|
|
Thank you Kent Lamberson
|
NO CRYIN' in the CAN!
Clinton Foundation CFO: ‘I know where all the bodies are buried’
December 8, 2018 by Jerry McCormick A meeting between an investigator and a high-ranking Clinton official may have just turned the tide against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Andrew Kessel, the CFO of the Clinton Foundation, stunned an MDA Analytics investigator, reportedly stating, “I know where all the bodies are buried in this place.” The “bodies” to which Kessel was referring are apparently the evidence of unscrupulous accounting and spending by the Clinton Foundation. Kessel’s statement was recorded in a memo from an interview in November 2016, a memo which is part of hundreds of pages of evidence collected by MDA Analytics LLC, reports the Hill’s John Solomon. Taking Down the ClintonsMDA says it was created for one purpose and one purpose only… to investigate the wrongdoings of charities like the Clinton Foundation. The idea is that if wrongdoing was found, MDA would be rewarded with a portion of any tax dollars recovered by the government against the Clinton Foundation. Without knowing the foundation was under investigation, Kessel had sat down with someone he believed was trying to work with the foundation. Kessel allegedly made some incriminating statements about the foundation, specifically the out of control spending habits of Bill Clinton. According to the report, Bill regularly spent Clinton Foundation funds as though they were his own, combining personal and professional expenses. According to an MDA memo, Solomon reports, Kessel allegedly said, “There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds.” DenialsThe Clinton Foundation is already trying to cover its tracks. It is claiming Kessel was misled and that he never actually made the statements MDA is claiming he made. A foundation spokesperson stated, “Mr. Kessel believed he was meeting an old professional acquaintance who was looking for business from the foundation.” The denial is holding little water right now, though, as there are other facts to back up the alleged statements made to MDA. In 2008, the Clinton Foundation actually conducted an internal investigation which also happened to uncover the same practices described by Kessel to the MDA investigator. The attorney hired to conduct the investigation, Kumiki Gibson, expressed concerns over the same commingling of personal and foundation expenses by the Clintons. This report does not bode well at all for Bill and Hillary.Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Bill Barr, seems like someone who might be willing to investigate the Clintons. And a House committee is preparing for a hearing next week to look into the Clinton Foundation’s shady financial practices and allegations of quid-pro-quo against Hillary Clinton. Could this finally be the beginning of the end for the most corrupt couple in our country’s history? ___________________________  Secretary Clinton approved the sale of American uranium to Russian benefactors while Secretary of State in 2010.
BREAKING: Clinton Informant Breaks Silence, Survived Murder Attempt Before ‘Critical’ Testimony
Posted by Bryan Zormeier | Nov 20, 2017 | Breaking News Capitol Hill has been swept into a Russian frenzy since the 2016 election. As Democratic and Republican legislators alike scramble for any whiff of Putin, the establishment has begun to crumble. The special counsel headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller is tasked with finding any and all Russian collusion and election meddling. The Senate has created a committee to probe into the dealings of the auction of American uranium to Russia. As secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton approved a deal to sell one fifth the United States uranium production to a Russian company. Senate Republicans will be holding a closed door testimony of a secret informant concerning bribery and extortion from within the Russian company. The Uranium One Deal involved a 2010 sale of the Canadian company, Uranium One, with mines inside the continental United States. The buyer was the Russian company Rosatom. Rosatom is a nuclear power company owned by the Russian state. Uranium One and Anfield’s “Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill” facility sits outside Ticaboo, Utah, U.S., The Senate committee was hoping to keep their star witness’ name a closely guarded secret. An FBI informant and former Uranium One employee has decided to come forward for his own personal safety. William D. Campbell worked as a lobbyist for the Canadian company. The FBI informant has recently come forward and revealed to Reuters he is the one who will be providing the Senate committee with documents and testimony. Hillary Clinton has called the Senate investigation a farce and a distraction from Mueller’s investigation into President Trump. Campbell said he decided to testify because of Russia’s actions in our election. While working with the FBI on a bribery and kickback investigation, Campbell informed the government about Rosatom’s corruption. However, despite the warnings, Rosatom still got permission to buy out Uranium One. The case Campbell had been working with the FBI in 2010 had no direct ties or links to the Uranium One deal. Campbell, while gathering evidence of bribery and corruption, claims he has gathered more than enough evidence of political corruption despite working in a separate division than that of the Uranium One acquisition. Warning signs are displayed near Uranium One and Anfield’s “Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill” President Trump, recognizing the importance of an anti-corruption crackdown, requested that the Justice Department lift a gag order pertaining to the bribery case. The Department of Justice partially lifted the gag order. With the gag order lifted, Campbell will be able to testify in full. The Department of Justice has sent an open letter to the Senate suggesting that a special prosecutor may be appointed to handle the case. Under Secretary Clinton, the state department was part of 9 agency committee on foreign investment. Allegations include a pay for play scheme with money being funneled through the Clinton Foundation charity fund. Campbell worked as an informant for federal authorities building a case against Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official. Authorities went on to accuse Mikerin of taking bribes from a shipping company in exchange for contracts to transport Russian uranium into the United States. Mikerin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison for four years. The Justice Department had also charged Mikerin with extorting kickbacks from Campbell after hiring him as a $50,000-a-month lobbyist. At this point Campbell went to the FBI. Charges were dropped after certain details about Campbell’s lobbying firm came to light. His name was never mentioned on any charges. Most recently, Campbell has confided to close friends that he’s afraid that he won’t be able to testify today. The informant explained that during a routine hike in the hills behind his home, he met an armed man. The two gentlemen held each other’s gaze with weapons drawn. After an intense moment the man walked away. Campbell believes this was an attempt on his life, caused by the Department of Justice’s release concerning his testimony. The former lobbyist suggests that had he not been carrying a weapon he would have been killed, and he also implied there is a connection between Clinton and the would be assassin. If he’s given the opportunity to testify, Hillary Clinton could be locked away for 12 plus years. Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been contacted by investigative journalists from The Hill. It is believed that William D. Campbell has video of briefcases full of money used to bribe US officials in the Russia uranium scandal directly involving Hillary Clinton. ____________________________ Hillary Commissioned The Phony Trump Dossier And Covered It Up
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann on October 25, 2017 Now we know that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that commissioned the dossier that made the phony allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia. Think about it: A presidential candidate from one party secretly contracted with a DC smear organization to hire a foreign national — a British ex-intelligent agent — to find dirt on the other presidential candidate. They funneled the payments through a DC law firm, where they thought the details would be buried in confidentiality agreements. And they were for over a year. Because Hillary and her agents lied about their involvement. It was only when a subpoena was issued that threatened the release of all of Fusion GPS’s banking records and client names that the truth came out. They had no choice. That’s vintage Hillary – using campaign funds to hire private eyes to find dirt on her opponent. She did it before to silence the victims of her husband’s sexual assaults. But this time she went over the top. It wasn’t a local private eye; it was a former MI-6 agent who had spied on the Russians and was friendly with both the FBI and MI-6. Hillary has pretended all along she knew nothing about how the dossier came to exist. In her book What Happened? she disingenuously says that: “In the summer of 2016…The FBI began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. As if she knew nothing about it and hadn’t been the one who arranged for it and paid for it. She acted like she only read about it in the newspaper. But she knew all about it. And so, did her lawyers and flacks who lied to the press for over a year. But it was Hillary’s dossier — and it caused all the trouble that she had hoped it would: The false allegations in the dossier formed the basis of Hillary’s campaign charges that Trump was a “puppet” of Putin, They provided the justification for the FISA Court to approve surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump associate, They were at the core of the media coverage of the charge of Trump collusion with Putin These allegations led directly to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special prosecutor to investigate the issue of Trump collusion with Russia. Hillary was in the thick of it. But don’t expect an explanation from her. She doesn’t do them. But we need some explanations. We need to know whether the Clinton campaign fed any information to the British spook to include in the dossier. He says he got most of his information from “unsolicited” sources. Was Clinton one of those sources? And how did they pick this particular former British spy to do the research? Was it because he could count on the cooperation of MI-6 or of the FBI because he had worked in the FIFA (soccer) investigation? And didn’t Mueller and Comey have to know that the dossier, on which so much was based, was a campaign document amassed at Hillary’s behest? Wouldn’t that suggest a bias? If the FBI couldn’t figure that out, they need to be off the case. From what “unsolicited sources” did Steele get his information? Did the FBI and MI-6 play a role? Finally, who gave the dossier to BuzzFeed, prompting its distribution throughout American media and its injection into our political dialogue? Fusion, Steele, and Senator John McCain each deny that they gave the dossier to the publication. Did the FBI or the Hillary campaign do so? We know that Fusion and Steele tried desperately to get the national media to cover the story before the election. When that failed, they worked to get it released even after the election. Now it’s caught up with them. Russian meddling in our election has proven to be largely illusory. Placing some ads on YouTube or Facebook is hardly enough to sway a U.S. presidential election. But the fact that one candidate for president laundered money through a law firm to dig up dirt on her opponent from a foreign national with ties to foreign intelligence agencies and then leaking it to the government and the press, making its fictitious allegations the basis for appointment of a special prosecutor is the real scandal here. ___________________________ JW: New Clinton Emails Show Classified Information Sent to Clinton Foundation Employees
Published on Jun 1, 2017 Judicial Watch today released 2,078 pages of documents revealing more instances of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified information via an unsecured email server. They also show Clinton’s daughter Chelsea and others involved with the Clinton Foundation receiving special favors from Huma Abedin, the former secretary’s deputy chief of staff. "These shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations." --JW President Tom Fitton -FULL TRANSCRIPT- Judicial Watch released shocking new emails today from Huma Abedin’s account showing that Hillary Clinton once again may not have told the truth when she said she turned over all of her emails to the State Department and investigators. Now we also know, again, there are more classified materials in here showing that Clinton was sharing classified information with Clinton Foundation people; looks like there may be more of a pay for play scandal here. Also some unusual activity with the Russia-America Foundation, so people will be interested in that. Plus, it looks like Chelsea Clinton got a free ride on a State Department plane to watch a soccer match in Europe. It shows why the Justice Department should reopen, reinvigorate, and reexamine all the Clinton, Inc. investigations. A lot to see here in Judicial Watch’s new disclosures 
Fresh State Dept. Records Released Yesterday Prove America Dodged A Bullet With Hillary Clinton
Posted by Sam Di Gangi | Mar 30, 2017 | Breaking News Hillary Clinton has been found with even MORE breaches of proper handling of both sensitive and classified information. All during the campaign, the one common refrain that Hillary Clinton heard above all else was concerning her misuse of email servers. The facts of her cavalier attitude towards classified material dogged her every day of her run until calls to “LOCK HER UP!” were surpassed by her defeat. It seems that the flow in corruption from Clinton is not something that corked itself shut after her loss. New information released from Judicial Watch shows 1,184 pages of State Department records that expose even more depth to her folly. To quote their recent article, this includes “previously unreleased Hillary Clinton email exchanges, revealing additional instances of Abedin and Hillary Clinton sending classified information through unsecured email accounts and contributors being given special access to the former secretary of state.” Basically, the State Department is telling us that America has certainly dodged a bullet by not having her in office. Huma Abedin is not a name that we have heard since Clinton’s run and Anthony Weiner’s sexting, but she is not forgotten to those who are conducting investigations into the handling of classified material by the campaign. A court order from May 5, 2015, is what caused the new information to come to light. It was a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against the State Department following the failure “to respond to a March 18 FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)),” according to the article. The trails of neglect and misuse of power that surrounds Clinton and her family all lead to her being unfit for office. That includes the NYC Mayor’s office, too. The wording of the lawsuit is as follows: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009, through February 1, 2013, using a non-“state.gov” email address.” Revealed were “29 previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” bringing the total count thus far to “288 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department.” The data is said to have been “classified as the material includes information to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources.” Information about Guantanamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed was included in an email, as was his request for “various classified intelligence documents,” which contained the case that the government had against him. This information could have (and may have been for all that we know) been hacked and sold to ISIS or used as blackmail to do so. This is just one possible way that such data could be abused, of which there are many. Clinton’s use of various Blackberry phones was also called into question during her campaign. It is revealed also that in April 2010, Sid Blumenthal sent a pair of messages to Clinton containing information that is now classified, again showing that she had no prowess or instinct in the handling of sensitive data. This was then forwarded via unsecured networks to Huma as information to be printed out about “change of government in the Kyrgyz Republic.” February 2010 saw former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton, Jake Sullivan, emailed to “Clinton’s and Abedin’s [sic] unsecure email accounts” data that the State Department called “to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources.” The loss of protocol continues on April 2010,March 9, 2010, March 15, 2010, and, February 23, 2010. They talked about the funerals of Bill and Hillary Clinton. There were even emails found that showed Clinton telling where she was going to be and when. This latter tidbit may sound as though it only jeopardizes her, but the email was sent to “Clinton Foundation officials Doug Band, Terry Krivnic, Margaret Steenberg, and others, and forwarded to Abedin’s [sic] unsecure email account.” Not only were all of those lives put at risk, but so were her service details, other officers who were to be present, and likely many others. Also, this opened the door for her other unsecured networks to be hacked to eavesdrop at certain times, since we know already that her Blackberry was in question. Clinton is finding out that her past sins, once deeply hidden, are coming to light. The never ending litany of facts against Clinton will never stop nor slow, it seems. They go on and on like some nightmare that returns every time that we close our eyes. Democrats will charge that this does not matter since she did not win, but such a thought has no basis in fact. The hard truth is that the kinds of things gleaned just from what we know that she did so far are things that could have fallout well into the future. This was seen by her husband’s poor presidential performance that saw our nation’s nuclear trade secrets fall into Chinese hands. Today, many years removed from the negligence, America has WMD made from that very technology pointing at us and our families. Also hidden is the fact that Hillary Clinton has dropped not only hints, but copious amounts of campaign signs, upon New York City. She has designs on being the mayor of the Big Apple, and since the city leans so far to the left that they can not stand upright, she could easily win. Do we want people sitting in the Mayor’s Seat that have a history of corruption, bad intelligence handling and no idea how to send or store classified or sensitive data? New York has seen enough misery due to bad practices, some even suggest that these kinds of lackadaisical mindsets are what lead to 9/11. Are we going then to elect someone who would allow something like it to happen again? Between the scandals of her aid, Huma, her sexting husband Anthony Wiener (pictured), and the email revelations, one would hope that voters will refuse to elect Clinton for anything. Beyond the fact that Clinton is soft on the border, wrong on trade, wrong on healthcare, and mistaken on global warming, this cheater is also terrible with information that the voters elect her to be mindful of. Even Democrats have to see that they may be opposed to all things “Republican,” but at the end of the day, they don’t want themselves nor their families harmed. Upon seeing this news and when viewing them in light of how poorly Clinton really did at each of her jobs, even if the handle is pulled for a Democrat in that Mayor’s Chair, it may not be for Clinton. For those that love their lives and their nation, electing someone who could not be bothered to learn why some servers are secured against threats, both foreign and domestic, is not someone who they want at the seat of power in the city that never sleeps, because hackers don’t rest, either. ___________________________  IMAGE CREDITS: TOM WILLIAMS/CQ ROLL CALL, JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES.
EXCLUSIVE: RUSSIAN BANK DOCS SHOW HOW PUTIN LAUNDERED MONEY TO HILLARY & PODESTA
Now we know why Clinton & Co. were so desperate to frame Trump with ties to Putin Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 21, 2017 Today Infowars investigative journalist Jerome Corsi met with former vice-head of Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee, Curt Weldon, to discuss his committees’ deep research into the Clinton technology transfers to Russia in exchange for Clinton Foundation donations. Weldon validated much that is presented in the following article, which is part one of a series of investigative articles coming out over the upcoming week based on intel by Weldon and other sources: WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congress may want to examine concrete evidence showing Russian President Vladimir Putin paying Hillary Clinton and John Podesta for a long time before the mainstream media goes even more overboard trying to fabricate a tie between Putin and President Donald Trump. The money trail hunt begins with a document Infowars has obtained from the Russian Central Bank “Registry of Significant Control,” known generally as the “RSC Registry.” This document traces the ownership of Metcombank, a relatively small Russian-domiciled bank located in the Russian Ural Mountains, to ownership by Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin. As we shall see this document provides evidence of the circuitous path the Russian government has been using since Hillary Clinton was secretary of state to make large financial payments to John Podesta and to the Clinton Foundation. Be sure to keep referring to this document to cross-check as you continue reading the article below. As the RSC Registry makes clear, Vekselberg has been paying Clinton and Podesta through a complicated money laundering scheme involving Metcombank in Russia, with payments tracing back to the Renova Group, a Russian-based energy and investment international conglomerate also owned by Vekselberg. A March 1, 2013 article from Russian media in which Vekselberg confirmed the questionable bank deposits.The funds rediverted to Clinton and Podesta through the Renova Group and Metcombank originate in large part from Rusnano — a state-owned investment fund owned by the Russian government. Conveniently, Vekselberg is a board member for Renova. A NYT article from April 23, 2015 revealing how Clinton made military transfers to Russia. The entire scheme involves a Netherlands-listed private company that plays prominently into the international money laundering the Russian government has been conducting through offshore entities in the Cayman Islands, as documented by the Panama Papers. Money laundering schemes created by professional criminals are typically complicated. To begin understanding the RSC registry on Metcombank, note that the bottom box on the chart (second page) makes clear that Vekselberg effectively owns 100 percent of Metcombank. First, the simple part. Metcombank appears to be the bank Vekselberg has used to make transfers to the Clinton Foundation, with the money flowing first through the Moscow branch of Metcombank, and from there into Deutsche Bank and Trust Company Americas in New York City, finally ending up in a private bank account in the Bank of America that is operated by the Clinton Foundation. How Putin paid Podesta is more complicated. John Podesta, the campaign chairman of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential run. Podesta has deep ties to Russia despite blaming President Trump of the same.The complication begins when we examine the RSC Registry and realize that Vekselberg owns Metcombank through a series of intermediary companies, starting with the Renova Group, a Russian corporate conglomerate with interests in oil, energy, and telecommunication that lists Vekselberg as chairman of the board. The Renova Group owns and operates Renova Assets Ltd., a private investment company headquartered in the Bahamas for which Bloomberg lists no key executives, board members, or members of the executive committee. Conveniently, Vekselberg also has ties to Rusnano, the Russian State Investment Fund, via his ownership and management of the Renova Group in Russia. In 2011, Vekselberg directed Rusnano to make a $35 million investment into Joule Unlimited, a small Massachusetts-based energy company, owned by Joule Global Holdings, N.V., in the Netherlands, with Joule Global Stichting, the ultimate controlling entity. The Rusnano investment into Joule Unlimited was made when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spearheaded the transfer of U.S. advanced technology to Russia, some with military uses, as part of her “reset” strategy with the country. As previously reported, in the summer of 2011, while he was advising then-Secretary Clinton on State Department policy, John Podesta joined the board of three Joule entities: Joule Unlimited, a small Massachusetts-based energy company; its holding company, Joule Global Holdings, N.V., which was based in the Netherlands; and Joule Global Stichting, which appears to be the ultimate controlling entity. Podesta, it turns out, has been paid an undisclosed amount, starting in 2011, for serving on the executive board of Joule Unlimited that he neglected to report to regulatory authorities in the U.S., as well consulting fees from the Wyss Foundation, a group controlled by Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, an investor in Joule Energy. In an Aug. 2016 report entitled “From Russia with Money,” the Government Accountability Institute noted that Podesta consulted for a foundation run by one of the investors in Joule Energy, Hansjörg Wyss, who in turn was a major Clinton Foundation donor. Podesta was evidently paid $87,000 by the Wyss Foundation in 2013, according to federal tax records. The GAI report also documented the Wyss Charitable Foundation has given between $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. Joule Global Stichting was established in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on March 14, 2011. John Podesta joined the Joule Global Stichting’s executive board on June 25, 2011. The Joule Global Stichting is a foundation, but it’s not strictly a foundation in the charitable sense. A foundation of this type, a Dutch stichting, is a popular means for reducing one’s tax burden, as noted on the website of the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which is at the heart of the Panama Papers investigation into offshore banking and money-laundering operations as archived and released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The Government Accountability Institute concluded that although Podesta is listed on the corporate records, he failed to disclose his membership on the board of Joule Global Stichting in his federal financial disclosure forms when he joined the Obama White House as a senior advisor. To complete the circle, Vekselberg, the Renova Group, the Skolkovo Foundation, and Hansjörg Wyss all have ties to the Clinton Foundation, either as substantial donors or as participants in the Clinton Global Initiative. Joule Global Stichting and Joule Global Holdings, N.V., also figure prominently as a client of Mossack Fonseca. ___________________________ 
Mainstream Media Recap: Who Colluded With the Clinton Campaign?
