf]

Yeah, this one is pretty well known and its main sponsor is a popular Ozzie Bank.

Did work for the small ones too. They start out fine, then the big money comes in, their ethics go out the window and their greed goes into overdrive ;)

[TargeT]

Yeah, this one is pretty well known and its main sponsor is a popular Ozzie Bank.

Did work for the small ones too. They start out fine, then the big money comes in, their ethics go out the window and their greed goes into overdrive ;)

Exactly... and it happens FAST...

We got tricked into supporting a "green" energy scam (basically that's what it turned out to be) all because they were nice to us and offered to cover our annual feed costs (which amounts to around 80,000 annually.. hard to pass up!).

But then other sources pointed out the failings of the company that was basically using us for our "good name" for promotion & we saw how we were being used (if only slightly, a couple radio interviews etc..)...

So now I do a lot more research on who we allow our "brand" to be associated with.... sad, but that's the reality.

[Ewan]

Lords of Poverty (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5bHvTtNmsikC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en) by Graham Hancock will quickly dissuade anyone who still believes large charities are worth contributing to.

Sorry but I could not find a .PDF despite there being many links to .pdf's they all appear to be scams or sign-ups