Should Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen be worried about life under a President Donald Trump?

Should Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen be worried about life under a President Donald Trump?

And just two days ago, Trump tweeted that he thinks the Fed should be audited. This is something that fellow Republican candidate Ted Cruz supports as well as former candidate Rand Paul.

Trump chided Cruz in his tweet for missing a Senate vote on an "Audit the Fed" bill in January. The bill failed 53-44.

That legislation was proposed by Paul. Republican candidate Marco Rubio and Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders both voted in favor of it.

Many Republicans believe that all of the Fed's actions, including its monetary policy statements, should be audited by the Government Accountability Office.

Currently, just the Fed's financial statements are subject to a review. They are done by the accounting firm Deloitte. Those statements are available for anyone to view on the Fed's website.

Trump's tweet was the first time he specifically came out in favor of a full audit of the Fed. Could an audit make the Fed great again? Hmm.

Unsurprisingly, the Fed -- which acts independently from the White House and Congress -- is not in favor of such a plan.

Former Fed chair Ben Bernanke argued in January that an audit raises the risk that "reviews and recommendations concerning individual monetary policy decisions would provide a vehicle for members of Congress to apply political pressure on the Fed."

But Trump actually has already accused the Fed of being too political.

In an interview with The Hill in October, Trump said Yellen was keeping interest rates low so President Obama "doesn't want to have a recession-slash-depression during his administration."

That interview took place before the Fed raised rates for the first time in nine years in December. But rates remain extremely low.

Trump has repeatedly expressed concerns that the stock market is a bubble waiting to burst because of Fed policies.

He told CNBC in September 2012 that Bernanke's quantitative easing program of buying mortgage-backed securities was leading to "phony numbers" in the economy.

Related: Bernanke is no fan of Bernie Sanders

And speaking to Bloomberg a few days after The Hill interview, Trump was even more vocal in his criticism of Yellen.

"Janet Yellen for political reasons is keeping interest rates so low that the next guy or person who takes over as president could have a real problem," he said.

Yellen's four-year term as Fed chair ends on February 3, 2018.

That means the next president will need to quickly figure out shortly after entering the White House whether he or she wants to keep Yellen on for another four years.

Related: GOP candidates slam Ben Bernanke

Presumably, a Democratic president would renominate Yellen -- assuming she still wants the job.

But presidents have historically opted for continuity at the central bank -- regardless of whether or not their political views align with the Fed chair.

Ronald Reagan reappointed Paul Volcker as Fed chair even though Volcker was originally chosen by Jimmy Carter. Bernanke was nominated for a second term as Fed chair by Obama, after first serving under George W. Bush.

There have been only seven Fed chairs since 1951. It seems that being a Supreme Court justice or coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers are the only professions that offer greater job stability.

So it would be somewhat unprecedented for a President Trump to make drastic changes at the Fed.

Interestingly though, Trump seems to have a soft spot for Volcker -- who raised interest rates aggressively in the 1980s to fight inflation.

Trump told Bloomberg in August that even though he always loved low interest rates as a real estate developer, he thought that Volcker was a "terrific guy" who was "doing what had to be done."

Could Volcker be back as Fed chair if Trump makes it to the Oval Office? That seems unlikely.

But based on what Trump has said about Yellen, it seems he would want someone who is willing to hike interest rates far more dramatically than the current Fed.

The stock market may not like that very much though.

Only Film Officially banned in America: by Clintons

In an explosive new interview, award-winning filmmaker Cyrus Nowrasteh (The Stoning of Soraya M., The Young Messiah) detailed how Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly used their influence at Disney/ABC to effectively ban the 2006 miniseries The Path to 9/11, which examined the events leading up to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001.

“The amazing thing was the Clintons were able to put pressure on Disney/ABC basically to bury their own movie that they spent $40 million on, The Path to 9/11, which did air once, by the way, over two nights, and was number one in the ratings with 20 million viewers,” Nowrasteh told KSFO The Morning Show’s Brian Sussman.

The filmmaker said that in many ways, the Clintons are “more effective” at censorship “than the ayatollahs in Iran,” who banned his 2008 film, The Stoning of Soraya M., for its critical examination of the Iranian government. While Nowrasteh was able to smuggle DVD copies of Soraya M. into Iran, the filmmaker said “the Clintons made sure that no one can see The Path to 9/11.”

Nowrasteh said his miniseries, which won an Emmy and was nominated for six others in 2007, covered the period spanning the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 until September 11, 2001 “in factual detail, which was really the problem for the Clintons because we portray the opportunities that Bill Clinton had to kill bin Laden, and passed on it.”