This election cycle was unprecedented in terms of the bias and lack of objectivity exercised by the mainstream media By Michael Sainato • 11/21/16 4:00pm Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks to the press onboard her plane September 5 above Iowa. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images In April 2015, the Clinton campaign held a private dinner party with at least 65 journalists and pundits in attendance. Individuals from CNN, CBS, The New York Times, NBC, MSNBC and more came together under the campaign’s stated goal of “framing the race” to help Clinton win. Many of the above media outlets were indeed the Clinton campaign’s biggest surrogates throughout the 2016 presidential election. This past election cycle was unprecedented in terms of the bias and lack of objectivity exercised by the mainstream media. The emphasis on mainstream media blaming “fake news” for Donald Trump’s election is an attempt to distract and divert the feedback loop developed between the Clinton campaign and much of the press. Throughout the 2016 election, the media obsessed over Trump to elevate his candidacy. He was their preferred opponent for Hillary Clinton--after they had thoroughly subverted Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic nomination. Several journalists from The New York Times, which formally endorsed Clinton twice, created propaganda for the Clinton campaign rather than independent journalism. The Times’ Mark Leibovich allowed Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri to “veto what you didn’t want” from his interview with Clinton. Maggie Haberman was listed by the Clinton campaign as a friendly reporter with whom they could plant stories. Haberman also allowedClinton campaign staff to proofread her pro-Clinton stories. The Times’ Patrick Healy published a “heroine” piece planted by the Clinton campaign about New Hampshire Clinton campaign volunteer Laura Donahoe. Jonathan Martin was revealed to have been coached through a story on the Clinton campaign by manager Robby Mook. Jason Horowitz solicited a quote from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta on a hit piece about the relationship between President Obama and Sanders. The New York Times wasn’t alone. Politico reporter Ken Vogel had Democratic National Committee (DNC) communications director Luis Miranda review an article before he sent it to editors as part of an agreement with the DNC. Politico has since called Vogel’s actions “a mistake.” Glenn Thrush also allowed Podesta to approve articles. CNN published an anti-Sanders Op-Ed written by Clinton lobbyist Maria Cardona—it was proofread by the DNC. The Intercept reported in May that an Op-Ed ostensibly written by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and intended to discredit Sanders was actually written by a Clintonlobbyist and proofread by a Clinton Super PAC, which sent the article to CNN. CNN regularly featured pundits with financial ties to the Clintons, yet failed to disclose those ties before the pundits praised Clinton. DNC interim chair Donna Brazile was revealed to have obtained CNN debate questions while working for the network and forwarded them to the Clinton campaign. CNN also allowed the DNC to compile questions to be asked during interviews with Republican candidates on air. In the WikiLeaks release of DNC emails, The Washington Post was exposed to have hosted a joint fundraiser with the Clinton campaign. The paper published hyperbolic hit pieces on Sanders throughout the primaries, including the editorial board calling his campaign “fiction-filled” and an article published with the titleclaiming that nominating Sanders would be “insane.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s (FAIR) Adam Johnson pointed out the Post published 16 hit pieces on Sanders in the span of 16 hours in early March. Harper‘s Thomas Frank wrote also a detailed piece on how WaPo sabotaged Sanders during the primaries. Wall Street Journal reporter Laura Meckler received a letter leaked to her from DNC communications director Miranda and used it to write a hit piece on Sanders during the primaries. Miranda used the same reporter to criticize Sanders in the media over convention platform appointments. The Associated Press was cited by the Clinton campaign as a publication in which they could plant stories with friendly journalists Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper, including discussions regarding the private email server scandal. Robby Mook’s assistant emailed fellow Clinton staff members asking what time would they prefer the story be published by the AP. They also called the Democratic primaries for Clinton before California even voted, citing anonymous superdelegates. MSNBC halted negative coverage of former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultzafter she called the network’s president, Phil Griffin, to complain. Two days after Clinton campaign staff discussed how to attack Sanders on campaign finance by citing a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) retreat he attended several months earlier, MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote a Sanders hit piece using the very same criticisms. Seitz-Wald, like many other pro-Clinton journalists, started out at John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Seitz-Wald also propagated the chair-throwing myth at the Nevada Democratic Convention to discredit Sanders and his supporters. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd held a private party for Jennifer Palmieri while she was working as the Clinton campaign communications director. MSNBC host Joy Reid regularly pushed false narratives in order to help Clinton, especially in regards to WikiLeaks. Rachel Maddow premieredads from Clinton Super PACs on her show. CNBC correspondent John Harwood emailed Clinton Podesta on a regular basis, soliciting access in exchange for friendly coverage on Clinton. Several prominent bloggers—MTV News’ Jamil Smith, Guardian columnists Sady Doyle and Jessica Valenti, Tech LadyMafia founder Aminatou Sow, America’s Voice Gabe Ortiz and Latino blogger Elianne Ramos who was later hired by the Clinton campaign—were selected by Clinton campaign staff to attend a conference call in which they could disseminate information they wanted the bloggers to propagate “without our fingerprints.” Vox’s editor in chief, Ezra Klein, was cited by Clinton campaign staff as an attack dog they could use to push out a story they were putting together. All these outlets and networks played significant roles in perpetuating false narratives in favor of the Clinton campaign. This includes the “Bernie Bros” myth, the whitewashing of the Sanders campaign, and adding superdelegates to Democratic primary tallies, even though they don’t cast their votes until the Democratic National Convention. The DNC and Clinton campaign manipulated mainstream media coverage to further Clinton’s candidacy, especially in the Democratic primaries. Clinton’s lack of press conferences during the primaries and general election are symptomatic of her not willing to deal with any media not entirely subservient to the campaign’s political agenda. As the mainstream media offers more excuses to avoid responsibility and accountability for this election, major press reforms are needed. Admitting the vast amounts of unethical, pro-Clinton coverage among media elites would be a good start. 
 Clinton & McAuliffe - Justin Sullivan/Getty Imagesby BREITBART NEWS
WSJ: Terry McAuliffe Sent Big Bucks to Wife of FBI Official Involved in Clinton Email Case
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images by BREITBART NEWS 24 Oct 20162,092 Gov. McAuliffe responds to article on giving to Dr. Jill McCabe's election campaign A report says that Terry McAuliffe gave over half a million dollars in campaign cash and material support to the wife of an FBI official who was involved in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, homebrew email server from which she conducted all her business as Secretary of State — including the sharing of classified information.From the Wall Street Journal: The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use. Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI. The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort. Mr. McAuliffe and other state party leaders recruited Dr. McCabe to run, according to party officials. She lost the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black. … The FBI said in a statement that during his wife’s campaign Mr. McCabe “played no role, attended no events, and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind. Months after the completion of her campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to Deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.” Read the rest of the story here. _________________________ Hillary Clinton’s “Sudden Move” Of $1.8 Billion To Qatar Central Bank Stuns Financial WorldEditor / 3 days ago Editor’s Note: One possibility is that Hilary is ducking the country never to return and her “death”will be reported along with a very emotional and hyped funeral service where they will try to outdo Princess Diana with plenty of “crisis actors” throwing flowers after her hearse and news coverage on CNN and Fox will go on ad-nauseum. Meanwhile back at the palace in Qatar along with her $1.8 billion…call the Clinton’s Bonny and Clyde!
from What Does It Mean: An intriguing Ministry of Finance (MoF) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that elite Western bankers were “stunned/bewildered” a few hours ago after the Bank For International Settlements (BIS) registered a $1.8 billion transfer from the Clinton Foundation (CF) to the Qatar Central Bank (QCB) through the “facilitation/abetment” of JP Morgan Chase & Company (JPM)—and for reasons yet to be firmly established. According to this report, the Bank for International Settlements is the world’s oldest international financial organization and acts as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions; the Qatar Central Bank is the bank of that Gulf State nations government and their “bank of banks”; JP Morgan Chase & Company is the United States largest “megabank”; and the Clinton Foundation is an international criminal money laundering organization whose clients include the Russian mafia. With Hillary Clinton’s US presidential campaign Chairman John Podesta having longstanding ties to the Russian mafia and money laundering, this report continues, the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) maintains “complete/all times/all ways” surveillance of him and his criminal associates—including both Hillary Clinton and her husband, and former US President, Bill Clinton, and who are collectively designated as the “Clinton Crime Family”. On Saturday 15 October (2016), this report notes, the SVR reported to the MoF that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta met with JP Morgan Chase & Company CEO Jamie Dimon at Clinton’s Chappaqua Compound outside of New York City—and who, in 2009, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to break US laws by his, Dimon’s, being able to buy millions-of-dollars of his company’s stocks prior to the public being told his JP Morgan bank was receiving a Federal Reserve $80 billion credit line—and that caused JP Morgan’s stocks to soar and that have had an astonishing 920% dividend growth since 2010. Within 12 hours of the Hillary Clinton-John Podesta-Jamie Dimon meeting at the Chappaqua Compound, this report continues, the BIS registered the transfer of $1.8 billion from the Clinton Foundation to the Qatar Central Bank. To why the Clinton Foundation transferred this enormous sum of money to Qatar, this report explains, is due to the longstanding ties between this Islamic neo-patrimonial absolute monarchy and then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who “oversaw/managed” the “massive bribery scheme” that allowed this Gulf State nation to secure the 2022 World Cup—and that the Qataris were so appreciative of they donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, and incredibly, in 2011, gave former US President Bill Clinton $1 million for a birthday present—bringing Hillary Clinton’s total “cash grab” from these Persian Gulf sheiks of $100 million—all occurring as recently released secret emails revealed Hillary Clinton’s knowledge that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia were, and still are, funding ISIS. To what Jamie Dimon “related/said to” Hillary Clinton that caused her to suddenly transfer $1.8 billion to Qatar, this report notes, revolves around his JP Morgan bank being told by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in April (2016) that this “megabanks” master plan to save itself had “serious deficiencies” that could “pose serious adverse effects to the financial stability of the United States”. Two months after the FDIC’s warning letter to Jamie Dimon, in June (2016), this report says, he cryptically “sounded a warning” that the United States sub-prime auto loan bubble was nearing collapse and stated that “someone is going to get hurt”. Unbeknownst to the American people, MoF experts in this report explain, is that just 8 weeks ago multiple warnings began to be issued that the United States $1 trillion sub-prime auto loan bubble was beginning to collapse—and that this past week became so severe the Bank of America issued a recession warning telling its elite customers that “this market is scary”, and the British-based multinational banking and financial services company HSBC, likewise, issued a “Red Alert” warning all of its clients warning them to “prepare for a severe market crash”. With one of the first “victims/casualties” of this sub-prime auto loan bubble being the German global banking giant Deutsche Bank that is “nearing its doom” and laying off tens-of-thousands of it workers worldwide, this report grimly states, the American mainstream propaganda media is failing to allow the people of that nation to know the full extent of this looming catastrophe—who unlike Hillary Clinton who has just protected $1.8 billion of her wealth, will be left defenseless once again at the hands of their elite rulers. As Wikileaks secret Hillary Clinton emails have now proven that the US propaganda mainstream media is now totally controlled by her, and who continue their blackout on the “Clinton Crime Story of the Century”, this report continues, the absolutely horrifying statistics released this week showing that an astounding 35% of American who have been brutalized by the Obama-Clinton regime these past 8 years are so buried in debt they can no longer pay their bills is, likewise, being kept from these most innocent of peoples. And rather than the US propaganda mainstream media warning the American people of their economies looming destruction, this report concludes, they have, instead, begun a “systemic mainstream misinformation” campaign to manipulate the presidential election polls showing Hillary Clinton leading—but that stands opposed to actual (but unreported) polls showing Donald Trump leading. Critical Note: A highly classified SVR amendment to this MoF report states that upon Qatar receiving Hillary Clinton’s $1.8 billion earlier today, one of that sheikdoms royal places was “ordered emptied” in preparation for the “early November arrival” of a “high value” dignitary—Hillary Clinton perhaps? ____________________________ 
Thank you Kent Lamberson
BANISHED - The Untold Story of Danney Williams - Bill Clinton's son?
