A Crime has Been Committed

Part 3

Mueller and his team of Clinton lawyers

Robert Mueller, who was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, because Jeff Sessions recused himself of any Russian involvement, has been the lead on the special counsel investigation Russian collusion in the 2016 election.

Mueller has unfettered access to investigate anyone for anything they may or may not have done if they were a member of the Trump Transition team.  His investigation has led to the prosecution of Trump transition team member General Flynn, for allegedly Lying to the FBI.

Legal analyst and lawyer Mark Levin has called the special counsel unconstitutional from the appointments clause of the constitution.  Levin argues that, ” Mueller is mostly free to conduct his investigation with few limits or restraints.”

Red Hot Media is intending to expose the many conflicts of interest of the members of Mueller special counsel team.  Let’s meet the team:


Jeannie Rhee:Rhee

Jeannie Rhee was hired onto to Mueller special counsel team.  Despite what the partisan hacks at Politico have indicated that Mueller and his team have not hired any Clinton supporters, Red Hot Media has found that Rhee has a history of supporting Clinton.

Rhee had represented the Clinton Foundation against racketeering charges.  She also represented Clinton in a lawsuit seeking access to Clinton private email account.  While working at Mueller’s law firm Rhee represented Ben Rhodes, Obama’s National Security Adviser,  during congress investigation of the Benghazi attacks.

Ryan Dickey:

Ryan worked on the prosecution of Guccifer for the hacks of Clinton long time ally Sydney Blumenthal.  Guccifer also released Clinton emails that proved she was using a private email server, while she was Secretary of State.

Greg Andres:

Greg Andres His wife is Ronnie Abrams.  A US district judge in Manhattan nominated to the bench by Obama in 2011.

Kyle Freeny:

Kyle defended a lawsuit in which Texas and 25 other states that contested an Obama Executive order in 2014 on Immigration.  The Federal Judge accused Freeny of intentional misconduct for misrepresenting facts to him.  The same federal judge, went on to write, “In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

Aaron Zebley:

Aaron is yet another member of the Obama and Clinton cabal looking into the alleged Russian collusion.  Yet Mr. Zebley, himself represented Justin Cooper, the man who set up the Clinton private email server and was responsible for smashing Clinton’s blackberries in an attempt to avoid FOIA requests.


 Aaron Zelinsky:zelinsky

Zelinsky was a writer for progressive media outlet Huffpost.  An avid supporter of the former president Barack Obama, Zelinski has been quoted as writing. “Now is the time to begiin enacting a progressive political agenda through the ballot box.”

DOJ guidelines prohibit the use of political affiliation or ideology in making hiring decisions, thus making Mueller decision to hire Mr. Zelinsky conflicted.

Adam Jed:

Adam is most known for defending Kathleen Sebelius, former Health and Human Services Secretary under Barack Obama in a case that went to the Supreme Court, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius.

He is also known for arguing against the Defense of Marraige Act.

Andrew Goldstein:Goldstein

Goldstein served as former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s Public Corruption chief.  Bahara was fired by President Trump, and claimed to CNN that had he stayed, President Trump would have asked him to do something inappropriate.

The addition of Goldstein is another example of extreme conflict from within the Mueller Special Counsel.

The above named individuals are extremely conflicted with respect to the special counsel Mueller has assembled. It appears that Clinton and Obama are running the special counsel through their interests.

Red Hot Media will continue to update their readers to the conflicted interests that have infiltrated America.  We provide you with the most accurate information available. Several contributors to this story:  Lynn Matthews Tim Walsh, Michael Scott, and JB Berns,







CNN, Blaming Trump for attempted Bombing?

Reading an article, not an opinion piece from CNN one would get the opinion that people are not responsible for their own actions, but rather minions of a controlled mindset led by a devious mastermind bent on controlling someone.  A deep controlling entity viewing only their media enterprise, and filled with such contempt for them, that they would act irrationally and out of character for a human being.

After suspicious packages were sent to many people that Trump had mentioned at his rallies, CNN has taken the position, that the alleged bomber is directly tied to the brain of President Trump.  In their article, which is NOT an opinion piece they cite while discussing the suspicious packages, “What do the targets have in common? They’ve all been targeted by President Donald Trump and made into bogeymen for the far-right, often on Fox News by opinion anchors like Sean Hannity.”

While, this article is an example of not holding accountable a person who acted upon vitriol he had heard it indeed makes the claim of blaming the victim.  Because the people whom had received the packages were indeed the ones whom Trump had discussed at his rallies.