“By censoring it, they made sure that the DVD was never released so that Americans could not see it, and they made sure that it was never re-broadcast,” he continued. “It is basically the only banned film in America.”

The film was apparently so politically controversial for the Clintons that Senate Democrats, led by

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), reportedly threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license if changes were not made to the film.

“[The Clintons] are out to silence their critics, as aggressively as they can possibly get away with,” Nowrasteh told KSFO. “The suppression of The Path to 9/11, the burying of it, the making sure that no DVD of it was ever released by a major company in this country, was all a direct result of her run for the presidency, her initial run. She was ultimately defeated by Barack Obama, but that’s what it was all about.”

Sussman asked Nowrasteh which is worse: the “blatant censorship” of Iran when it banned The Stoning of Soraya M., or the “sophisticated, backroom censorship” of The Path to 9/11 in the United States.

“I think the latter is worse, because we know better,” Nowrasteh replied. “This country is founded on freedom of expression, and freedom of artistic expression, and the mainstream media fell in line behind the Clintons.”

Nowrasteh concluded by saying that he was “hoping and praying” that no one would ban his upcoming film, The Young Messiah, which explores the life of a 7-year-old Jesus Christ. The film will be shown at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) next month before opening in theaters across the country on March 11.

The Foster Murder: 23 Years Later

WASHINGTON – It’s been 23 years since Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster was found dead in a Virginia park, setting off one of the biggest controversies of the Clinton administration.

Foster, a boyhood friend of Bill Clinton and partner of Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, was discovered on July 20, 1993, lying in Fort Marcy Park with a fatal gunshot wound.

Two independent investigations, the first led by Robert Fiske and the second by Kenneth Starr, concluded Foster suffered a single, self-inflicted wound. A simple suicide. Case closed.

But newly discovered evidence unearthed from boxes stored deep in the National Archives lend credence to theories about foul play and cover-up that have been hinted at by at least three books and countless articles.

The newest piece to the puzzle was uncovered by two citizen researchers, one of whom was a witness involved in the case from the beginning.

What had only been suspicions about missing death-scene photographs are now proven to exist.

The smoking-gun information comes from two documents: a two-page letter of resignation and a 31-page memo both written by Starr’s lead prosecutor, Miguel Rodriguez.

Rodriguez refers in his letter to photographs showing a wound on Foster’s neck – a wound that did not exist according to accounts in Starr’s official government report.

The obvious questions: How could a suicide victim be found with two wounds – a .38-caliber gunshot into the mouth that exited through his head and another wound on the right side of his neck that one of the paramedics described as a small-caliber bullet hole? And why would the government investigators go to great lengths to cover it up?

Another question some will be asking is about Hillary Clinton’s embattled presidential run. Can it survive renewed scrutiny into one of the darkest clouds that hovered over her husband’s administration – especially considering her close friendship with Foster and the fact that her aides were seen rifling through files in Foster’s White House office just hours after his body was found?

See WND’s “Big List” of Clinton scandals.

The newly discovered evidence has actually been sitting, unnoticed or ignored by the media, in the National Archives and Records Administration for years. In 2009, two documents created by Rodriguez were discovered in the archives by researchers Hugh Turley and Patrick Knowlton.

But Knowlton was not just any amateur researcher. He was a grand-jury witness who happened to be in Fort Marcy Park the day Foster died and noticed discrepancies that were never addressed by Starr’s report.

Allan Favish, a Los Angeles attorney who took a Freedom of Information Act case all the way to the Supreme Court seeking access to photographs of Foster’s body as it lay in the park, said he started looking into the case shortly after Foster’s death in 1993.

It was Favish who brought the National Archive discoveries by Turley and Knowlton to the attention of WND.

“It all started in the mid-1990s, not too long after Foster’s death, and I saw on the Internet, which was very unsophisticated at the time, some people posting things about the death,” Favish told WND. “In particular a fellow named Hugh Sprunt wrote 300 pages analyzing the documents released [up to that point]. He found there was a lot of room for skepticism about a suicide in the park. Hugh Turley was also involved very early on along with Knowlton.”

Rodriguez’s resignation letter to Starr dated Jan. 17, 1995, says he was quitting because evidence was being overlooked in a rush to judgment in favor of suicide and closing the grand-jury investigation.

Rodriguez mentioned the existence of original photographs showing a wound to Foster’s neck – the same photographic evidence Favish had been seeking in legal battles that stretched from 1997 through 2004. Favish’s request for the missing photos, filed under the Freedom of Information Act, was ultimately denied in 2004 by a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read Favish’s brief filed August 2003 at the Supreme Court.