 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton rips Donald Trump during a video conference of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (Photo: screenshot)
TOP 36 HILLARY F-BOMBS, FLIP-OUTS AND EYE-POPPING TANTRUMS'
They f---ed us, Bill! We need to get rid of these assh---s'Published: 2 hours ago 5 In just three weeks, American voters might just “unleash Hellary” on the nation – electing a president known to fly into foul-mouthed fits of rage, hurl dangerous objects at people’s heads, physically attack a former president and even diabolically tongue-lash Secret Service agents sworn to protect her with their lives. That’s according to dozens of witnesses – many former Secret Service agents, Arkansas state troopers and an FBI agent – who might say Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton is what Rush Limbaugh could call “a witch with a capital B.” But don’t expect the mainstream media to start digging into Hillary’s reported temper tantrums any time soon. While the major networks focus single-mindedly on an 11-year-old video recording of GOP nominee Donald Trump making sexually charged comments about women, they virtually ignore claims by witnesses who say Hillary’s foul-mouthed fits of rage happen even today. And those expletive-laced explosions are enough to make any right-minded American recoil in horror. During her campaign for the Democratic Party nomination and the presidency, Hillary has reportedly made the lives of her staffers a living hell. “Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left her staff members in tears and unable to work,” a campaign aide told Edward Klein in 2015, according to a New York Post report. “She though the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her, and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.” According to the report, Hillary blasted a low-level campaign worker who had made a scheduling mistake. When Hillary viciously berated her, the worker turned and began to walk away. That’s when Hillary reportedly grabbed her by the arm.Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs In one June 2016 report, it was revealed Hillary hurled a Bible at a Secret Service agent’s head, according to former agent Gary Byrne, who said her explosions grew worse as the Clintons’ time in the White House went on. Byrne warned Hillary is too “erratic, uncontrollable and occasionally violent” for the presidency. Hillary has even “beaten Bill, hit him with hard objects, scratched and clawed him, and made him bleed,” according to the 2015 book, “The Clintons’ War on Women,” by authors Robert Morrow and Roger Stone. Former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers said Hillary sometimes exploded and belittled people: “Mrs. Clinton go really angry. … The president didn’t really attack personally. Mrs. Clinton sometimes did … not only would she humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around, Hillary tended to kind of run a campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience.” A Clinton driver claimed Hillary would throw “yellow legal pads, files, briefing books, car keys.” WND’s request for comment from Hillary’s campaign hadn’t been returned at the time of this report. These stories of Hillary’s explosive and violent tantrums are also confirmed the 2016 book, “Hillary the Other Woman,” by Dolly Kyle: “[M]any people gloss over the reports about what I call Hillary’s vexcapades, her screaming, cursing, and throwing fits usually as a result of Billy’s sexcapades. Ordinary folks can easily understand how she would be upset with him for having sex with untold numbers of other women while ‘married’ to Hillary. Many people think that her behavior was justified by his provocations, no matter what she said or did. … I’ve heard troopers telling funny stories about Hillary that really weren’t funny, such as slamming kitchen cabinets so hard that the doors came off the hinges, and throwing glassware across the room. … Hillary could get away with it as long as she didn’t do it in public. If anyone ever reported her behavior, then that person was swiftly condemned in public as a liar. … Hillary’s contemptuous, uncontrolled outbursts are so extreme that most people cannot wrap their minds around the possibility that a First Lady could act like that.” The following is a list of Hillary’s most eye-popping, foul-mouthed, belittling “vexcapades” directed at her husband, the men and women who protect her, her political enemies and even her own friends. See the best selection of 2016 political bumper stickers around! Attacking Secret Service agents, state troopers, aides “Go f— yourself!” – Hillary screams at a Secret Service agent. He had passed her in the West Colonnade of the White House and greeted the first lady with, “Good morning.” This quote is reported by former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne in his 2016 book, “Crisis of Character.”“They f–ed us, Bill! We need to get rid of these assh—s, Bill! They’ve had it out for out from the beginning!” – Hillary convinced Secret Service agents left over from the George H.W. Bush administration were conspiring against the Clintons, according to Byrne’s “Crisis of Character.” “If you want to remain on this detail, get your f—ing ass over here and grab those bags!” – Hillary’s purported outburst directed at an unnamed Secret Service agent who had explained his duties did not include carrying suitcases from her plane to her limo, according to the 1999 book, “The First Partner,” by Joyce Milton. “Stay the f— back, stay the f— away from me! Don’t come within 10 yards of me, or else! Just f—ing do as I say, OK?” – Hillary’s reported explosion at Secret Service agents as they explain that they must remain nearby to effectively protect her. The quote comes from the 1996 book, “Unlimited Access,” by Gary Aldrich. “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!” – Hillary flips out on a Marine One pilot after the helicopter had been nearing Air Force One and was headed for home. The quote is found in the 2003 book, “Dereliction of Duty,” by Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson. “F–k off! I have to see you s–t-kickers every day. I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your g-d-damn job and keep your mouth shut” – Hillary’s response to an Arkansas state trooper after he greeted her with, “Good morning,” according to Christopher Anderson’s 2004 book, “America Evita.” “[You] f—ing idiot.” – Hillary’s outburst at an Arkansas state trooper driving her to an event. This quote was reported in the 1999 book, “Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation,” by L.D. Brown. The Clintons’ corruption is exposed in “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” available at the WND Superstore! Concerning Bill’s ‘indiscretions’ “You stupid, stupid bastard. My God, Bill, how could you risk everything for that?”– Hillary reportedly slapped Bill and admonished him for having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. This quote was included in the 1999 book, “Bill and Hillary: The Marriage,” by Christopher Anderson. “These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them!” – Hillary’s purported statements concerning Bill Clinton’s sex accusers during the 1992 presidential campaign. This quote was included in the 1999 book, “Bill and Hillary: The Marriage,” by Christopher Anderson.“What the f— do you think you’re doing? I know who that whore is. I know what she’s here for. Get her out of here.” – Hillary sees one of Bill’s girlfriends in early 1992, just before they moved into the White House. This quote is reported in the 1995 book by Ronald Kessler, “Inside the White House.” “I want you to do damage control over Bill’s philandering. … Bill’s going to be president of the United States. … I want you to get rid of all these b–ches he’s seeing. … I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.” – Hillary speaking to Little Rock private investigator Ivan Duda in 1982, according to the 2005 book, “The Truth About Hillary,” by Edward Klein. “Come on, Bill, put your d–k up! You can’t f— her here!” – Hillary reportedly shreds Bill, then governor of Arkansas, for speaking to an attractive woman at an event, according to Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson. The quote is reported in a January 1994 American Spectator article by David Brock and the 1995 book by Ronald Kessler, “Inside the White House.” Pet names for Bill, etc. “Where’s the miserable c–k sucker?” – Hillary’s reported question shouted to a Secret Service agent in reference to the whereabouts of her husband, Bill Clinton. This quote appears in the 2005 book, “The Truth About Hillary,” by Edward Klein. “Come back here, you assh–e! Where the f— do you think you’re going?” – Hillary explodes on Bill, according to the 1998 book, “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House,” by Gary Aldrich. “What the f— are you doing up there? You get back here right away.” – Hillary blasts Bill Clinton on the phone in 1993 just after the president had traveled to Boston and spoken to the National Governors Association, suggesting he would be flexible on the universal coverage and employee mandates in his health plan. Just one day after he returned to the White House, Bill retracted his remarks, claiming he was still fully committed to universal coverage. This quote was included in the 2006 book, “The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House,” by John F. Harris. “You f—ing assh—e!” – Hillary screams at Bill on the morning of his Inauguration Day as the two waited in a holding room within earshot of a reception room where congressional leaders had been waiting for the ceremonies to begin. The quote appears in the 1999 book, “Hillary’s Choice,” by Gail Sheehy.“You stupid motherf—er!” – Hillary flips out on Bill in front of news media on his Inauguration Day, according to the 1996 book, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” by David Brock. “G-d damn it, Bill, you promised me that office.” – Hillary complaining to her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, on Inauguration Day because he didn’t give her Vice President Al Gore’s office, which was located near the Oval Office. This quote was included in the 1999 book, “Bill and Hillary: The Marriage,” by Christopher Anderson. “That sorry son of a b–ch” – A common Hillary phrase to describe Bill Clinton when he was Arkansas governor, according to Christopher Anderson’s 2004 book, “America Evita,” and Ronald Kessler’s 1995 book, “Inside the White House.” “Motherf—er” and “C—sucker” – More of Hillary’s purported nicknames for husband Bill, according to R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.’s 1996 book, “Boy Clinton: The Political Biography.” “You are a real s–t. Do you know that, Bill? Christ, a real s–t.” – Hillary erupts on Bill, according to the 1999 book, “Bill and Hillary: The Marriage,” by Christopher Anderson. Racist and anti-Semitic outbursts “Stupid k-ke” and “f—ing Jew bastard” – Hillary purportedly used these terms to describe Jewish people somewhat frequently, according to the 2016 book, “Hillary the Other Woman,” by Dolly Kyle, Bill Clinton’s longtime childhood friend.“You f—ing Jew bastard” – Hillary explodes at campaign manager Paul Fray in 1974 on the night of Bill Clinton’s defeat in his run for the House of Representatives, according to the 2000 book, “State of a Union,” by Jerry Oppenheimer. “That god-damned n—er” – both Hillary and Bill reportedly used this term when they referred to Jesse Jackson, according to the 2016 book, “Hillary the Other Woman,” by Dolly Kyle. The Clintons’ corruption is exposed in “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” available at the WND Superstore! On her enemies “That’ll teach them to f— with us!” – Hillary’s statement to aides after a 1998 “Today Show” interview with Matt Lauer during which she claimed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was out to get her and Bill. This quote was reported in the 2000 book, “The Case Against Hillary Clinton,” by Peggy Noonan. “What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!” – Hillary explodes at aide Rahm Emanuel when she learns in 1993 that he had planned a bipartisan event in the White House East Room. He had invited Republican former Secretary of State James A. Baker to speak in support of NAFTA, which Hillary supported. This quote appears in the 2006 book, “The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House,” by John F. Harris.“Son of a b–ch!” – Hillary reacts to news that President George W. Bush has made a surprise visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and received a heartfelt welcome from U.S. troops as he served them Thanksgiving dinner in 2003. The president’s visit, which was covered extensively by the news media, took place just before Hillary’s arrival. This quote is reported in Christopher Anderson’s 2004 book, “America Evita.” “F— him, Bill! He’s Reagan’s g-d-damn vice president!” – Hillary speaking to her husband about an invitation from then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to visit his Maine home in 1984, according to the 199 book, “Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation,” by L.D. Brown. “You sold out, you motherf—er! You sold out!” – Hillary, as a first-year law student at Yale in 1970, blasts high-profile attorney Joseph Califano, who had been representing Coca-Cola during a congressional investigation into the company’s use of migrant labor at Minute Maid’s Florida orange groves. This quote is found in Califano’s 2004 book, “Inside: A Public and Private Life.” On her friends, allies and constituents “Gentlemen, I’ve looked at your proposal, and it’s pure bulls–t! Now you’ve had your meeting! Get out!” – Hillary’s purported statements to insurance executives who weighed in on the Clintons’ health-care plan, according to the 1998 book, “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House,” by Gary Aldrich. “G-d damn, L.D., did you see that family right out of ‘Deliverance’? Get me the hell out of here.” – Hillary to L.D. Brown, an Arkansas state trooper, while she attended a county fair and had spoken to Arkansans wearing overalls and cotton dresses. This quote was reported in the 1999 book, “Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation,” by L.D. Brown. “This is the kind of s–t I have to put up with.” – Hillary reportedly told a friend after a supporter presented her with earrings shaped like the Arkansas Razorbacks, according to the 1996 book, “Blood Sport: The President and His Adversaries,” by James B. Stewart. “Bimbos,” “sl-ts,” “trailer trash,” “rednecks,” “sh-t-kickers” – Terms Hillary purportedly used to describe Arkansans, according to Christopher Anderson’s 2004 book, “America Evita.” Other gems “How long do I have to stay home with this kid? What would look right to people around here?” – Hillary complains to her close friend, Louise, about feeling trapped at her Arkansas home with her new baby, Chelsea. Hillary was not pleased when Louise told her she should wait about three months before returning to work. This quote was reported in the 2016 book, “Hillary the Other Woman,” by Dolly Kyle. “Where is the g-d-damn f—ing flag? I want the g-d-damn f—ing flag up every f—ing morning at f—ing sunrise.” – Hillary rips an Arkansas trooper early one morning in 1991 when the U.S. flag hadn’t been raised yet, according to a January 1994 American Spectator article by David Brock. “When are they going to get those f—ing retards out of here?!” – Hillary, also known as Arkansas’ “Mother of the Year” in 1984, grows impatient as handicapped children slowly collect their Easter eggs on the lawn of the Arkansas governor’s mansion. The quote is found in the 2016 book, “Hillary the Other Woman,” by Dolly Kyle. Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs Read more at ___________________________ 
ASSANGE BACKED INTO A CORNER, DROPS BOMB ON ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT
POSTED BY: ADMIN OCTOBER 7, 2016 Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have done this world a great service. While they are not the group actually hacking agencies, they have spent more than ten years collecting, validating, archiving, and disseminating information the people deserve to see. WikiLeaks has played a major role in exposing Hillary Clinton, as well. While many others have made great attempts,they lacked the physical evidence hidden in government documents.When Assange released everything he had to expose the DNC for rigging the election in favor of Hillary over Bernie Sanders, his proof overwhelming led to many resigning. The same effect is about to occur on Hillary Clinton and her cartel. Assange has dropped a crumb, and he is waiting to see who will pick it up and run with it. Emails released will unequivocally show that Hillary Clinton is the Founder of ISIS, and Barack Hussein Obama helped her. As we are well aware, Hillary is denying these claims, but it will be hard to deny when we see Assange break it down via this video and with the emails from her server. Here is a video showing the American people that while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton approved and sold weapons to ISIS. First, WikiLeaks proved that Hillary Clinton received classified intelligence stating that Obama wassupporting Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the group that changed their name to ISIS. The leaked memo made it abundantly clear that ISIS was dangerously forming into a caliphate, but Obama and Hillary did not listen to our Generals. Toppling dictators and supporting terrorist groups has never been a great plan, but Hillary never seems to learn from her mistakes. She created ISIS to topple Assad in Syria and she funded terrorists in Libya to topple Qaddafi. ISIS now controls both areas thanks to Crooked Hillary. In August 2012, a “SECRET” classified memo made its way to Hillary Clinton and Obama. The intelligence report from 2012 also predicts that segments of Al Adnani’s AQI group will break off and join ISIS, making them much stronger: ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY. This leaked memo proves Obama and Hillary saw this information in 2012, which was just before ISIS rose to their prominence. The second example of Hillary creating ISIS comes from documents showing she approved weapon sales to ISIS while she was Secretary of State. Hillary authorized the shipment of American-made weapons to Qatar, a Muslim Brotherhood nation, and one that works with Libyan rebels. When she funded them, it was to topple Qaddafi, but that plan quickly backfired. When Hillary armed these “good rebels,” they toppled Qaddafi. Afterwards, they joined forces with terrorist groups and carried out the Benghazi attacks. Yes, the very people Hillary provided weapons to carried out the Benghazi attacks onour own soldiers. That is why she waited 13 hours to respond. She was worried about covering up her weapon sales to these terrorists instead of saving the four Americans that lost their lives. Hillary Clinton still refuses to admit the truth. She lies about all of this, even when leaked documents prove that her actions and policies literally funded and armed them before they became ISIS and grew into a global jihadi network that has more than 50,000 followers. They continue to carry out attacks on American soil and they have infiltrated nearly all of Europe. On top of all of that, Hillary is also proposing that we import more than 110,000 Syrian refugees into the United States every single year if she becomes our president. Julian Assange is risking his life to share these leaks. He has lived in the same Embassy for many years out of fear for his life. If we don’t continue to share these leaks, we are doing a disservice to someone that is risking their life to expose the truth. Imagine everything exposed before you. Now imagine what will happen to the United States if she wins this election. We can no longer sit around and hope that she loses. We all need to rise up together and expose the truth. That is the only way we can take our country back and take down the Clinton Cartel for good. She must be exposed for all of her crimes! Posted by Martin Walsh | Oct 6, 2016 | National Security ____________________________  THONY BELIZAIRE/AFP/Getty Images
Former Haitian Senate President: Clintons Exploited Haiti Earthquake ‘to Steal Billions of Dollars from the Sick and Starving’
THONY BELIZAIRE/AFP/Getty Images by JOHN HAYWARD21 Sep 20161,495 Bernard Sansaricq, former president of the Haitian Senate, issued a blistering statement condemning the Clinton Foundation, which has been posted at Donald Trump’s campaign website.Sansaricq’s statement says: Sadly, when an earthquake rocked the nation of Haiti in 2010, corruption moved in faster than the help so desperately needed. Today, the people of Haiti are still suffering despite the billions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons exploited this terrible disaster to steal billions of dollars from the sick and starving people of Haiti. The world trusted the Clintons to help the Haitian people during their most desperate time of need and they were deceived. The Clintons and their friends are richer today while millions still live in tents. The world deserves to know where the money went and why help was never sent. The situation Sansaricq refers to is discussed in detail here, and also features prominently in Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. Speaking at a Trump rally last Friday, Sansaricq accused President Bill Clinton of trying to bribe him. He said his visa was revoked after he refused the offer. A group of Haitian protesters demonstrated against the Clinton Foundation’s actions in Haiti during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. ___________________________ Published on Jul 2, 2016
An attorney in 1975 uses some dirty tricks to get a child rapist off for raping a 12 year old girl. And the lawyer is none other than.... Here are just two sources: "The HIllary Tapes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13... CNN Reports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akO1m... This is Hillary Clinton's original sin, make her OWN IT!
Kathy Shelton wants her story known! She wants the world to know what Hillary Clinton did to her in 1974 as a 12 year old girl! Please Share Kathy's story with all your friends, especially those who have daughters and might vote for Hillary Clinton. 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generallyCurrent through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)(a)
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. ___________________________ Clinton, 1995, immigration, SOTU Bill Clinton talking about immigration in the 1995 State of the Union.
 Cheryl Mills speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sept. 3, 2015. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Secrets of Cheryl Mills
If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity? By WILLIAM MCGURN Sept. 26, 2016 7:31 p.m. ET Why did Cheryl Mills require criminal immunity? This is the irksome question hanging over the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server in the wake of news that Ms. Mills was granted immunity for her laptop’s contents. Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State. Here’s the problem. There are two ways a witness can get immunity: Either she invokes the Fifth Amendment on the grounds she might incriminate herself, or, worried something on the laptop might expose her to criminal liability, her lawyers reveal what this might be before prosecutors agree to an immunity deal. As with so much else in this investigation, the way the laptop was handled was out of the ordinary. Normally, immunity is granted for testimony and interviews. The laptop was evidence. Standard practice would have been for the FBI to get a grand-jury subpoena to compel Ms. Mills to produce it. Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, puts it this way: “It’s like telling a bank robbery suspect, ‘If you turn over that bag, I’ll give you immunity as to the contents’—which means if the money you robbed is in there, I can’t use it against you.” The Mills immunity, which we learned of on Friday, has unfortunately been overwhelmed by the first Trump-Clinton debate. But the week is still young. On Wednesday, Congress will have an opportunity to put the Mills questions to FBI director James Comeywhen he appears before the House Judiciary Committee. Back in July, Mr. Comey must have thought he’d settled the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails with a grandstanding press conference in which he asserted “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her based on what the FBI had found. In so doing, he effectively wrested the indictment decision (and any hope for political accountability) from the Justice Department. Plainly even his own agents weren’t buying, given that Mr. Comey later felt the need to issue an internal memo whining that he wasn’t being political. Now we learn about the multiple immunity deals. Immunity in exchange for information that will help make the case against higher-ups is not unusual. Even so, the Mills deal carries a special stink. To begin with, Ms. Mills was pretty high up herself. As Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, she was in the thick of operations. In 2012, while working at State, she traveled to New York to interview candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation. More disturbing still, not only was Ms. Mills granted immunity for the content on her laptop, she was permitted to act as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney even though she herself was also a witness in the investigation. This was allowed in part because she told the FBI she knew nothing of Mrs. Clinton’s private server until after she’d left the State Department. But this claim is suspect and contradicted by emails that have since emerged. These include one to Huma Abedin asking, “hrc email coming back—is server ok?” The special treatment accorded Ms. Mills also reeks on a more fundamental level. As a rule, the Justice Department is aggressive about going after lawyers for any perceived conflict of interest. This would include, for example, a lawyer who wanted to represent different parties in a trial. By giving Ms. Mills a pass to serve as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney in an investigation in which she was a material witness, Justice allowed her to shield her communications with Mrs. Clinton under attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Ms. Mills invoked that privilege during her own FBI interview. Imagine Tom Hagen, the mob lawyer played by Robert Duvall in “The Godfather,” discussing with Don Corleone who was to get whacked—and then invoking the lawyer-client relationship to hush it up. Think of it this way and you begin to get the picture. For those who think the fix was in from the start, Ms. Mills’s presence at Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview, along with nine other people (not including the two FBI agents) is further evidence of a circus. Judiciary Committee members might do well to ask Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills and so many others were allowed to sit in on that interview. In short, far from resolving Mrs. Clinton’s email case, the handling of the investigation has provoked questions about integrity of both the FBI and Justice. The big question for Mr. Comey remains this: You publicly said there was no case for criminal charges. So what did Cheryl Mills need immunity for? Write to [email protected]. ___________________________ |
|
HRC Headin to the Can
|
DJT - Time HRC Got the Can
|
HRC Cryin in the Can
|
HRC - "TP Too Rough"
|
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you - Kent Lamberson
|
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton has had numerous coughing fits during her 2016 run for the White House (Photo: Twitter)
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/nbc-news-hammered-for-reporting-hillarys-cough/#VfQv7GoSfv2c5lXW.99
|
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
Thank you Kent Lamberson
I swear I had "NO" Cigars on the Plane with LL
Thank you Kent Lamberson
|
 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (photo credit: State Chancellery of Latvia via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
Hillary Clinton Elevates the Federal Reserve to God-Status
Don't question the Fed's infallible wisdom By Terry Schilling on September 8, 2016 On Monday, Donald Trump stated what is essentially a fact to anyone who follows financial markets — the Federal Reserve has created a “false economy” that has artificially inflated the stock market. Via Reuters: “They’re keeping the rates down so that everything else doesn’t go down,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s request to address a potential rate hike by the Federal Reserve in September. “We have a very false economy,” he said. “At some point the rates are going to have to change,” Trump, who was campaigning in Ohio on Monday, added. “The only thing that is strong is the artificial stock market,” he said. This isn’t controversial. The financial media constantly speculate about whether the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates and how that will impact the markets. It is generally understood that higher interest rates spell trouble for equities — and that would be especially true given the historically overbought status of the stock market. Hillary Clinton certainly knows this. She’s not stupid. But, whether out of loyalty to Goldman Sachs or out of political expediency, Clinton responded to Trump’s comments by defending the Federal Reserve as an institution that should be above reproach: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton criticized Republican rival Donald Trump on Tuesday for making comments about the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, which she said should be off-limits for U.S. presidents and presidential candidates. “You should not be commenting on Fed actions when you are either running for president or you are president,” Clinton told reporters on her campaign plane. “Words have consequences. Words move markets. Words can be misinterpreted.” “He should not be trying to talk up or talk down the economy, and he should not be adding the Fed to his long list of institutions and individuals that he is maligning and otherwise attacking,” she said. Clinton has criticized Congress. She’s criticized the Supreme Court. She criticizes everybody . . . except, apparently, the Federal Reserve. This begs the question — does Clinton believe the Federal Reserve is infallible? Does she really believe that no accountability or oversight is needed or even warranted? Really? No wonder Goldman Sachs likes her so much. First of all, in order to be infallible, you probably need to be correct once in a while. A broken clock gets it right more often in a day than the Federal Reserve does in a year. Their economic projections are consistently off the mark, so much so that even The New York Times, no opponent to monetarism, has admitted that the Federal Reserve frequently gets its growth projections wrong by a lot. The Fed is like the captain of a rudderless ship, sailing aimlessly into the abyss, to and fro, assuring us it knows exactly how to get to land, even as our rations are running out. And Hillary wants us to blindly trust the captain! Facts are a stubborn thing, and the reality is that the Fed’s low interest rate policy has done a lot of damage to a lot of people. Yes, it resulted in an inflated stock market, as Trump suggested. That certainly benefited the richest one percent of Americans. But what about normal everyday people who aren’t invested in the stock market? What about American workers who haven’t received a raise in 16 years? What about families who are struggling to get by as food and health care costs soar? As Sean Davis previously wrote at The Federalist, rising prices and stagnant wages are real: …[E]verything the Fed has done since 2008 has been done for one reason: to raise prices. The central bank’s zero interest rate policy, or ZIRP, was not instituted to make deflation more likely. QE1 was not implemented to decrease prices. QE2 was not implemented to decrease prices. QE3 was not implemented to decrease prices. It’s not conspiracy mongering to point out that what’s happened — higher prices — happened precisely because the Fed wanted…higher prices. Is the Fed the only reason for higher prices? Of course not. But it’s clearly a factor. Trump is correct to criticize the Fed. Our broken monetary policy is one of the biggest problems holding our economy back. Until we return to market-set interest rates, the Fed will continue to distort wages and prices and promulgate income inequality. Terry Schilling is the executive director of American Principles Project. ___________________________ 
Hillary Clinton Won’t Say How Much Goldman Sachs CEO Invested With Her Son-in-Law
Lee Fang, Henrik Moltke May 27 2016, 3:11 p.m. Photo: Henrik Moltke/The Intercept WHEN HILLARY CLINTON’S son-in-law sought funding for his new hedge fund in 2011, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein. The fund, called Eaglevale Partners, was founded by Chelsea Clinton’s husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and two of his partners. Blankfein not only personally invested in the fund, but allowed his association with it to be used in the fund’s marketing. The investment did not turn out to be a savvy business decision. Earlier this month, Mezvinsky was forced to shutter one of the investment vehicles he launched under Eaglevale, called Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after losing 90 percent of its money betting on the Greek recovery. The flagship Eaglevale fund has also lost money, according to the New York Times. There has been minimal reporting on the Blankfein investment in Eaglevale Partners, which is a private fund that faces few disclosure requirements. At a campaign rally in downtown San Francisco on Thursday, I attempted to ask Hillary Clinton if she knew the amount that Blankfein invested in her son-in-law’s fund. Watch the video: After repeated attempts on the rope line, I asked the Clinton campaign traveling press secretary Nick Merrill, who said, “I don’t know, has it been reported?” and said he would get in touch with me over email. I sent the question but have not heard a response back. The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. Read More... __________________________ 
Hillary-Huma email found in State Dept. IG report is being called SMOKING GUN!