However, a close examination of their vitriolic article, it is easy to see, why someone would contemplate these actions.  Calling out Fake News, at CNN, does not necessarily portray a visceral feeling of hate or contempt, however CNN making the claim, of blaming the victim could easily upset a normal person.  People who act irrationally do so because they are irrational.  Is CNN necessarily acting, or commentating in a rational manner?  According to CNN, Trump has criticized their network numerous times.  Where as their network has reported non-stop since before his presidency on negative Trump issues.  In fact, on slow news days, they have been known to resort back to previous Trump stories just to show contempt for him.  Trump is one man, vs an entire network, with 24/7 coverage cycle, portraying him in a negative form.

As for other examples, lets examine the rhetoric of Maxine Waters, democrat in California at a rally she was holding.  “If you see anybody from that administration, in a restaurant, at a department store, at a gasoline station; you get out and create a crowd, and you push back on them.  And you tell them they’re not welcome.

According to Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, while holding a meeting, he made the claim, “when they go low, we kick them”, resulting in laughter from his audience.

Another example is previous presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Other examples of poor behavior on behalf of anti-trump supporters can all too well recall Madonna, donning a black cap designed to resemble kitten ears and her vitriolic diatribe where she claimed, “yes, i have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house” to a crowd of screaming crowd.

According to WND, The Obama administration’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”

Trump supporters, being asked to leave establishments, for openly supporting their candidate, Trump supporters being harassed for attending events where conservative speakers are featured.  The vitriol is non-ending, and CNN and other media outlets who allege they are valid news sources are in a race to discover what new scandal they can uncover with respect to a sitting president.  Yet claim they are the victim of his perhaps distasteful commentary.

If anyone is a victim, it is the American public who are forced by the establishments they visit, airports, restaurants, bars, to watch the endless hours of political commentary aimed at portraying the President they elected as anything less than the President.  They are the real victims here, not a network who divisively portrays the president and the people who believe in him as racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, unintelligent, anti-Americans.

When media outlets report the news, with facts, and qualify their rhetoric as political commentary instead of news worthy topics, perhaps they can then be held with the respect they deserve as journalists, and regain their journalistic integrity, until then they should be labeled and registered as a political pac.



Does Political Party Matter ?

There has been a great deal of division in the United States, particularly centered around President Trump.  Trump led his campaign with the Message, “Make America Great Again”.  He made the promise of bringing back jobs, securing our borders, installing more constitutionalist’s on the supreme court. Making a fair deal for trade between Canada and Mexico, as well as from China.  He ran on an American First campaign.

Clinton ran an entirely different campaign.  One that ran on increasing the size of government programs. An ever increasing bureaucracy that despite the virtue signaling of her followers, would eventually turn the United States into a more European Union style of government.

While the majority of politicians who support the democratic party are seeking more government intervention, in such issues as immigration, controls over health care, controls over unions, and more government regulation concerning climate change, their ever increasing controls over government are reminiscent of the type of controls that seek to encompass every individual living within the borders of the nation.

Trump, on the other hand, despite the cries of the democratic party with respect to government intervention, wants to decrease the size of government.  He has overturned many executive orders initiated by the previous administration, and has vowed, for every regulation signed, two must be eliminated.

According to Real Clear Politics, “Democrats — once a reliable bastion of support for First Amendment rights — have largely abandoned them. (At least for conservatives.) In place of litigation and legislation to protect speech, Democrats now use their political power to silence speech they don’t like and compel that which they do.”

Democrats also seek to overturn the 2nd Amendment, “As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” School shootings, have made it possible for this right to be called into question.  Claiming, the security and safety of the public supersedes the right of the people to defend themselves.

Republicans, want the rule of law applied to immigration, and believe that America is a sovereign nation and should have the ability to verify the identity of people entering the country and their intentions for entering our country.  On the other hand, democrats, have openly advocated for open borders, and the elimination of our Immigration Control enforcement agencies.

On the issue of health care.  Democrats believe that health care is a fundamental right.  Much like the rights enjoyed under the constitution.  Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, and Health Care.  While, the issue of making health care a fundamental right, may appear to have incredible merit on the surface, no one is making the claim for proper health care.  Such as, a licensed health care provider who is adequately providing health care for the masses.  The right to health care, as provided as a constitutional Amendment would enslave doctors to the bureaucracy.  It would force medical schools to accept less than adequate students, into the field, and would greatly diminish the quality of the acceptable standard of health care.  It would however, greatly increase the number of lawyers seeking to sue doctors, because the current supply of doctors would be diminished.