The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.

“At meetings and via memoranda, I specifically indicated my disagreement that there existed ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Foster committed suicide where he was found at Ft. Marcy Park,” Rodriguez wrote to Starr in his resignation letter.

‘New photographic evidence’ cited

Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.

Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.

Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.

Four paramedics recalled seeing Foster’s neck wound when they had their memories “refreshed” by “new photographic evidence,” Rodriguez told Starr. Rodriguez indicates the FBI had originally shown these witnesses “blurred and obscured blowups of copies of (Polaroid and 35mm) photographs.”

What the FBI had apparently done was to use a Polaroid camera to take pictures of the original Polaroid pictures, essentially producing blurry “copies of copies.”

The FBI claimed some of the original photos taken by Park Police had been under-exposed and were basically useless. But when Rodriguez found the original images buried in a file, he took them to an independent photo lab used by the Smithsonian Institute and had them enhanced. He was astounded at what they showed. What had once been a blurred spot on the neck, possibly a blood stain as claimed by the FBI, was now clearly something much more.

One of the paramedics, Richard Arthur, described it as a bullet hole about the size of a .22-caliber round.

In January 2001 Favish filed a motion requesting permission to take a deposition from Rodriguez so he could question him about the photos. His motion was denied by a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles and ignored by the appeals court in D.C.

Rodriguez went on to explain in his resignation letter that immediately after he produced the new photographic evidence he came under personal attack by Starr’s staff.

“After uncovering this information, among other facts, my own conduct was questioned and I was internally investigated,” Rodriguez wrote. “I steadfastly maintained, and continue to maintain, that I, at all times, conducted myself as an experienced and trained prosecutor, with years of federal prosecutorial experience and federal grand jury experience.”

Rodriquez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.”

Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

“In effect, for raising the above questions, I was forced out of my job,” he wrote to Starr.

He ended his resignation letter to Starr with a stinging epithet:

“I no longer believe in the dynamics of the decision-making process presently employed in your Washington, D.C., office.”

The other key document found in the National Archives is a 31-page memo from Rodriguez that also refers to the second wound on Foster’s neck.

At pages 18-19 of the memorandum, Rodriguez stated that one of the photos “clearly depicts a dark, burnt appearing, blood area on VF’s neck.”

He further stated that he reminded one of Starr’s deputy counsels that “only two identical sets of 18 polaroid photographs were provided to OIC [Office of Independent Counsel]. One photo clearly depicts a dark, burnt appearing, blood area on VF’s neck. The D.C. medical examiner who observed the photo stated that, if the picture were cropped and without knowing more, the burnt blood patch looked like a bullet hole or puncture wound. Based on my own experience and training I am confident the traumatized area was caused by a ‘stun-gun’ or ‘tazer’ [sic] type weapon.

“In addition, I pointed out that the third EMT to the body, EMT [Richard] Arthur, concluded that there was a puncture wound or bullet wound on VF’s neck. I offered that such wound(s) would explain the upper right shoulder blood.”

Rodriguez’s findings from the enhanced photographs were never included in the Starr report.

Hillary’s scandals

Rodriguez’s memo also raises questions about Foster’s purported motives for suicide – some of which tie in to Hillary Clinton’s roles in administration scandals involving Whitewater and the White House Travel Office.

The memorandum, dated Dec. 9-29, 1994, includes the subject title: “November 29, 1994, Meeting Concerning Foster Death Matter and Supplemental Investigation Prior to Grand Jury.”

Here Rodriguez gives harsh criticism of the investigation conducted under previous independent counsel Robert Fiske, who had concluded there existed “overwhelming evidence” in support of death by suicide.

That was simply not true, according to Rodriguez.

“The Fiske counsel report conclusions are not fully supported by the existing record and that the report contains misstatements and supposed facts that are inconsistent with the record,” Rodriguez wrote.

And Fiske’s claim of “overwhelming evidence” to “support voluntary discharge of the weapon in suicide or support that [Foster] was alone the afternoon of his death” was not supported by the facts on record, according to Rodriguez’s December 1994 memo.

“…there is not ‘overwhelming’ evidence to support the report’s conclusions regarding motivation for suicide,” he wrote, then added that “Before any discussion, [Mark] Tuohey disagreed.”

Tuohey was Starr’s deputy counsel. Starr’s report would end up confirming Fiske’s contention of “overwhelming evidence” in support of suicide.

Rodriguez also questioned Foster’s motivation for committing suicide.

“Regarding motivation, generally, I pointed out that numerous ‘state of mind’ issues are inconsistent with suicide,” he continued, adding that Foster had “indicated to a number of individuals that he was optimistic about work-related events to come and that he was planning future family events.”