May 25, 2016 | Carmine Sabia The smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email scandal has been found and it’s massive. According to Rachael Bade of POLITICO, a report from the State Departmentcontains an email in which longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin asked Clinton if she wanted to use State Dept. email. Clinton replied no because she wanted to maintain privacy. (Read More...) 
Trump is Right: ‘Fact Checkers’ Embarrass Themselves Covering for Hillary May 14, 2016
On May 7, at a campaign rally in Lynden, Wash., likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said, “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment. She wants to abolish it. Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away. She wants to abolish the Second Amendment.” Trump is correct. However, in the days since this statement, the Annenberg Foundation’s FactCheck.org and PolitiFact have bent over backwards to defend Clinton from this legitimate description of her positions. These outlets’ attempts to contort Clinton’s record to suit their agenda is so shameless one hopes the efforts prompt Columbia University to create a Pulitzer Prize for cognitive dissonance. “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”Here, in order to claim that Trump is wrong, both FactCheck.org and PolitiFact take a handful of statements Clinton and her campaign have made at face-value, while dismissing more candid statements by Clinton and her daughter Chelsea. On September 24, 2015, at a fundraiser held at the New York City home of John Zaccaro, Clinton made her views on the Second Amendment abundantly clear. An audio recording of the private event captured the candidate stating, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” On April 21, 2016, while campaigning for her mother in Maryland, Chelsea Clinton reiterated her mother’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Chelsea told the crowd, “It matters to me that my mom recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control. Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment, and sometimes the Court struck them down.” In recent years, there have been two landmark cases that have determined the meaning of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. In both cases, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Further, the cases made clear that a jurisdiction may not enact a complete ban on handguns or a ban on possessing functional firearms for self-defense in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller. Clinton has not, to our knowledge, sought to initiate the Article V constitutional amendment process to remove the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitution. However, these statements make clear that Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and is understood by the vast majority of Americans; as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. For most Americans, the Second Amendment is synonymous with protection of the individual right to keep and bears arms, thus an effort to eliminate the latter is rightly thought of as an attempt at abolishing the former. Illustrating this link in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, a USA Today/Gallup poll from February 2008 found that 73-percent of respondents understood the Second Amendment to protect “the rights of Americans to own guns,” rather than “members of state militias such as National Guard units.” In 2009, a similar CNN poll found that 77-percent of Americans endorsed the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Further, the vast discrepancy between Clinton’s privately shared beliefs and the public opinion data, is all the more reason to discount her more carefully prepared public statements on the topic as political pandering. It is fair to assume that Clinton and her campaign staff understand the American public’s position on this matter and have crafted their official statements accordingly. Remarkably, the FactCheck.org piece attempts to make a case against Trump’s statement by contending that Clinton’s views on the Second Amendment are in line with those of Justice Stephen Breyer in Heller. Justice Breyer signed onto Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent that rejected the correct individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment for a “sophisticated” collective rights meaning, and wrote his own dissent rejecting the position that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to self-defense. FactCheck.org may be correct in claiming Clinton’s view of the Second Amendment is similar to Breyer’s. However, this would be further evidence that Trump’s statement is correct. Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment as it is currently understood by the Supreme Court and most Americans, who soundly reject Breyer’s position. “Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away”To reject this statement, the “fact checkers” dismiss Clinton’s recent comments supporting an Australian-style firearms confiscation scheme by contending that she misspoke or did not understand the nature of Australia’s gun control measures. We give Clinton, who has been versed in the gun control issue for well over two decades, more credit than that. In 1996, Australia embarked on an effort to confiscate semi-automatic and pump-action firearms, forcing owners to turn in their firearms for a set amount of compensation. On October 16, 2015, while speaking before an audience in Keene, N.H., Clinton was asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, take away, tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. And in one year, they were all gone. Can we do that, and why if we can’t, why can’t we?” The question is straight-forward. The audience member asked about an effort to “take away” firearms in order make sure they were “all gone.” This does not comport with a question about voluntary “buybacks,” more accurately termed turn-ins. In her response, Clinton, exhibiting a knowledge of the contours of the Australian confiscation scheme, stated, “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.” Clinton concludes her answer by noting, “So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.” PolitiFact contends that Clinton’s answer may endorse some sort of voluntary turn-in, as in part of her answer she mentioned the voluntary turn-ins common to some U.S. communities. However, in the closing of her answer, Clinton makes clear she is referring to Australia, stating, “the Australian example is worth looking at.” Further, are we to believe that Clinton, whose husband presided over controversial and unsuccessfulfederally-funded voluntary turn-in programs is unclear of the difference between those efforts and the Australian experience? Again, Clinton deserves more credit. Clinton’s Record Proves She Warrants SkepticismAn overarching theme in the FactCheck.org and PolitiFact pieces is an unshakable deference to Clinton’s more moderate statements on gun control and the Clinton campaign’s explanations for her more radical admissions. What is there in Clinton’s history on the issue of gun control that would warrant such deference? Rather, the evidence from Clinton’s nearly 25-year public record of supporting extreme gun restrictions suggests she deserves the opposite. In 1993, the Clinton-chaired President’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform contemplated a sin tax on firearms to offset the cost of her husband’s universal healthcare plan. At a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the health care proposal, Clinton endorsed a 25-percent tax on firearms suggested by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), stating, “I’m all for that.” In 2000, while giving a speech at a Brady Campaign event during her first senatorial campaign, Clinton stated, “I’m the only candidate in this race who supports federal legislation to license handgun owners and register handguns.” Earlier that year, Clinton described her gun control agenda at the Newspaper Association of America’s Annual Convention. This included licensing of all handgun owners, a national registry of all handguns sales or transfers, a national ballistics fingerprinting database, a ban on affordable handguns, handgun rationing, and granting the Consumer Product Safety Commission the power to regulate firearms. In 2004, Clinton took to the Senate floor to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability arising from the unlawful actions of a third party. On March 6, after having been repeatedly attacked by Clinton for not opposing the PLCAA, Clinton’s opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said of her position, “what you’re really talking about is people saying let’s end gun manufacturing in America. That’s the implications of that. And I don’t agree with that.” In 2014, at the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference, Clinton attacked the Right-to-Carry, telling an audience, “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.” Given Clinton’s well-documented history of supporting the most radical types of gun controls and her own candid remarks regarding the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Australia’s gun control measures, for purported “fact checkers” to blindly accept the Clinton campaign’s spin reveals a severe bias. Such naked prejudice does more to diminish these media outlets’ own credibility than that of those they target with their spurious analysis. __________________________ 
WATCH: HILLARY CLINTON FAILS MISERABLY IN EXPLAINING WHY A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER’S HEALTHCARE COSTS ROSE $500
May 11, 2016 by Matt Vespa In December of 2015, Hillary Clinton admitted that Obamacare is turning America into a nation of part-time workers...(Read More...) 
Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC
David Brock, once a prominent part of what Hillary Clinton described as a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to undermine her husband's presidency, is now a driving force in the effort to get her elected to the White House. (Danny Johnston / Associated Press) By Evan Halper When the Internet’s legions of Hillary hecklers steal away to chat rooms and Facebook pages to vent grievances about Clinton, express revulsion toward Clinton and launch attacks on Clinton, they now may find themselves in a surprising place – confronted by a multimillion dollar super PAC working with Clinton. Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner. In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online. The plan comes as Clinton operatives grapple with the reality that her supporters just aren’t as engaged and aggressive online as are her detractors inside and outside the Democratic Party. The lack of engagement is one of Clinton’s bigger tactical vulnerabilities, particularly when compared with rivals like Donald Trump, whose viral social media attacks are legion, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is backed by a passionate army of media-savvy millennials. Some experts on digital campaigns think the idea of launching a paid army of “former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers” and others to produce online counterattacks is unlikely to prove successful. Others, however, say Clinton has little choice but to try, given the ubiquity of online assaults and the difficulty of squelching even provably untrue narratives once they have taken hold. At the same time, however, using a super PAC to create a counterweight to movements that have sprung up organically is another reflection of the campaign’s awkwardness with engaging online, digital pros said. “It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical,” said Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital. “That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about," he said. "It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.” The task force designed to stop the spread of online misinformation and misogyny is the brainchild of David Brock, a Clinton confidant who once made a career of spreading such misinformation and misogynistic attacks against her and Bill Clinton. His critics say he kept his taste for dirty tricks when he switched sides to become one of the Clintons’ most valued operatives. The mere mention of Correct the Record makes some critics seethe. Super PACs are typically prohibited from working in tandem with candidates, but Correct the Record is doing just that by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance law that it says permits such coordination with digital campaigns. Sign up for the free Essential Politics newsletter >> “Clinton, herself, is saying we need campaign finance reform,” said Paul Ryan, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group. “Yet her lawyers are pushing the boundaries to get around campaign finance laws.” Brock referred questions to Elizabeth Shappell, a spokesperson for the super PAC, who emailed a brief statement saying that Barrier Breakers, as the effort is labeled, "is only engaged in positive content, even when responding to offensive content, and is always identified" as Correct the Record, she wrote. The email also emphasized that Correct the Record is spending the million dollars in a way that it argues is legal under rules governing super PACs. The reaction to the initiative from supporters of Sanders has been predictable – and it has not been to reconsider their vitriol toward the front-runner. When actor Tim Robbins was confronted on Twitter after making the dubious assertion that election fraud is robbing Sanders of votes, he accused tweeters who challenged him of being paid shills for Brock. Within an hour, he had directed a variation of the same message at 88 different tweeters: “Dear @CorrectRecord operatives, Thank you for following today’s talking points. Your check is in the mail. Signed, @davidbrockdc” Those independent tweeters who challenged Robbins were not on Brock’s payroll. Correct the Record is not paying activists outside the organization to send messages, although it is arming them with instructions, talking points and postable infographics. But the Robbins response confirmed a well-established rule of social media: The kind of confrontations Correct the Record is manufacturing almost never win converts. Social media scholars say that's not necessarily a problem. “It will get the people already supporting Hillary Clinton riled up and more excited,” said Filippo Menczer of the Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research at Indiana University, who researches how and why misinformation takes hold on social media. Campaigns are grappling with the reality that there is no proven strategy for stopping the spread of even demonstrably false attacks on social media, he said. “This is a big problem, and we are nowhere close to knowing how to solve it,” he said. See the most-read stories this hour >> Correct the Record says it has already engaged with 5,000 Clinton attackers as part of this campaign. A lot of what gets posted online has been pretty benign, including images of a smiling Clinton alongside such phrases as “Love & Kindness” and “Thank you for Breaking Barriers with Hillary.” The campaign has been given credit by Sanders loyalists, however, for all manner of things that it has had nothing to do with, including posting pornography on pro-Sanders Facebook pages which resulted in them being temporarily taken down. (The pages went down as a result of a Facebook software glitch). David Karpf, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, said Clinton supporters are “using the tools they have at their disposal” — limited though they may be — to provide a counter-narrative to the increasingly hostile postings coming from some Sanders supporters whose hopes for victory are deflating. They're also getting ready for battle against Trump, he said. “Even if it doesn’t stamp out the rumors and attacks, this is the best they can do right now,” Karpf said. “In this day and age of campaigning, they absolutely have to do it.” That may be true, but the effort seems unlikely to be a game changer for Clinton's campaign, said Dan Gillmor, who teaches media literacy at Arizona State University. “I suspect it will be hard for paid operatives to win a trolling war against people who don’t need to be paid to troll,” he said. __________________________ 
Report: Clintons Are Paying Legal Bills For Aide Who Registered Private Email Address
CHUCK ROSS Reporter 1:36 AM 04/29/2016 The Clintons have paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to cover the legal bills for a Bill Clinton aide who sits at the center of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. That’s according to Washington Times opinion editor Monica Crowley who reports in a new column that a knowledgeable source tells her that the Clintons are covering legal expenses for Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president. Such an arrangement would raise questions over whether the Clintons are paying Cooper’s bills in order to ensure that they have some oversight of his interactions with federal investigators. It would also raise questions about whether the Clintons are paying other aides’ legal costs. Cooper registered clintonemail.com in his own name on Jan. 13, 2009. That email domain is the same one Hillary Clinton exclusively used to send work-related emails as secretary of state. Emails sent on that account were stored on a server that the Clintons kept at their personal residence in New York. According to Crowley, Cooper’s role in helping set up Clinton’s mysterious email arrangement has put him in the FBI’s cross hairs. She reports: A source familiar with Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Clintons tells me that they have paid his legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” They aren’t paying those costs out of a sense of decency. They’re paying them because he knows the “why” of the server, which may very well have been to make it easier for the foundation to hustle big donations. One wonders what, if anything, Mr. Cooper is telling the FBI — and whether the whole sordid Clinton house of cards will be left standing. The FBI seized Clinton’s server last year after it was determined that some of her emails contained classified information. And now, investigators are reportedly poised to interview aides who have knowledge about the system. And according to a Fox News report from earlier this year, the FBI’s investigation has expanded to a public corruption probe which centers on the intersection of the Clinton Foundation and State Department. Cooper could also be embroiled in that aspect of the investigation, according to Crowley, who also works as a Fox News analyst. The little-known Cooper has worked for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm with close ties to the Clintons. Along with Doug Band — Bill Clinton’s former “body man,” a former counselor to the Clinton Foundation, and a co-founder of Teneo — Cooper kept in contact with Clinton’s State Department aides, emails from Clinton’s account show. One of those aides is Huma Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff while also working for Teneo. The overlap has raised questions over whether the Clinton Foundation and Teneo were using access to the State Department to help raise money and attract clients. The possibility that the Clintons are paying legal bills for aides embroiled in the FBI investigation has already been broached by Congress. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley has asked lawyers for the Clintons and Abedin — as well as for former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Philippe Reines, and Jake Sullivan — if they have entered any “joint defense agreements.” The Iowa Republican has asserted that such arrangements could pose conflicts of interest because they would help ensure that the Clinton insiders refrained from providing evidence that could be detrimental to the Clintons. The lawyers have refused to say if those arrangements have been made. Grassley has also asked whether the Clintons are covering legal costs for Bryan Pagliano, the former information technology specialist who set up and managed Clinton’s private email server. But Pagliano’s lawyer, Mark MacDougall of the Clinton-connected law firm Akin Gump, has also refused to say if such an arrangement is in place. Pagliano has since entered an immunity deal with the FBI in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation. Some evidence has emerged suggesting that the Clintons are paying legal bills for those embroiled in the email fiasco. Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. In October it was reported that the Denver-based IT company that handled Clinton’s server after she left the State Department had submitted an invoice to Clinton seeking payment for legal and public relations expenses. (RELATED: Senator Wonders If Hillary Is Covering Legal Expenses For Tech Firm That Managed Email Server) The company, Platte River Networks, had control of Clinton’s server when it was turned over to the FBI. It billed Clinton’s accountant, Marcum LLP., nearly $50,000 for legal and PR expenses. The Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to The Daily Caller’s requests for comment. Read more: March 6, 2016 by Dinesh D'Souza
Who are these Democrats? What is the progressive party hiding? In his new film, Dinesh D’Souza will expose the secret history of the Democrats and the true motivations of Hillary. "Hillary's America" TrailerPublished on Mar 5, 2016 http://demand.hillarysamericathemovie What are the Democrats hiding? 