Republicans, believe that health care an extremely important part of living in a free society, believe that health care should be an individual choice.  Whether to see a doctor, what doctor, and when when.  They are actively advocating for making health care a competitive field for insurance companies.  Thus lowering premiums, hiring better doctors and compensating such doctors for their expertise.

On the issue of Abortion.  Women’s rights advocates, side with planned parenthood in keeping abortion legal.  Citing the ability to seek and procure an abortion is a woman’s right to choose. On the other side of the coin, is Republicans believe that institutions such as planned parenthood, should not receive federal funding.  Citing that abortion clinics should not receive federal funds. And furthermore, because of their funding a political party, any funding from the government should not continue.  A good majority of Republicans believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, due to scientific advances in imaging and DNA analysis, they believe that life starts at a significantly earlier time in the womb than that which Planned Parenthood and Pro Choice supporters believe.  It is a very hot political debate, where it came to a head with the President appointing Kavanaugh to the supreme court seat.

The difference between the two parties is as blatant as night and day.  While one party advocates for personal responsibility, and financial independence, less government restrictions, the other party openly claims that bigger and more restrictive government would secure the nation and her interests.

It all comes down to one quote:  Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  What belief does your vote have at the ballot box?

Suspicious packages are all over the Place

Today, CNN New York City office was evacuated after a suspicious package was found inside the cable news network’s mail room. Reporters for CNN said there were no injuries and the move was precautionary.

Pipe bomb delivered to the residence of George Soros residence in New York

Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as former president Obama had suspicious packages delivered to their homes.  According to CNN, “The Secret Service says “potential explosive devices” were mailed to Hillary Clinton’s home in New York and Barack Obama’s home in Washington, DC.”

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultze, Florida office was evacuated just after a suspicious package was mailed there Wednesday morning.

This occurring while 14,000 immigrants are approaching the US border, making the political climate in the United States extremely divisive.

Red Hot Media will continue to follow these stories, to keep our readers informed on any updates.


Did Feinstein Enable China Hacking?

Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, has served in the US Senate since 1992.  Ranking member of Committee of Judiciary whose role it is to  provide oversight of the Department of Justice and the agencies under the Department’s jurisdiction, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security, the Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the consideration of nominations and pending legislation.

It was recently reported in Politco that Feinstein had unknowingly hired a Chinese Spy, and that this spy had had access to Feinstein for more than a decade.  At the time of this discovery, Feinstein was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  What is not known is how much influence did her sitting on Senate Intelligence have to do with the ability of the Chinese to hack into the United States defense contractors databases and take information.

It turns out that Communist China had a spy in her office. A 20-year employee of Feinstein’s, the agent had been reporting back to China’s Ministry of State Security for well over a decade before he was caught in 2013, according to the FBI.

In January of 2017, Business Wire reported that Sen. Dianne Feinsteins husband was a major beneficiary of military appropriations blessed by a subcommittee that she headed, Metro Newspapers reports this week.

Feinstein has long been an advocate for Trade with China, pushing the US to declare China as a Favored Trade status.  It was reported by WND that She has opposed a U.S. anti-missile defense, supported China’s MFN (Most Favorable Nation) status, supported the COSCO purchase of Long Beach port and is a well-known opponent of linking human rights with trade. However, Feinstein’s financial ties to the communist Chinese and COSCO include her husband, Richard Blum.

All this talk about Russian hacking into the US elections, has prompted RHM to investigate incidents of Chinese hacking of military industrial complex. It is also important to note that the Chinese may also have the e-mails of Hillary Clinton. As the Daily Caller reported, “A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C., area hacked Hillary Clinton’s private server throughout her term as secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails.”

According to the Independent, Chinese government hackers  stole 614 gigabytes of highly sensitive data from a U.S. Navy contractor, including plans related to a supersonic anti-ship missile meant to be usable by 2020 and other details about undersea warfare.

January of 2010, Google reported it was attacked by Chinese Hackers.

In 2014, the Senate Armed Services Committee found Chinese hackers had accessed the networks of U.S. technology companies and airlines involved in the transportation of military troops and equipment.

In 2006, the Commerce Department had been hacked causing them to have to throw away several computers.

The campaign of Barack Obama and John McCain were hacked by Chinese hackers, The Secret Service forced all campaign senior staff to replace their Blackberries and laptops. The hackers were looking for policy data as a way to predict the positions of the future winner. Senior campaign staffers have acknowledged that the Chinese government contacted one campaign and referred to information that could only have been gained from the theft.

Is it a coincidence that a sitting US Senator with favorable ties to China and the hacking of not just defense and commerce departments but other US entities? A senator who has enriched their financial status using Chinese Investments?


Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