Reports that Foster was receiving medical treatment for depression were greatly exaggerated, Knowlton told WND. His doctor had prescribed over the phone a low dosage of the anti-depressant Trazadone, which at the time was commonly prescribed as a treatment for insomnia.

Hugh Turley, a Maryland resident and independent researcher, met Patrick Knowlton at a conference some months after the Foster death and discovered they had a mutual interest in the case. They started comparing notes.

With the assistance of attorney John Clarke, they filed Freedom of Information requests for documents produced by the various attorneys investigating the case for Starr.

It was Turley, Knowlton and Clarke who authored the 20-page appendix attached to Starr’s final report, issued in October 1995. Starr did not want to include the appendix but he was ordered to do so by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Turley told WND that he believes the biggest story to come out of the Foster case is the failure of the American press to report on the appendix, which unravels the Starr report piece by piece.

“We wrote the appendix, that the D.C. court ordered Starr to include. He asked the three-judge panel not to include it and they said ‘sorry you have to include it’ and so we literally wrote the final 20 pages of his report, and we’re as much an expert on this case as Ken Starr,” Turley said.

Those 20 pages contain evidence of an alleged cover-up, grand-jury witness intimidation and criminal activity by Starr’s own staff.

“We know probably as much about the case as the perpetrators of the cover-up,” Turley said. “They may know a little bit more than we do.”

Turley and Knowlton have placed all of the documents on their website, FBIcover-up.com. Included are reams of official government documents, photos, and audio recordings of Rodriguez in which he states his belief that his investigation was thwarted by a cover-up.

“You can listen to Rodriguez, who said he went to the press, and they never reported it. You can go to our website and read all these documents, and see they haven’t been reported yet,” Turley said. “And it’s been almost 20 years.'”

The evidence of the neck wound is listed as Exhibit 5 in the appendix to the Starr Report.

“I don’t think you can actually beat the official report itself,” Turley said. “People always say Starr ruled it was suicide but then it’s contradicted right in his own report, in the appendix.”

In just one example of the lengths to which the establishment media has gone to keep the facts presented by Turley and Knowlton from public view, the Washington Post has posted on its website what it calls “the full text” of Starr’s report on Foster’s death. But, in the very next sentence to its introduction the Post clarifies that “This file does not contain the report’s footnotes or appendix.”

“After telling you they have the complete report they admit they haven’t given you the whole story,” Turley said.

Clinton routed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in South Carolina on Saturday, winning 74 percent of the vote to Sanders’ 26 percent. While the huge margin of victory is good news for Clinton — polls had her winning, but more narrowly — the overall voter turnout must set off alarms for her campaign, as well as for the Democratic party. Whereas 532,000 South Carolina Democrats voted in 2008, only 367,000 showed up Saturday.

Democrats have seen a 26 percent decrease in the number of voters and caucusgoers who have showed up to the polls this year compared to 2008, when the party last had a competitive primary race.

That 26 percent slide mirrors the increase on the GOP side.

Just over 1 million showed up to the first four caucuses and primaries in 2012. This cycle, nearly 1.27 million Republicans have cast a vote.

Last week’s Nevada caucuses saw a similar fall. An estimated 120,000 caucusgoers showed up in 2008 compared to 80,000 this cycle — a 33 percent ding. Clinton bested Sanders in that contest as well.

The decrease in the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primaries saw turnout fall as well, though the least of the four Democratic contests so far. In 2008, 288,672 Democrats voted. In 2016, 250,983 did so. That marks a 13 percent decline. Sanders won handily, taking 60 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 38 percent.

Just over 171,000 Iowa Democrats took part in the Feb. 1 caucuses. That’s 29 percent fewer than the estimated 240,000 who showed up in 2008.

This phenomenon is of course not mentioned on many of the MSM programs. It is setting up for the most compelling landslide in election history in two ways. First, record numbers of voters are coming out to state unequivocally that they are not going to tolerate the DC Crime Syndicate anymore. They want a CEO to go to Washington and say, “Boys, this racket you all have been running for the last 50 years is over.” The second way is a resounding and absolute rejection of socialist policies where the rich and middle class are boiled off and condensed into a baby formula for the masses of people who never want to work a day in their lives. Well, that is about as long as that would last in America. One day. And then, the money would run out. Then, the hell the Democrats have been trying to break loose in this country would crash and burn every storefront in the country. Once the SNAP cards are turned off, complete mayhem would ensue, which is exactly what they have been posturing for the past 7 years. America is about to say no in the biggest way possible. A complete shutout at the polls.