'PETS KILLED, TIRES SLASHED, LATE-NIGHT PHONE CALLS'
What it takes to silence Bill Clinton's sex victimsPublished: 5 hours ago The scandal-prone Clintons Kathleen Willey knows what intimidation is. One of the women who famously accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual assault, she used a radio interview Sunday to urge other sex victims to speak up. “I would just like to encourage any woman who has suffered at the hands of Bill Clinton to please try to find the courage and bravery to come forth,” she said on Aaron Klein’s Investigative Radio. “Because it’s OK now. Nobody can hurt you now. It’s as simple as that. Nobody can touch you now. The word is out. You will be OK but you will be doing the right thing for all the right reasons and you will be helping your fellow sisters.” Breitbart reported that Willey demanded Hillary Clinton submit to a lie detector test to answer questions about whether she engaged in campaigns to silence or intimidate her husband’s female accusers. Political operative and strategist Roger Stone, who wrote the book “The Clintons’ War on Women,” said in an interview that Hillary Clinton promoting herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy, particular when Hillary speaks about rape issues and how rape victims should be believed. “Unfortunately, this doesn’t match her own history,” Stone pointed out. “She has been an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.” Read the explosive book “The Clintons’ War on Women,” found in the WND Superstore! Stone also states there were “many, many others who were not known publicly.” He charges that the mainstream media are protective of the Clintons and suppressed the other incidents to the public. Bill Clinton has a lengthy history of both documented and alleged sexual abuse and assault. Virginia Roberts, who accused convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein of turning her into a “sex slave” at age 17, claimed she saw Clinton on Epstein’s “pedophile island” in the Virgin Islands. In 2011, Roberts said in an interview, “I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’ kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor.’ He never told me what favors they were.” Clinton was accompanied by two of Epstein’s regular girlfriends and “two young girls that I could identify,” Roberts claimed. “I never really knew them well anyways. It was just two girls from New York.” Roberts denied she had sex with Clinton and said she never witnessed him having sex with anyone else. In a Breitbart article, Stone has also accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically, and that Hillary came to her husband’s rescue by hiring detectives to gather information on the women. She then used the information to “run a terror campaign to intimidate Bill’s victims into silence.” According to Stone, Hillary’s motivation is clear: she would not let anything get in the way of growing their power and wealth. Stone added that his book includes not only the serial rapes committed by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s cover up, but the “horrific things” that were done to his victims. “Pets killed. Tires slashed. Windshields smashed in and bullets left in the front seat of cars. Late-night phone calls: ‘We know where your children go to school,’ all of these threats were part of the Clintons intimidation tactics.” “This is very sick stuff,” Stone concluded. “It is the psychological abuse of women and Hillary is responsible for it. Women voters need to know her real record.” In 2014, Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern who had sexual relations with President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s, broke her silence on the subject. Arguably called “the most humiliated person in the world,” Lewinsky said in an article in Vanity Fair, “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” Hillary for prosecution, not president! New campaign to stop her combines investigative journalism, legal action. But Rush Limbaugh noted at the time of the interview , “She says it’s consensual, fine and dandy. But when it was learned and discovered, she loved the guy. I mean, she may have been 19, and love is love at whatever age. It’s a different thing to different people, but she loved the guy. They destroyed her. The group – the people – that claim to be protecting women, that claim to want to shield women from the evils of the world including conservative Republicans, led the charge in destroying this woman, after the fact.” Another woman associated with the Clinton sex scandals, Juanita Broaddrick, also chimed in on Clinton’s sexual assaults. She used social media to remind the world that Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton tried to silence her when she accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978. “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. … It never goes away,” Broaddrick tweeted. Read more at _________________________ 
NEW EMAIL SHOWS SOROS REGRETS SUPPORTING OBAMA, CAN ‘ALWAYS’ GET MEETING WITH HILLARY
January 2, 2016 by Derek Hunter In the latest round of emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret, unsecured server, Neera Tanden, president of the liberal non-profit Center for American Progress, passed along a message to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from billionaire donor George Soros.... ...George Soros is a major donor to liberal causes and has donated more than $2 million to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action....(Read More...)  AP Photo
llegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary
2016 How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year. By PAUL GOLDMAN and MARK J. ROZELL October 03, 2015 Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats. The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House. The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.” This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College. Using citizen-only population statistics, American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn projects California would lose five House seats and therefore five electoral votes. New York and Washington would lose one seat, and thus one electoral vote apiece. These three states, which have voted overwhelming for Democrats over the latest six presidential elections, would lose seven electoral votes altogether. The GOP’s path to victory, by contrast, depends on states that would lose a mere three electoral votes in total. Republican stronghold Texas would lose two House seats and therefore two electoral votes. Florida, which Republicans must win to reclaim the presidency, loses one seat and thus one electoral vote. But that leaves the electoral math only half done. The 10 House seats taken away from these states would then need to be reallocated to states with relatively small numbers of noncitizens. The following ten states, the bulk of which lean Republican, would likely gain one House seat and thus one additional electoral vote: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. ___________________________
Ah .. Georgie Boy wrapped up nice and tight..
Say No To Hillary in 2016
Hillary Clinton & Her Adviser CAUGHT Breaking Federal Laws & In Breach Of The Federal Records Act
WRITTEN BY: WALID SHOEBAT PUBLISHED ON: MARCH 4, 2015 Hillary Clinton was caught violated the Federal Records Act. Within hours, it has been revealed that her close adviser Huma Abedin may have done the same. Based on evidence, both have used private email accounts to conduct government business, which is a crime. As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is finding herself at the center of controversy involving her use of private email accounts to conduct official government business, her Muslim Brotherhood-linked close adviser Huma Abedin appears to have done the same thing. Though it’s not known how Abedin used her clintonmail.com address, a Clinton spokesman reportedly would not answer questions seeking answers about that usage. News that Abedin may have broken the law relative to using a private email account to conduct government business would certainly not be her first controversy. Subscibe to The Sons of Liberty Media Newsletter to Keep Up to Date on the News You won't get from the State-run Media As Shoebat.com has reported, her time as a Special Government Employee (SGE) may have violated federal statutes. In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns about Abedin’s role as an SGE as well as her time in the position. Specifically, Grassley had concerns about Abedin violating a federal statute. Here is an excerpt from Grassley’s letter to Kerry: A response letter was sent to Grassley by Abedin’s attorney. Enclosed was a letter from Abedin to that attorney. Shockingly, it appears to reveal a smoking gun… by Huma’s own hand. In the letter, Abedin confesses to working as an SGE for 240 days: Of course, all of this says nothing about the discoveries of Shoebat.com in 2011, as Abedin was caught in the spotlight of a scandal involving the sexting exploits of her husband, then U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner, a Jewish Democrat. That Weiner is Jewish is relevant because Abedin comes from a Muslim Brotherhood family; her mother is one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood. The marriage defied the most basic laws obeyed by Muslim fundamentalists. As Shoebat.com reported, such laws can be legally broken when using the tactic of Muruna. In June of 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and four other congressmen sent letters to various Inspectors General, to include the office at the State Department. In the letter to the State Department’s IG, Abedin’s irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through her family were introduced. Despite these irrefutable links, the IG’s office did not respond and Bachmann was derided by the most prominent members of her own Party, to include Senator John McCain, Speaker John Boehner and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers. It would appear that with the private email issue, the SGE issue, and Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood connections, an unflattering mosaic of Hillary’s adviser is being revealed. Read more at .. _________________________ 
HILLARY VOWS ‘THE SERVER WILL REMAIN PRIVATE,’ CONCEDES SHOULD’VE USED GOV’T EMAIL ACCOUNT
AP Photo/Seth Wenig by TONY LEE10 Mar 2015748 On Tuesday, breaking her nine-day silence on the private email controversy that has engulfed her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it would have been smarter had she used an official government email account and declared that her server will “remain private” and closed to independent authorities. “The server contains personal communications between my husband and me,” she declared. “I believe I have met all of my responsibilities, and the server will remain private.” Though State Department employees are instructed follow department guidelines and federal regulations and laws that require officials to use government email accounts for official business, Clinton used a private email account, hosted on a personal server, for all of her official business while she was Secretary of State. Clinton said that she “opted for convenience” to use her personal email account even though it was set up on the day her confirmation hearings for Secretary of State began in January of 2009. She claimed she followed all of the rules and felt it would be easier to carry “just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.” “Looking back, it would have better if I had simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time this didn’t seem like an issue,” she said. Clinton, claiming that she went “above and beyond” what she was required to do, said the vast majority of her work emails went to government employees at government addresses and are preserved on State Department servers. Clinton said that after she left the State Department, the department asked former secretaries of state “for our assistance” in providing work-related emails from our personal accounts. She said her team went through a through process to identify work -related emails. Clinton also said she took the “unprecedented step” of asking the State Department to make her emails public. She said in going through her emails, “there were over 60,000 in total sent and received.” “Half were work related and about half were personal not related to work,” she said, emphasizing that she was “confident in the process that we conducted.” Regarding her personal email server, Clinton claimed it was set up for her husband and “there were no security breaches.” She claimed that she did not email any classified email to anyone on her personal email and many of her “personal” emails have already been wiped from the server. “At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal e-mails,” she said, claiming that emails she deemed to be “private” dealt with yoga routines and planning Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. “No one wants their personal emails made public. And I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.” This weekend, President Barack Obama told CBS News that he found out about Clinton’s email scandal “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.” Clarifying Obama’s remarks, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed on Monday that though Obama and Clinton exchanged emails, Obama had no clue that Clinton was exclusively using her private account for all official business. Earnest said that “the point that the president was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s ‘s email address. He did. But he was not not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act.” “Yes, the president was aware of her email address; he traded emails with her. That shouldn’t be a surprise, that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the Secretary of State,” Earnest said. “But the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server, and that this was the email address she was using exclusively for all her business. The president was not aware of that until that had been more widely reported.” Clinton has reportedly turned over 55,000 pages (not 55,000 emails) of emails to the State Department, and the agency said that it will take months to review them. The State Department said on Tuesday that the emails will ultimately be posted online. The House Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed Clinton’s emails last week and, as Breitbart News has noted, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chairs the committee, said there are huge “gaps” in the Clinton emails. He “mentioned that his committee has not received any emails regarding Clinton’s trip to Libya even though the iconic picture of Clinton from that day shows her on a mobile device.” “There are gaps of months and months and months. And if you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand, we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip, Gowdy said on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “So, it’s strange credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy that there’s not a single document that has been turned over to Congress. So, there are huge gaps. And with respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what is a public record and what’s not.” The press conference, her first in two years, left more questions than answers. There are still lingering questions about when administration officials actually knew that Clinton was exclusively using her private email account to conduct official business. The Associated Press reported that the “White House counsel’s office was not aware at the time Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state that she relied solely on personal email and only found out as part of the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attack.” Politico noted that key Obama, Clinton, and State Department staffers “knew in August that House Republicans had received information showing that the former secretary of state conducted official government business through her private email account,” but Clinton’s staff decided to stay mum. The State Department changed its story last week. After initially saying that the agency asked former Secretaries of State to search their personal email accounts after a “broad effort to update the State Department’s electronic record keeping effort,” State Department spokesperson Marie Hard conceded, as Politico noted, that Congress’s Benghazi investigation did play a role the agency’s decision to ask the former Secretaries to review their personal emails. As Breitbart News noted, Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told Bloomberg Television last week “that she has never received an email from Clinton and did not know if anyone in the Obama administration did either,” and “Gawker’s John Cook revealed last week that he inquired about Clinton’s private email account in 2013 while doing a story on Sydney Blumenthal’s email hacks.” Clinton did not address the controversy during at least three public appearances after the New York Times broke the story about her private emails last week. In her first public appearance after the story broke, Clinton made no mention of the controversy at an EMILY’s List Gala last Tuesday. Nor did she address it at a Clinton Foundation event in Miami on Saturday, which she attended instead of the 50th anniversary “Bloody Sunday” commemoration in Selma. And at a Monday Clinton Foundation event in New York, she took no questions while speakers who participated with her in an “informal conversation” may have been reading from teleprompters, according to an Associated Press report. Clinton reportedly did not want to address the scandal until after she announced her presidential run, but she changed her mind after Sen. Dianne Feinstein was critical of her silence on Sunday’s Meet the Press. White House aides have reportedly frustrated that they had to waste so much time doing “damage control” for the Clintons. Clinton had earlier spoken at a United Nations event on women’s rights, commemorating her Beijing speech 20 years ago. But Clinton has also come under fire for her foundation’s hypocritical acceptance of millions in donations from repressive Middle Eastern regimes with downright awful records on women’s rights. Those shady donations may explain why she has been so hesitant to release all of her private emails related to her work at the State Department. Clinton sidestepped questions about the donations, saying she was “very proud” of her foundation’s supporters and the work it has done. She said those who support the foundation “know full well what it is we stand for and what it is we’re working on.” The New York Times reported this week that “the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.” National Journal’s Ron Fournier noted that her “secret communications cache is a bombshell deserving of full disclosure because of her assault on government transparency and electronic security. But its greatest relevancy is what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton’s work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations.” A Clinton source told him to “follow the foundation money” and the “emails are a related but secondary scandal.” Fournier asked, “Is the foundation clean? Is it corrupt? Or is the truth in the muddy middle, where we so often find the Clintons?” He noted that “due to the fact that Hillary Clinton chose to skirt federal regulations and house her State Department emails on an off-the-books server, even the most loyal Democrat can’t honestly answer those questions without an independent vetting of her electronic correspondence.” “Without those emails, we may never be able to follow the money,” Fournier wrote. “Could that be why she hasn’t coughed up the server?” ___________________________ 
Hillary’s Plans to Stuff the Ballot Box in 2016
by Phyllis Schlafly June 10, 2015 Hillary Clinton has laid out her game plan for winning back the White House for herself and her husband next year. Let’s hope Republicans were paying attention. She apparently decided it won’t be enough to rely on the 66 million people who voted twice for Barack Obama, many of whom are disillusioned by the failure of “hope and change.” Obama promised an end to wars in the Middle East, a more prosperous economy for the average American, and more harmonious race relations, but all three problems have only gotten worse. Since Hillary won’t have the youthful exuberance that propelled Obama to his unlikely double victory, she plans to build a whole new electorate out of people who didn’t vote for Obama. That’s the gist of her speech in Houston last week, which her friends at MSNBC called a “far-reaching vision for expanding access to the ballot box.” Who are the new voters to whom Hillary wants to give “access to the ballot box”? They include felons and non-citizens, along with anyone who can’t prove identity, citizenship, or residence within the voting precinct. She also plans to harvest millions of new votes by expanding the dangerous practices of same-day registration and early voting, which enable Democrats to badger, berate, bribe, or bamboozle reluctant, low-information voters to the polls. Democratic Party and union workers can identify reluctant voters and harass them until the party worker verifies that they have actually cast their ballot. In her new book “Adios, America,” Ann Coulter asks a relevant question: “Should Democrats be given 30 million new voters?” Answering her own question, Ann says, “There is simply no reason for Republicans to legalize 30 million people who will vote 8-2 against them.” While Hillary gave lip service to the notion that “every citizen” should vote, her Democratic allies are in court trying to stop every reasonable means of verifying a voter’s citizenship. That’s no surprise because, according to a recent Rasmussen survey, a majority (53%) of Democrats believe that non-citizens, including even illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote. Hillary’s commitment to voting by “every citizen” is belied by her earlier promise to “go even further” than Obama on amnesty for illegal immigrants. By “go even further,” she explained, she would include all 11-plus million (not just Obama’s 5 million) and she would give them full citizenship with voting rights, not just “legal status” with permission to work. The Census Bureau estimates that 22 million non-citizen adults, both legal and illegal, are living permanently in this country. That’s almost 10 percent of our entire population 18 and over, and more than half of those non-citizens are concentrated in just five states. Arizona, which is on the front lines of illegal immigration, has been trying to require proof of citizenship as part of voter registration ever since that simple requirement was approved by Arizona’s voters in 2004. The Obama administration refused to add the proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal form that Arizona must use for motor-voter registrations. Hillary has assigned her top lawyer to sue Wisconsin to overturn its effective Voter I.D. law, one of the best in the nation. But that’s not all. The New York Times just reported that the left-wing Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, has agreed to pour $5 million into a national effort to protect and expand early voting. Federal law provides that voting in federal elections take place in even years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, also known as “Election Day.” Just as no member of a jury should vote on guilt or innocence until all the evidence has been presented at a trial, voters should not cast their ballots before political campaigns are over. The U.S. Constitution requires that the delegates to the Electoral College cast their ballots for President on the same day. Many states also continue to adhere to the tradition of Election Day being on one day in November, not spread out over the ridiculous 35 days that resulted in a political circus in Ohio in 2012. The integrity of elections is just as important as the universally accepted rules for jury trials, whereby jurors are asked to keep their minds open and withhold judgment until after closing arguments. Spreading out voting over an extended period of a month or more makes it impractical for poll watchers to monitor the voting for fraud. Isn’t it odd that Democrats are all in favor of busing churchgoers in some neighborhoods to polling booths, but then insist that churches in Republican neighborhoods never try to influence an election ___________________________ 
Hillary Clinton skeptics fear 'an unstoppable train'Democratic insiders see little hope for Clinton’s opponents, whoever they turn out to be.
By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 4/10/15 5:06 PM EDT Their conclusions are based on a range of factors, from Clinton’s standing in the polls to her formidable fundraising potential. | Getty It’s gotten to this point: Even the Democratic Party’s Hillary skeptics are resigned to her being the party’s nominee. “I don’t see a path for anyone not named Clinton,” declared former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as United Nations ambassador under Bill Clinton before running against Hillary in 2008. “You know I don’t get along with her,” he noted, by way of explanation. “I’m not a Ready for Hillary person. I’m trying to be honest with you.” Added Bob Shrum, the veteran liberal strategist whose list of presidential candidates (Al Gore, John Kerry) does not include anyone named Clinton: “Assuming she remains healthy and runs the kind of campaign she will run, I don’t see anyone beating her.” Their conclusions are based on a range of factors, from Clinton’s standing in the polls to her formidable fundraising potential. But there’s another one: None of her potential challengers appear to have the will and/or the ability to beat her. Still, as Clinton prepares to announce her campaign on Sunday, there’s a pervasive feeling among unaligned Democrats and Clinton loyalists alike that at least one of the possible challengers will take the plunge and creep up to 20 or 25 percent in the polls — enough to give her a scare. It’s still a waiting game, though, because there’s no such consensus on a few critical questions. Namely: who, when and how. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, former Virginia senator Jim Webb, and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders — the trio who have shown the greatest interest in mounting a challenge to Clinton — face a steep path, Democratic operatives say, while the two most famous names mentioned as potential challengers — Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren — seem increasingly far from running. Lincoln Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor, emerged in the last few days to stake a possible claim to be the Clinton alternative, raising Warren-like concerns about Clinton’s closeness to Wall Street. But he’s a maverick whose shift from Republican to independent to Democrat is unlikely to excite the progressive base. Read more: ___________________________ 
Former Clinton Staffer Just Came Forward With A BOMBSHELL About Hillary’s Past She Wanted Buried
Bill's chickens may be coming home to roost...on Hillary. Norvell Rose July 29, 2015 at 11:19am Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print It would seem that, for Hillary and Bill and the Democrats who want another Clinton in the Oval Office, the chickens are coming home to roost…and quite possibly creating a messy panic in the coop. Just one day after Western Journalism told you about the new scandal-hunting website launched by Kathleen Willey — who famously claimed the former president sexually assaulted her in the White House — another key figure from the Clintons’ questionable past has leveled her own scathing charges against Hillary. In a Daily Mail exclusive, the British newspaper reveals that the woman who outed Monica Lewinsky for her affair with President Clinton is now on the warpath against Hillary. Citing the then-first lady as a “destroyer” who ruthlessly attacked and ruined the reputations of many women linked sexually to her husband, Linda Tripp is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that Hillary Clinton “must never become president” because she’s a devious and manipulative liar. Because, according to Linda Tripp, it was Hillary who manipulated and stage managed the story [of the Lewinsky affair], converting herself from a lackluster First Lady with unimpressive approval ratings to admirable First Victim – the blindsided wife standing by her man. She made him forgivable. She ‘orchestrated the cover up’ and she made damn sure that she moved on. Nothing, and no-one, was going to stand in her way. Now 65 years old, Tripp has chosen to break her ten-year silence as Hillary seems all but destined to become the Democrat nominee for president in 2016. Once a White House aide with an office right next to Mrs. Clinton’s West Wing power center, Tripp tells the Daily Mail that Hillary is “unscrupulous,” “deceitful,” and “inherently dishonorable.” She describes Hillary as the true ‘ruler’ of the White House through her husband’s administration; tells how she watched Hillary ‘blatantly lie’ to the American people; describes her as utterly ‘ruthless’ in her pursuit of power; and voices her belief that Hillary must never gain the presidency – the position that has always been her goal and to which she has always believed herself entitled. Regarding the current emailgate scandal that continues to plague Hillary from her time as secretary of state, Linda Tripp says the former chief diplomat is pursuing a familiar strategy in trying to get past the controversy surrounding her use of a private email account maintained on a personal server. Her modus operandi was, and continues to be, Tripp explained: ‘I will do what I want and then when I’m questioned I will say, “oops,” or “bureaucratic snafu”, and then after a couple of months her refrain will be, “this is old news, it’s been investigated, I did nothing wrong, let’s move on, it’s time to address the issues facing the middle class of America.” ___________________________ 
Hillary Clinton Gets 20 Times More Money From Planned Parenthood Than Any Other Democrat NATIONAL SARAH ZAGORSKI AUG 5, 2015 | 10:31AM WASHINGTON, DC
Planned Parenthood loves Hillary Clinton. According to her campaign financial records, the former Secretary of State has received 20 times more money from them than other pro-abortion Democrats. The Washington Free Beacon reports that her first quarter fundraising total nearly matches the amount of money she received over the course of her previous three political campaigns. In fact, the records reveal that she’s received more money than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., VT), former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, and the former Virginia senator Jim Webb. Sen. Sanders is extreme on abortion and has a six-percent pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life. SIGN THE PETITION! We Oppose Hillary Clinton! In the past, he’s opposed the partial birth abortion ban and supported President Obama’s radical abortion agenda. However, Sen. Sanders has only received two donations from Planned Parenthood for a total of $500. Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America is not surprised by the Hillary Clinton-Planned Parenthood ties. “While in South Carolina, Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton said that the videos are part of a concerted attack against the organization as well as against a woman’s ability to choose whether to have an abortion,” she said. “Of course Hillary jumped to Planned Parenthood’s defense. She had to. She has received twenty times more money from Planned Parenthood than her opponents have.” As LifeNews previously reported, one of Hillary’s donations came from the CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM), Vicki Cowart. Cowart’s affiliate is featured in two videos released by the Center of Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over the price of babies victimized in abortion. In one video, PPRM’s Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde explains how affiliates can get around laws that ban selling aborted babies for compensation. She says, “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing. If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.” Additionally, after Clinton announced that she was running for president, Planned Parenthood sent out a press release welcoming her to the presidential field and called her candidacy a “historic moment.” In 2009, Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award and has been given more campaign money from the abortion company than all of her competitors. Earlier this week, Clinton shared a video message with her followers reassuring them that she supports Planned Parenthood. About abortion, she said, “I’m proud to stand with Planned Parenthood, I’ll never stop fighting to protect the ability and right of every woman in this country to make her own health decisions.” At no point in the video does she mention Planned Parenthood’s recent scandal or the countless reasons why they should be defunded and placed under investigation. She says, “Republicans like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush are calling to defund PP,the country’s leading provider of reproductive health care. And they are joined by Republicans in Congress who will not waste a minute on voting to make that happen. If this feels like a full-on assault on women’s health— that’s because it is. When politicians talk about defunding Planned Parenthood they are talking about blocking millions of women, men and young people from life saving preventive care. Cancer screenings, breast exams, birth-control.” Then she goes on to say that Planned Parenthood is a trusted health care provider and that Republicans have led efforts in states across the country to defund them before. Somehow Clinton overlooked the fact that Planned Parenthood has a history of hurting women in botched abortions, stealing money from taxpayer programs and performing abortions on abused minors without parental consent. She also overlooked the fact that the new videos confirm that their motives are, at the very least, questionable. CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE! Clinton concluded, “When they attack women’s health, they attack America’s health and it’s wrong and were not going to let them get away with it. We’re not going back. We’re going to fight back. I’m proud to stand with Planned Parenthood. I’ll never stop fighting to protect the ability and right of every woman in this country to maker her own health care decisions.” ___________________________ |
 Hillary Clinton after meeting with national-security experts in New York, Sept. 9.PHOTO: AFP/GETTY IMAGES
What’s a Reagan Internationalist to Do?
Unlike Trump, the former secretary of state has an actual record of mistakes and bad judgment in foreign policy. By ROBERT G. KAUFMAN Sept. 14, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET The election of 2016 offers a dismal choice for internationalist foreign-policy conservatives in the Reagan tradition. Donald Trump has repudiated the main staples of Reagan’s moral democratic realism, routinely disdaining the value of alliances with fellow democracies such as NATO, Japan, South Korea and India; advocating conciliation rather than firmness toward an increasingly authoritarian and expansionist Vladimir Putin; and ignoring the gathering military danger of a Chinese tyranny’s military buildup aimed at dominating East Asia, the world’s most important geopolitical region for the 21st century. Yet the internationalist conservatives who endorse Hillary Clintondelude themselves if they think things would be better with a President Clinton. As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton served loyally as President Obama’s first mate on his foreign-policy Titanic. And unlike Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton has an actual record of mistakes and bad judgment in foreign policy. Consider: Hillary Clinton named the ill-fated reset with Mr. Putin, subverting Ukraine’s independence and imperiling America’s Eastern European NATO allies fearful of becoming Mr. Putin’s next target. She also blocked efforts to place the murderous Boko Haram on the State Department’s list of international sponsors of terrorism, fostering the Obama administration’s fictitious narrative that killing Osama bin Laden had ended the war on terror. Mrs. Clinton—emblematic of the administration’s unwillingness to acknowledge radical Islam as a danger—blamed the attack on the Libyan Embassy on a Coptic Christian video denigrating Islam rather than on the obvious culprits and their Islamist motivations timed for the anniversary of 9/11. She fatuously called Syria’s Bashar Assad a reformer with whom we could do business, and she touted the absurd notion that American “smart power” could substitute for American resolve, moral clarity and military might. Mrs. Clinton remained silent, too, on President Obama’s systematic, unwise and dishonorable obsession with putting distance between the U.S. and a democratic Israel while conciliating the worst and most anti-American regimes in international politics. Candidate Clinton still defends an indefensible Iran deal she advocated as secretary of state that puts Iran on the autobahn to crossing the nuclear threshold while tranquilizing Americans to the gathering danger. Her choice of running mate, Tim Kaine, has the dubious distinction of being in the vanguard of the apologists for an untenable agreement subsidizing a virulently aggressive anti-American Iran while likely triggering a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region. Even after the June terrorist attack in Orlando, Mrs. Clinton could barely utter the words Islamic radicalism, intimating that the weapons rather than the motivations of those wielding them deserved primary blame. That’s the equivalent of blaming Pearl Harbor on military aviation rather than the Imperial Japanese regime. As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for the debacle in Libya. She was the administration’s leading proponent for American intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, NATO and the Arab League, bypassing the Congress. Libya has become a breeding ground of Islamist terrorism because America’s mission was ill-defined and its withdrawal premature. Nor did Mrs. Clinton resign on principle when Mr. Obama prematurely withdrew from Iraq, failing to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would have retained a sizable American presence—something the president could have achieved had he wanted it. On the contrary, Mrs. Clinton voiced no public objection to Mr. Obama’s catastrophic decision precipitating Iraq’s collapse, with ISIS and a revolutionary Iran filling the vacuum. Nor, despite her allegedly private misgivings, did Mrs. Clinton resign on principle or object publicly to Mr. Obama’s bungling and vacillating policy toward a Syrian civil war that has metastasized into a murderous, regional and sectarian civil war and a humanitarian refugee crisis wreaking havoc not just the region but also in Europe and the U.S. The pivot to Asia that then-Secretary of State Clinton unveiled in 2011 has also proved hollow. Like Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton has de-emphasized the gathering danger of China’s swelling ambitions, defined combating climate change as the priority, and emphasized diplomacy rather than American hard power. The combination of China’s military buildup and America’s precipitous build-down that Mrs. Clinton backed has increased the apprehension of traditional democratic allies in East Asia as well as India. A vote for Hillary Clinton is therefore a vote for Mr. Obama’s dangerous doctrine, which fears American power more than it fears our enemies. As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton contributed enormously to lowering the barriers to aggression everywhere—with much worse to come unless we reverse course. The internationalist conservatives who oppose Mr. Trump on foreign-policy grounds have a point. But they shouldn’t fool themselves that they will get something better with Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Kaufman, a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University, is the author of “Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama’s Grand Strategy Weakened America” (University Press of Kentucky, 2016). ___________________________ 
Memo undercuts Hillary story on controversial Russian uranium deal, Clinton Foundation
by Raphael Williams August 25, 2016WATCH: Raffi Williams connect the dots between Russia, a uranium deal and the Clinton Foundation. 1 of 17When Hillary Clinton was questioned about a deal that gave Russia increased sway over uranium markets, the former Secretary of State and now Democratic presidential nominee said she had no reason to intervene in the decision and didn't even know the Clinton Foundation was being enriched by its beneficiaries. "I was not personally involved because that wasn't something the Secretary of State did," Clinton told WMUR a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015, the lone time she has addressed the controversy that first surfaced a year ago. 2 of 17 VIEW GALLERY In fact, there was a reason to be concerned, according to diplomatic dispatches left sitting in public on the WikiLeaks -- dispatches that have not garnered much media attention. 3 of 17Moscow 'flexes muscles' State Department officials in Fall 2009 -- a year before the United States approved the deal -- obtained an internal strategy document from Russia's nuclear energy firm, Rosatom, that warned about Moscow's intentions as it "flexes muscles" in uranium markets. In one cable sent to Clinton, U.S. officials in Brussels warned Russia was about to strong-arm U.S. ally Ukraine into a deal for "long-term supply of nuclear fuel" that could "shut" the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the market and extend Moscow's influence over Europe. 4 of 17"The strategy paper reflects concerns raised by industry reps and Ukrainian diplomats the past few months and is consistent with Russia's efforts to dominate the gas supply market in Europe," the cable from U.S. representatives in the European Union's capital city warned. "The strategy paper... is consistent with Russia's efforts to dominate the gas supply market in Europe." — -- Cable from U.S. representatives in Brussels 5 of 17Westinghouse expansion in Eastern Europe Greater control over nuclear power plant fuel in European markets could make European nations more reliant on natural gas exports at the heart of Russia's economy, the career diplomats worried. And if Rosatom succeeded, the American nuclear company Westinghouse might not be able to expand as it hoped in Eastern Europe, they added. 6 of 17Deal approved by CFIUS Clinton campaign officials declined to discuss the memo, but she has vowed to end foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation if elected president. At issue is the 2010 sale of Uranium One to Rosatom. Uranium One controls one-fifth of uranium mined in the United States and the Rosatom deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), which is made up of nine voting members, including the Secretary of State. 7 of 17Sounding the alarm over deal When the review process was taking place, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) sounded alarms that the deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America's uranium production capacity." Five other Republican members of Congress, led by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., wrote that the deal "would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States." Despite warnings from her own diplomats and the lawmakers, Clinton did not use her position on the CFISUS to stop the deal. 8 of 17Clear warning from diplomats In a presidential race where classified cables and private emails have dominated so much discussion, the two-page non-classified memo has hardly caused a stir in public. But it lays out a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia's control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe. 9 of 17Intelligence analysts differ on how important the cable should have been to then-Secretary Clinton. Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst now with the conservative Center for Security Policy, says the cable shows "an effort by Russia to increase its influence over Ukraine." "I have never seen a diplomatic cable that had as stark a description of one energy company trying to cheat." — Fred Fleitz, Center for Security Policy 10 of 17Brian Fairchild, a former CIA clandestine service officer, told Circa that "at the unclassified level, the cable is nothing special." "This is an unclassified informational cable of a kind that is routinely sent by our diplomats." — Former CIA clandestine officer Brian Fairchild 11 of 17'A statutory obligation to act' But a former U.S. ambassador to the European Union, C. Boyden Gray, told Circa that Clinton and the entire Obama administration should have been more vigilant in keeping Russia from getting any more leverage over uranium and energy markets. "She had a statutory obligation to act, and she acts through inaction -- and Russia wins," Gray said in an interview. "What they've given Russia is a foothold, a big entrée into cornering the uranium markets and tipping the entire balance of the energy world." 12 of 17Gray said with low petroleum prices, control of uranium isn't important to everyday Americans. But over time, the energy landscape will likely change and Russia's increased leverage over the gas and nuclear markets will hurt American interests. "The Russians should be back on their hind legs, and instead they continue to take advantage of us," he said. "The Russians should be back on their hind legs and instead they continue to take advantage of us." — C. Boyden Gray 13 of 17Herbst: U.S. should be helping Ukraine Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst echoed Gray, telling Circa: "It is not in Ukraine's interest to be beholden to Russia for nuclear energy. "It is very much in our interest that Ukraine be able to pursue an independent policy. So for the U.S. to help Ukraine to help free itself from dependence on Russia in the nuclear field is a no brainer." 14 of 17The Clinton Foundation connection While the CFIUS deliberations were taking place, people who stood to profit from the Uranium One sale donated more than $2.6 million to the Clinton Foundation. Also, Renaissance Capital, an investment bank with connections to the Russian government, paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a speech -- more than his usual fee. Even before the sale was under consideration, the Clinton Foundation received $31.3 million in donations from one person, Frank Giustra, who stood to benefit from the sale. 15 of 17C. Boyden Gray: Hillary Clinton should have recused herself Some of those donations were not properly disclosed at the time. Bill Clinton also helped Guistra, who was once owned a company that merged with Uranium One, secure valuable uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan. C. Boyden Gray, who also served as chief White House counsel during the first Bush administration, said Hillary Clinton should either have fulfilled her statutory duty or recused herself from a decision, because her husband's financial interests created a personal conflict of interest. 16 of 17'Clear violation of ethics' "I think it is a smoking gun," Gray said. "By not acting, she helped. And the only way she could have avoided criminal liability was to recuse herself, which she did not. I think it is a clear violation of ethics statutes." ___________________________ 
https://www.facebook.com/dickmorriscom/videos/10154398092154438/
Bill Clinton Lied in Democrat National Convention speech, says... Bill Clinton Lied in Democrat National Convention speech, says Dick Morris, former Senior Political Advisor to President Clinton 
This Virginia Mayor Endorsed Hillary Clinton, Now He’s in Jail for Trying to Buy Sex with Meth
By Andrew Stiles| 11:01 am, August 5, 2016 Fairfax City Mayor R. Scott Silverthorne, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, was arrestedThursday after allegedly giving methamphetamine to an undercover police officer in exchange for sex. Silverthorne, who has been mayor of Fairfax since 2012, was announced as a member of “Mayors for Hillary” back in February of this year. The city of Fairfax is located in Fairfax County, a suburb of Washington, D.C., and one of the richest counties in the country. The 50-year-old mayor was arrested at a hotel in nearby Tysons Corner. According to Fairfax County police, they encountered Silverthorne after learning of an individual who was distributing meth through a website used to arrange male-on-male sexual encounters. An undercover detective created a profile on the site and was contacted by Silverthorne, who said he could provide meth in exchange for sex. They arranged to meet at a hotel, where Silverthorne was arrested for felony distribution of methamphetamine. Silverthorne is also reportedly a substitute teacher in the Fairfax County Public School system. __________________________ State Department reopens internal probe of Clinton emails
Published July 07, 2016 FoxNews.com NOW PLAYINGWhat did Comey's testimony reveal about Clinton probe? The State Department is re-opening an internal investigation into whether Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top aides mishandled classified information, Fox News confirmed late Thursday. The investigation, which was first reported by the Associated Press, focuses on how classified emails to and from Clinton's private server were categorized at the time they were sent. The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." The investigation was halted after the FBI began investigating Clinton's so-called "homebrew" email setup last April. On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said there would be no indictments resulting from the FBI probe. "Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. "Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations." Kirby set no deadline for the investigation's completion. Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter. Kirby said earlier this week that former officials can still face "administrative sanctions." The most serious of those penalties is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton's naming of a national security team if she becomes president. Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser. The State Department says it won't identify former officials that still hold security clearances. But in an email Fox News made public in February, the department described Mills as still holding a valid clearance. Fox News' Jennifer Griffin and the Associated Press contributed to this report. ___________________________ 
STUDENTS CLAIM 'CLINTON U' IS A SCAM
They 'got paid millions and I got stuck with $120,000 debt' Published: 2 days ago JEROME R. CORSI Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton NEW YORK – A victim of Laureate Education, the Clinton-backed, for-profit college, has come forward with accusations that its Walden University Online is a scam that piles tens of thousands of dollars of debt on unsuspecting students while unreasonably delaying degrees or often failing to deliver them. “When I signed up for Walden Education in January 2009, I was told I would get my Doctor of Education degree by December 2011, after two years study for a cost of $40,000,” explained Teresa Ferguson, a mother of three teenagers who resides outside Atlanta. “That was OK with me. I could accept two years and $40,000, but that isn’t the way it happened,” she explained. “With Walden, I was hit with delays and program change after program change, so it took me two extra years and I ended up with $120,000 in tuition debt. I’m a schoolteacher. How am I ever going to pay off a debt like that?” Walden University Online: ‘A complete scam’ At Walden, once she had completed her required courses, Ferguson faced a series of changes in her dissertation advisers and in the chair of the education department she alleges were intentionally designed to extend the enrollment time needed to get her doctorate. The delay forced her to pay additional tuition far above her initial expectations. Get a first-hand account of the Democratic Party presidential front-runner’s character in “Hillary The Other Woman.” Then take action with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and let others know, with a bumper sticker calling for “Hillary for prosecution, not president.” “Laureate Education is a scam,” Ferguson, a teacher of English as a second language at a county high school, told WND in an email and telephone interview. “Bill Clinton makes $16 million being ‘honorary chairman’ at Laureate while meanwhile Walden Online University ruined my life,” she said. “I have three teenage children, and now I have no clue how we’ll pay for their college with my student debt so high.” WND reported last week Laureate Education paid $16 million to Bill Clinton to be the group’s pitchman while the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network. Ferguson participated in a class action suit, Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, that was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland and dismissed in 2015. “I pray you will do the research (to) expose how badly Walden is hurting their students,” she wrote to WND in an email. “Laureate Education and the Clintons should not be allowed to get away with this.” But Ferguson has not yet stopped fighting. “I am one of the many Walden students who are trying to sue the college for their many delays, changes in committees, and fraud against their own policies. It should not be allowed,” she told WND. “Our group is still fighting and trying to get a new lawyer, but we need someone who can be a voice for us.” Two years and $120,000 in student debt later Ferguson said that after “a series of unreasonable delays, I finally got my Ed.D. in 2013, but only after I took on a total $120,000 of student debt.” “Now I have no idea how we’re going to pay for my teenagers to go to college when my student tuition debt is so high,” she said. Ferguson was initially attracted to Walden University because she could complete her graduate work online. “I thought with my busy career teaching and raising my three teenage children, I thought that was perfect,” she said. “I’m pretty much self-motivated, and I liked the idea of online study.” But while her required coursework went as expected, Ferguson’s problems seriously began when she got to the dissertation stage of her graduate work in the spring of 2011. “I was a week from getting my doctorate. I’d already passed my final oral and gotten my final approval from my thesis adviser,” she continued. “Then I got an email stating that my thesis adviser had been fired.” From there, her experience with Walden Online University went from bad to worse. “The new adviser disapproved 55 pages of my work, most of which was from the proposal stage that had been approved eight months earlier,” Ferguson said. “Then there were more firings of my dissertation supervisors, with the result I had to extend my enrollment for two more years and pay a lot more tuition money before I got my degree.” She found her experience pursuing a doctorate at Walden University Online both frustrating and costly. “Can you imagine being one week away from graduating and someone new comes along and says you’re not graduating,” Ferguson continued. “Instead, you have to take another course, you have to redo your work. Then, eight months later, you finally finish. “At the end, I was literally living in a hotel and letting my husband take care of our kids because I was trying to finish my dissertation after all these changes were required. I was having migraine headaches and I’m disabled. I can only use one hand to type.” Ferguson told WND she telephoned and wrote to the president of Walden University Online and even made a complaint with the attorney general’s office in Georgia, but she failed to get any satisfaction. Hundreds of student complaints filed online Complaints from Walden University Online graduate students have been posted on websites such as GotClassAction.com and ComplaintBoard.com, maintained as a National Consumer Complaint Forum, all support Ferguson’s accusations. “Gordon C.” explained in a post two days ago on GotClassAction.com why he wants to join a class action suit against the school: I have had such a bad experience with Walden that I too would like to join a class action lawsuit. I found instructors to be very dismissive, complaining that they did not have time, and only to find out that this was a side job for them in that they worked for another institution besides Walden. I now owe $20, 000 with nothing to show for it. Yes let me know if I can join. Interesting how Bill Clinton took $16 million from this institution and the government won’t take action. I think I smell a rat here. Hillary will lose my vote over this. On Feb. 28, “Very Disappointed Student” criticized the instructors in a post on GradReports.com: It is going on six maybe seven years and I have not gotten my prospectus approved. I am totally disappointed with Walden University. The instructors are rude and some are pompous and narcissistic. The program does not prepare students for the dissertation. I am in the thick of it financially and have stuck it out this far. Either staff resign or those that sit for you temporarily are getting their pockets lined. No I would never refer anyone to attend Walden it has become a nightmare. Do not go there it truly SUCKS!!! On April 18, “Dr. Jackson” told of a fruitless seven years as a doctoral student on ComplaintBoard.com: RIP OFF!!!! I am a Doctoral Student Consultant and have been working with a Doctoral student at Walden University. We have been working together for the past 7 years and still haven’t gotten anything accomplished. She is now on her 3rd chair who mistakenly sent an ugly email to her which was meant for another colleague of his. In the email to the colleague, the chair suggested that he should probably dissuade the student from continuing since she has reached her 8th year and is a poor writer. What kind of chair says that about a student? As a partner in this with my student, I deeply disgusted and my student is heartbroken. If there is a lawsuit pending against them and you have a good lawyer, please pass their information along. Read more at _________________________ 
Victoria Claflin Woodhull, later Victoria Woodhull Martin (September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927) was an American leader of the woman's suffrage movement.
In 1872, Woodhull was the first female candidate for President of the United States. An activist for women's rights and labor reforms, Woodhull was also an advocate of free love, by which she meant the freedom to marry, divorce, and bear children without government interference.[1] Woodhull went from rags to riches twice, her first fortune being made on the road as a highly successful magnetic healer[2] before she joined the spiritualist movement in the 1870s.[3] While authorship of many of her articles is disputed (many of her speeches on these topics were collaborations between Woodhull, her backers, and her second husband, Colonel James Blood[4]), her role as a representative of these movements was powerful. Together with her sister, she was the first woman to operate a brokerage firm on Wall Street, and they were among the first women to found a newspaper, Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly, which began publication in 1870.[5] At her peak of political activity in the early 1870s, Woodhull is best known as the first woman candidate for the United States presidency, which she ran for in 1872 from the Equal Rights Party, supporting women's suffrage and equal rights. Her arrest on obscenity charges a few days before the election for publishing an account of the alleged adulterous affair between the prominent minister Henry Ward Beecher and Elizabeth Tilton added to the sensational coverage of her candidacy. She did not receive any electoral votes, and there is conflicting evidence about popular votes. Many of the reforms and ideals Woodhull espoused for the working class, against what she saw as the corrupt capitalist elite, were extremely controversial in her time. Generations later many of these reforms have been implemented and are now taken for granted. Some of her ideas and suggested reforms are still debated today...(Read More...) 
How corporate America bought Hillary Clinton for $21M
By Michael Walsh May 22, 2016 | 2:38pm “Follow the money.” That telling phrase, which has come to summarize the Watergate scandal, has been a part of the lexicon since 1976. It’s shorthand for political corruption: At what point do “contributions” become bribes, “constituent services” turn into quid pro quos and “charities” become slush funds? Ronald Reagan was severely criticized in 1989 when, after he left office, he was paid $2 million for a couple of speeches in Japan. “The founding fathers would have been stunned that an occupant of the highest office in this land turned it into bucks,” sniffed a Columbia professor. Modal Trigger Bill and Hillary Clinton collected more than $48 million in speaking fees in the past few years.Photo: Getty ImagesSo what would Washington and Jeff 
Judicial Watch Lawsuit Uncovers More Hillary Clinton Emails Withheld from State Department
MAY 05, 2016 Clinton Aide Huma Displeased with Clinton’s ‘I’m Exhausted Thing’ Abedin using additional non-.gov email address for government business (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages) that again appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com system until March 18, 2009. Judicial Watch recently released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response a court order in a May 5,2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department, after it failed to respond to a March 18 FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). The lawsuit seeks:
CLINTON WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE DEMOCRAT NOMINEE
May 6, 2016 by Joe Herring Former speaker of the House John Boehner recently spoke ill of fellow Republican Ted Cruz in a Q&A at Stanford University. His comments likening the candidate to “Lucifer in the flesh” got all the media attention, leaving this virtually unreported: Boehner’s comments also included a reference to the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was at the State Department, speculating on what might happen if the scandal widens. “Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” the former speaker said. I’ve been warning of this for more than a year, albeit for a different reason. Even someone as self-absorbed as Hillary must surely realize she has too much baggage, too many demonstrable lies, and too many viable avenues of investigation by officials who care more for country than party. These are the anchors that will draw Secretary Clinton below the waves, dooming her bid for the presidency. It is my contention that this is all according to plan. To understand the dynamic, it is important to look back at the genesis of Clinton’s legal issues. She clearly mishandled highly classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. Some would go farther and call it intentional exposure of state secrets, but absent further revelations from the FBI investigation, that remains speculative, however likely it may appear. Given the decidedly odd nature of this year’s electoral climate, speculation is as good an exercise as any, so let’s flesh out this particular line of reasoning. We know that Clinton’s excuse for placing a private server in her home for the processing of state secrets via email doesn’t pass the laugh test. Supposedly seeking “convenience,” citing the desire to carry only one smartphone for all correspondence rather than one for work and another for personal, Clinton established this server in the basement of her private home, also hosting email accounts for her two closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. Of course, your average middle-schooler could have told Secretary Clinton that it would be much easier to abandon the government-issued BlackBerry in favor of a smartphone capable of accessing more than one email account than it would be to set up an entire self-hosted network, vulnerable to hackers, in her home at Chappaqua. What may be a more reasonable explanation is that Secretary Clinton wanted the freedom to permit access to state secrets at her behest, to parties unknown, perhaps in exchange for some of those remarkably large contributions to the Clinton foundation. It strains credulity to think that people would toss around such princely sums on the off chance that she might actually become president one day. Our enemies are nothing if not pragmatic. They would’ve insisted on a far more immediate return on investment – one not possible if information had to first be accessed and retrieved from State Department-hosted servers before passing on to foundation “contributors.” The weakness in her plan stems from the discovery of her personal network, revealed by the Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer.” The same hacker was recently extradited to the United States at the request of those investigating Clinton’s emailgate. Assuming that FBI Director Comey is indeed gathering prosecutable evidence against Mrs. Clinton, it would stand to reason that a political operative of Ms. Clinton’s stature would have arranged an escape for such a contingency. Here is my reasoning: realizing that the evidence against her could rise to the level of treason, Secretary Clinton has struck a bargain with the Obama White House that in return for bowing out at or near the convention, she will receive a full pardon in order to ensure that she will never see the inside of a prison cell. She takes the slings and arrows, exhausting the opposition research budgets of Republican campaigns, leaving V.P. Biden and Sen. Warren largely immune from scrutiny during these long months of primaries and caucuses. By the time she begs off the nomination, citing medical issues, the Republicans will have barely three months to investigate and counter the actual nominees, Biden and Warren. Those among the electorate who are itching to make history with a female president will believe themselves to be doing precisely that by voting for a Biden/Warren ticket, albeit with a four-year “on-the-job training” period. Elizabeth Warren is easily as “progressive” as Clinton (likely having more in common with Bernie Sanders) but doesn’t carry the ethical corruption baggage that engulfs the wife of Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend. Joe Biden doesn’t carry the intellectual heft necessary to attain the presidency as a stand-alone candidate, but teamed with a soon to be historical figure in Warren, his star shines far more brightly. Clinton avoids prison and walks away with hundreds of millions in campaign donations. Obama gets a third term via Biden, and Democrats everywhere get to gush about their tolerance and forward thinking by electing the first female vice president/president in waiting. Republicans are caught on their heels, holding years of now worthless Clinton research while having virtually no contemporary files on their actual opponents. Whenever Democrats accuse Republicans of some shady malfeasance, rest assured that it is they who are engaged in precisely the crime they allege. Given the left-wing media narrative of stolen nominations and convention chicanery, it is more than plausible that the scenario outlined above is something more than pure speculation. By mid-summer, we will all know if I’m right. I first posited this scenario when Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy. Just remember, you heard it here first. The author is the communications director for the Global Faith Institute, (globalfaith.org) and writes from Omaha, Neb. Source: American Thinker 
POSTED ON APRIL 23, 2016 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN GUN CONTROL, HILLARY CLINTON, SECOND AMENDMENT
HILLARY WANTS YOUR GUNS Given the Democrats’ dismal record when they run on an anti-gun platform, it is hard to believe that Hillary Clinton wants to make gun control her signature issue. Nevertheless, that appears to be the case. Campaigning in Connecticut, she waxed hyperbolic on firearms: I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every single day if I’m so fortunate enough to be your president looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture. Every single minute of every single day, on guns? Well, that would be a good thing for our foreign policy, but I don’t think she means it. Still, it is always interesting to try to decode liberals’ talk about firearms. What do you think Hillary means by “chang[ing] the gun culture”? My guess is that she knows next to nothing about the “gun culture” as it is experienced by those who own and use firearms, and what she has in mind is making it really, really hard for anyone to buy a gun. Except for her armed guards, of course. Chelsea Clinton, campaigning for her mother, brought a moment of clarity to the Democrats’ usual obfuscation: Chelsea Clinton said Thursday at an event in Maryland that there is now an opportunity for gun control legislation to pass the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. “It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.” Clinton then touted her mother’s record on gun control issues and knowledge that the Supreme Court has an effect on whether many gun control laws stand. Chelsea’s comment is stupid. (Normally I wouldn’t criticize a family member of a candidate, but Chelsea is an adult and Hillary sent her out on the trail as a surrogate.) The idea that upholding some gun control measures while invalidating others is “inconsistent” betrays a profound lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution. To point out the obvious, the Supreme Court has similarly upheld some restrictions on speech as constitutional, while finding that others violate the First Amendment. And it has found some searches and seizures to be legal under the Fourth Amendment, while others are unconstitutional. This is not inconsistent, it is what courts do. And, of course, the reporter’s framing of the issue is even dumber: “legislation” doesn’t “pass” the Supreme Court. God help us. But, while Chelsea may not know anything about the law–money, not legality, is the Clintons’ obsession–she probably has a pretty good idea what her mother thinks about firearms. (I mean the ones that aren’t carried by her bodyguards or by the Secret Service.) I don’t doubt that one of Hillary’s agenda items is to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will vote to overturn Heller, and hold that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Our readers who supported Donald Trump may live to regret it if he proves to be such an inept candidate that Hillary becomes president, against all odds, and nominates Supreme Court justices who effectively repeal the Second Amendment. There is a chance, of course, that Hillary doesn’t really mean what she said in Connecticut and will drop her obsession with guns once she gets to the general election. Her motive may be entirely political: firearms are the only issue where she can get to Bernie Sanders’ left, since he voted for the federal statute that protects gun manufacturers against bogus lawsuits that would hold them accountable for the acts of criminals when their products work as intended. She also persists in the absurd claim that New York’s homicide problems are due to Vermont’s permissive gun laws, a silly position that she wouldn’t take if her opponent were not a senator from Vermont. So maybe Hillary’s purported obsession with guns is merely a campaign tactic that she will abandon when the time is right. At InstaPundit, Ed Driscoll points out that Hillary sings a different tune while campaigning in rural Pennsylvania: “I know how important gun ownership and particularly hunting is here in Northeastern Pennsylvania.” This is, as Ed notes, reminiscent of John Kerry’s Ohio goose hunting expedition–the one where he staged a hunting excursion for TV cameras and marched out of sight with his fellow hunters, but returned without personally carrying a dead goose, lest he offend his party’s core constituencies. (Dick Cheney and I once shared a laugh over this incident, which exemplified Kerry’s lameness as a presidential candidate.) Democratic politicians are generally lying; the question is, to whom? In this case, I think (like Ed Driscoll and Chelsea Clinton) that Hillary is sincere when she hints at her desire to ban guns, and lying through her teeth when she pretends to understand and respect those who like and use firearms. (Those other than her own armed guards, that is.) So watch for gun rights to play a significant role in this year’s presidential campaign. ___________________________ Published on Nov 1, 2015
Just a few (25) of the scandals, lies, and criminal activity of Hillary Clinton. 
Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out
Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information BY: Lachlan Markay November 6, 2015 9:00 am As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information. Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA. “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states. Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general. The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI. The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received. The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified. “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA. According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such. “TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.” Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008. “If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August. Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws. In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties. It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes. Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA. Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows. Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address. ___________________________  You may hear a lot of information surrounding the Hillary Clinton email "scandal", but Hillary For America's campaign Press Secretary, Brian Fallon, is here to fact check tweets a
FBI suspected of protecting Hillary Clinton from criminal charges
September 22, 2015 1:49 PM MST You may hear a lot of information surrounding the Hillary Clinton email "scandal", but Hillary For America's campaign Press Secretary, Brian Fallon, is here to fact check tweets a YouTube/AOL.com The upper-echelon members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are disappointing many Americans, including law enforcement and intelligence officers by refusing to comply on Monday with a federal judge's order that they conduct a probe of Democratic Party presidential candidateHillary Rodham Clinton’s email server, according to news sources and inside-the-Beltway watchdogs. The FBI allegedly informed the U.S. State Department that they will not confirm or deny that they are looking into the allegations nor will they inform other government agencies or the public exactly what the FBI is doing or not doing. Permission to reprint from Greg Roberts/Facebook/Stop Hillary 2016 Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had directed officials from the State Department to talk with appropriate members of the FBI to find out what if any information could be found on Mrs. Clinton’s supposedly "scrubbed" personal email server. Clinton attorney David Kendall told reporters that the former Secretary of State turned over the controversial server to the Attorney General Loretta Lynch's Justice Department staff during the summer.1 "[According to] Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time,” FBI General Counsel James A. Baker wrote in a letter dated Monday. His letter was sent a week after the the Justice Department deadline. Judicial Watch, a public-interest law firm that investigates and exposes government corruption, has filed about 16 FOIA cases seeking emails and memos from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides such asHuma Abedin. The non-profit group said with this latest turn of events it's not even clear what Mrs. Clinton provided to anyone involved in any probes. In fact, many observers doubt there is even the semblance of a probe. "Here I was telling colleagues and friends that the FBI, unlike the Justice Department and the Obama White House, would get to the bottom of the allegations that Clinton violated rules, regulations and even laws. And what do I discover? The FBI is part of the government cover-up for their anointed President of the United States," complained former police detective Sid Franes, who served as a U.S. Marine intelligence operative. "In all of my career in the military and law enforcement I have never seen such corruption and cynicism from our government. Our founders must be spinning in the graves," Franes added. Judicial Watch has been utilizing the federal court system to seek answers regarding Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Many of the group's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests went unanswered by the powers-that-be, forcing the group to seek remedy in civil court lawsuits. Tom Fitton and his Judicial Watch team has complained that it’s not even clear what Mrs. Clinton provided to any government agency. On Monday, the group released over 50-pages of emailsfrom alleged Muslim Brotherhood-linked Huma Abedin's email address given to her by Clinton on her private server. The emails revealed that Hillary Clinton and her top aide Abedin used an security-deficient email system to discuss "sensitive" topics. “These emails Judicial Watch forced out through a federal lawsuit show that Huma Abedin used her separate clintonemail.com account to conduct the most sensitive government business, endangering not only her safety but the safety of Hillary Clinton and countless others,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Hats off to Judicial Watch for doing what our government should be doing: Getting corrupt leaders in handcuffs and behind bars. But the reality is if there was anything on Hillary's server that could hurt her in her quest to be crowned on Inaugural Day 2017, it's gone by now. We've just watched a massive 'three-card Monte' or 'shell and pea' game. At this point that server could be full of Hillary messages saying how much she loves America and Americans," said former intelligence agent now a security firm owner, Moshe Zeligg. "They are not going to allow low-echelon federal cops bring down a Democrat icon no matter how crooked she is," he added. ___________________________ 
FBI seizes Hillary’s emails; Clinton agrees to turn over server after top-secret emails found
August 12, 2015 | Tom Tillison Hillary Clinton’s use of private email accounts and a private server is proving to be a far more persistent problem for the Democratic presidential contender than Benghazi. After repeated denials from Clinton that she did not handle classified information through her private email accounts, it was learned Tuesday that two emails classified as “Top Secret” have been identified, and that Clinton’s attorneys have agreed to turn over to the FBI the private server she used, along with a thumb drive containing thousands of e-mails. McClatchyDC reported: The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications – more sensitive than previously known. The notice came as the State Department inspector general’s office acknowledged that it is reviewing the use of “personal communications hardware and software” by Clinton’s former top aides after requests from Congress. “We will follow the facts wherever they lead, to include former aides and associates, as appropriate,” said Douglas Welty, a spokesman for the State Department’s inspector general. Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said Clinton is cooperating with the FBI, but did not clarify if her camp voluntarily turned over the server and thumb drive or were ordered to do so by federal authorities, according to the Washington Post. “She directed her team to give her e-mail server that was used during her tenure as secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her e-mails already provided to the State Department,” Merrill said. “She pledged to cooperate with the government’s security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them.” And now that her top aides are being drawn into the federal probe, the impact on her presidential aspirations cannot be ignored, even though officials have said that Clinton is not a target in the investigation. According to McClatchyDC: The expanding inquiry threatens to further erode Clinton’s standing as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Since her reliance on private email was revealed in March, polls in crucial swing states show that increasing numbers of voters say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, in part, because of her use of private emails. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is calling on Clinton and her aides to “come clean and cough up” information about their personal email use, McClatchyDC reported. “Both the State Department and Intelligence Community inspectors general should be looking into the staff use of the Clinton private server for official State Department business,” said the Republican senator from Iowa. “This means giving both inspectors general access and custody of all emails that haven’t already been deleted. “From what is publicly known, it appears that the investigation thus far has focused so much on the former secretary of state, that it’s gotten lost that high-level staff apparently also used this server too.” Read more: ___________________________ FBI investigating security of Hillary Clinton's private email server
Published August 05, 2015FoxNews.com NOW PLAYING Clinton's support slipping among Democrats The FBI has begun investigating the security of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server, an attorney for the Democratic presidential front-runner confirmed to Fox News late Tuesday. The probe, which was first reported by The Washington Post, comes days after watchdogs from the State Department and the intelligence community asked the Justice Department to explore whether classified material was improperly shared or stored on the former secretary of state's private e-mail account. The Post first reported the FBI contacted Clinton attorney David Kendall about the security of a thumb drive he possesses that contain copies of work emails sent by Clinton during her time as America's top diplomat. The paper also reported that the FBI had contacted a Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the server. "Quite predictably, after the [intelligence community's inspector general] made a referral to ensure that materials remain properly stored, the government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials," Kendall told Fox News. "We are actively cooperating." Clinton has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing. Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community inspector general's office, told Fox News last month that the office had requested a "counterintelligence referral" from the Justice Department, not a criminal referral. Clinton has repeatedly denied sending or receiving any then-classified information on her personal account. Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill repeated that denial to Fox News late Tuesday, saying "She did not send nor receive any emails that were marked classified at the time. We want to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed as these emails are reviewed while not unduly delaying the release of her emails. We want that to happen as quickly and as transparently as possible." Merrill's denial that Clinton sent emails "marked classified at the time" contradicts her claim to reporters in March that no classified material, retroactive or otherwise, had ever passed through the private account. "I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material," Clinton said at the time. "I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material." The Post also reported that the server installed in Clinton's New York home just prior to her becoming secretary of state was originally used by her 2008 presidential campaign, and replaced a server that former president Bill Clinton had been using. According to the paper, the server originally used by Bill Clinton was deemed to be too small to accommodate the correspondence of a sitting Cabinet official. Responsibility for the first server was held by a longtime Bill Clinton aide with no security clearance and no expertise at safeguarding computers. Bryan Pagliano, a former IT director for Clinton's 2008 campaign, was brought into oversee the second server. He was paid by a political action committee tied to Clinton through April 2009, when he was hired by the State Department as an IT specialist. The Post report, citing people briefed on the server setup, described it as occasionally unreliable, going down for days after Superstorm Sandy struck the New York area in October 2012. The existence of the e-mail server has raised repeated questions about Clinton's adherence to federal open records laws and whether she used the account to shield herself from information requests by journalists and government transparency groups. Clinton has also maintained that she turned over all relevant federal records before deleting her emails off her sever. Amid heavy public criticism, she later asked the State Department to release 55,000 pages of emails she had turned over to them. Fox News' Ed Henry contributed to this report. ___________________________  (Getty Images)
GOP Slams Hillary on New Emails: 'Reckless Attempt' to Bypass Laws
(Getty Images) By Todd Beamon | Friday, 31 Jul 2015 07:41 PM Republicans Friday slammed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton amid revelations that she kept classified documents from five government agencies on her private server and that many of trove of emails newly released by the State Department had been censored because the Obama administration deemed the information to sensitive to make public. "Today’s email dump shows Hillary Clinton put even more sensitive government information at risk on her secret email server than previously known," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "Hillary Clinton’s reckless attempt to bypass public records laws put our national security at risk and shows she cannot be trusted in the White House." Of the 2,206 pages of emails released on Friday, the administration censored passages to protect national security at least 64 times in 37 messages, including instances when the same information was blacked-out multiple times. Clinton has said she never sent classified information from the private email server in her home in New York. Her decision to not use a State Department email account continues to be a political problem for her amid heavy Republicans criticism. However, David Kendall, Clinton's attorney, has back-up copies of the emails on a thumb drive in his Washington office. This also has sparked outrage among GOP legislators — and some analysts said Friday that storing the emails on the private serve and thumb drive might be illegal. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called Kendall's back-up of the emails "a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are. "There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified," the Iowa senator said. "It’s important to make sure that politics aren’t taking precedence over national security." Grassley wrote FBI Director James Comey Friday asking him to explain what the agency was doing to ensure that the information on Kendall's thumb drive was secured and not further disseminated. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, wrote Kendall on Wednesday asking him to explain what he’s done to "safeguard the classified material in (his) possession," McClatchy reports. "The lax storage and safeguarding of this information could have serious consequences to national security," Johnson wrote. That Clinton kept the emails on her private server — and, with Kendall now holding the back-up copies — may violate federal laws governing the storage and removal of classified information, national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. said. "In most situations like this, you'd expect that a warrant would be issued and that the Marshals and the feds — FBI, somebody — would go and get that thumb drive and take it somewhere where it would be considered safe by the government," MacMahon told Fox News. Among the major national security cases MacMahon has handled were the leak investigation of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in 2011. Federal law describes the illegal removal and storage of classified information as when someone "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," Fox reports. Punishment includes a fine or a prison term of "not more than one year." Attorney General Loretta Lynch would not commit to any efforts to securing the classified data. "The inspectors general for the State Department and at least one other IG are reviewing how material was handled," she told Fox. "We will review it as we review all referrals to us and take whatever steps are appropriate, if any, at this time." Information on the emails came from the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Nation-Geospatial Agency, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA, according to Fox. Among the censored emails was a brief exchange in October 2009 between Clinton and Jeffrey Feltman, then Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. She had emailed Feltman about an "Egyptian proposal" for separate signings of a reconciliation deal with the terrorist group Hamas after the group balked at attending a unity ceremony. Both Clinton's email and Feltman's response are marked B-1 for "classified" and are completely censored from the email release. A longer email sent the same day from Clinton to former Sen. George Mitchell, then the special envoy for Middle East Peace, is also censored as classified despite the fact that Clinton did not send the original message on a secure channel. Mitchell later responded to Clinton that "the Egyptian document has been received and is being translated." One other now-secret email involved a battle over whom to appoint as the head of the United Nations cultural agency. The September 2009 issue was over the candidacy of an Egyptian official who had once threatened to burn Israeli books. Huma Abedin, Clinton's longtime aide, on Sept. 22 forwarded to her boss a chain of emails from department staff summing up the maneuvering over the issue. One sentence in that chain was released redacted, with a code for national security interests as the stated reason. Previous emails released by the State Department revealed that Clinton received information on her private account about the deadly 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that was retroactively classified as "secret" at the request of the FBI. The assaults killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, including two former Navy SEALS. Clinton is expected to testify Oct. 22 before the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. The panel is headed by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. Other correspondence that could prove damaging for Clinton includes 2009 messages from former national security adviser Sandy Berger about how to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over negotiations with Palestinians. Friday's release brings the volume of emails made public by the State Department to about 12 percent of the 55,000 pages Clinton had turned over to department lawyers earlier this year. That falls short of the 15 percent goal set by a court ruling in May, a lag the State Department attributed to interest by the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community in the possible compromise of classified information. Memos sent by the inspector general of the intelligence community alerted the FBI to a potential security violation arising from Clinton's use of a private server located in her home. The inspector general said his office had found four emails containing classified information while reviewing a limited sample of 40 of the emails provided by Clinton. Those four messages were not marked as classified but should have because they contained classified information at the time they were sent, the inspector general said. Clinton has repeatedly defended her email usage, saying her private server had "numerous safeguards" and placing responsibility for releasing the documents on the State Department. "They're the ones that are bearing the responsibility to sort through these thousands and thousands of emails and determine at what pace they can be released," she said after meeting with labor leaders Thursday in Maryland. "I really hope that it will be as quickly as possible." The Associated Press contributed to this report. Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com  Hillary Clinton appointed her longtime aide Huma Abedin as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department. When it was discovered that Abedin’s family was deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, very few eyebrows were raised.
The Arabian Candidate
April 10, 2015 by William Kilpatrick In The Manchurian Candidate, the son of a prominent right-wing politician is captured by the Soviets and brainwashed in a secret Manchurian location. His task is to assassinate a presidential candidate, thus ensuring the election of the demagogic vice-president. Hence, the title “Manchurian Candidate.” The film has several parallels to current events. The main difference is that in those days, Americans had to be brainwashed into serving enemy interests by psy-ops teams. Nowadays, they come self-brainwashed with some indoctrinative assist from the American educational system. In the film, a scary lady with leftist sympathies who looks vaguely like Hillary Clinton manipulates her husband into high political office. In real life, a scary lady with leftist leanings who looks vaguely like Angela Lansbury (only scarier) manipulates herself into high political office..... Read More... _________________________ Wait a minute. It's the greatest quote ever !
 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Associated Press)
Why Hillary Clinton won’t run for president
By Wesley Pruden - - Thursday, January 15, 2015 Hillary can’t win, and that’s why she won’t run. She may not know that yet herself, but a lot of Democrats want her because she’s all they’ve got. The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she’s the candidate they can beat in what looks from here like it could be a Republican year. Lady Macbeth has the resume that makes her plausible, which a lot of pundits and normal other people confuse with “inevitable.” Everybody recognizes her name. She doesn’t hear the music but she recognizes the words and knows policy, and likes to talk about it. She’s a woman, and that should help with the ladies. (It might hurt, too). She has had to carry a lot of Bubba’s baggage, and people usually pity the wronged wife. Nobody is comfortable as the object of pity, but political widows have often exploited it. Political wives, not so much. Hillary has successfully used it, probably because she has thrown the occasional lamp. People like people who fight back. She has even carried some of Barack Obama’s baggage, and she’ll have to work hard to avoid sharing the blame for the president’s bad choices. The map of the world is speckled with them. Against every positive, there’s two or three negatives. Everyone has a list. Many women like her, some women worship her. Most men despise her. She reminds them of their ex-wives. Life is not fair. Men, a wise man said, are assumed to be competent until they prove otherwise; that was Mr. Obama’s good fortune in 2008, when nobody looked at him closely. Women are thought to be incompetent until they prove otherwise, as many women in politics and business do every day. Getting credit is not easy. Successful men and women are born with an instinct for politics, or they never have it. Bubba was born with it, along with the ability to change convictions like changing his pants. The politicians who have it have no shame exploiting it. If they have the ability to wink, smile and say the right thing they can get by with anything short of murder, and maybe that, too. What can you do with a good ol’ boy like Bubba? He only rarely hit a false note. Hillary never hits anything but. She’s stiff and wooden as a public speaker, as if trying to prove Dr. Johnson’s famous aphorism that a woman preaching is like a dog trying to walk on its hind legs. Hillary is tone-deaf besides. She’s always starting on her “back foot,” as the English say, and she’s a mediocre campaigner, too. Bubba would never have said the family, with millions in the bank, was “dead broke. Not because it was a lie but because everybody in America knew it was a lie. A skilled politician would never have asked, after the Benghazi debacle, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Whatever gift for politics she has, she got from imitating Bubba. Voters won’t be satisfied with a pale imitation, and nobody listens to two-time losers. Instinct and ambition — the “fire in the belly” — is a lethal combination, and Hillary has a version only of ambition, but it only occasionally flashes as the hard blue flame that drives winners. Mike McCurry, Bubba’s press secretary, asks the pertinent question about Hillary: At 67, does she really want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day, eating bad food, sleeping in a strange and uncomfortable bed every night, shaking the hands of strangers in a drafty gym in Iowa, and rubbing elbows with indifferent diners in New Hampshire? She could live the luxurious life at her own pace, delivering the same canned speech written for her, enjoying a new granddaughter, making speeches for $200,000 a pop and watching the millions accumulate at the Clinton Global Foundation. Running in 2016 won’t be the picnic of 2008, when she had no record to defend (nobody expects so much of a senator). The press, which took a dive in 2008, is loaded this time. She will get sharp questions that she won’t be able to blow off in 2016. She will find out quickly “What difference, at this point, does it make.” There will be no coronation. Hillary is caught in a trap of her own ambition. The prospect of her as president, which keeps the big money coming from foundations and corporations buying access to a new president, will dry up once she announces, leaving her with only the anger of partisan friends with no candidate. But life for the Clintons has always been about Hillary and Bubba, and good luck to everybody else. • Wesley Pruden is the editor emeritus of The Washington Times. Read more: __________________________ 
Elizabeth Warren’s Quote
By Reihan Salam September 22, 2011 7:04 PM The following is a quote from Elizabeth Warren, current favorite of progressive activists and a candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along..... ___________________________ |
 James Comey on August 30 in Washington, DC. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
The FBI’s Blind Clinton Trust Comey’s agents were forgiving about some incriminating evidence.
Sept. 7, 2016 7:10 p.m. ET The closer we look at the FBI’s investigative file on Hillary Clinton’s emails, the more we wonder if Director James Comey always intended to let her off the hook. The calculated release before the long Labor Day weekend suggests political favoritism, and the report shows the FBI didn’t pursue evidence of potential false statements, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence. Mr. Comey’s concessions start with his decision not to interview Mrs. Clinton until the end of his investigation, a mere three days before he announced his conclusions. Regular FBI practice is to get a subject on the record early then see if his story meshes with what agents find. In this case they accepted Mrs. Clinton’s I-don’t-recall defenses after the fact. The notes also show the G-men never did grill Mrs. Clinton on her “intent” in setting up her server. Instead they bought her explanation that it was for personal convenience. This helped Mr. Comey avoid concluding that her purpose was to evade statutes like the Federal Records Act. Mr. Comey also told Congress that indicting her without criminal intent would pose a constitutional problem. But Congress has written many laws that don’t require criminal intent, and negligent homicide (for example) has never been unconstitutional. The FBI notes also blow past evidence that Clinton advisers may have engaged in a cover-up. Consider page 10 of the FBI report: “Clinton’s immediate aides, to include [Huma] Abedin, [Cheryl] Mills, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.” That’s amazing given that Ms. Abedin had her own email account on the private server. It is also contradicted by page 3: “At the recommendation of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s long-time aide and later Deputy Chief of Staff at State, in or around fall 2008, [ Bill Clinton aide Justin] Cooper contacted Bryan Pagliano . . . to build the new server system and to assist Cooper with the administration of the new server system.” The FBI must also have ignored two emails referred to by the State Inspector General showing Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin discussing the server while they worked at State: “hrc email coming back—is server okay?” Ms. Mills asked Ms. Abedin and Mr. Cooper in a Feb. 27, 2010 email. “I had to shut down the server,” wrote Mr. Cooper to Ms. Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011, noting that “someone was trying to hack us.” In an Aug. 30, 2011 email released through a lawsuit, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull informs Ms. Mills, Ms. Abedin and others that he believed Mrs. Clinton’s current Blackberry was malfunctioning “possibly because of [sic] her personal email server is down.” Ms. Mills has a particular reason for denying early knowledge of the server: She became Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer after they both left State. If Ms. Mills knew about the server while at State, she’d be subject to questions about the server. But if she didn’t know about the server until leaving State, she can argue that conversations with Mrs. Clinton are protected by attorney-client privilege. The FBI ignored all this, and it even allowed Ms. Mills to accompany Mrs. Clinton to her FBI interview as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer. There’s more the G-men ignored. Starting on page 18, the FBI notes that on March 2, 2015, the New York Times broke the news about Mrs. Clinton’s private server. On March 4, 2015, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued a subpoena for Mrs. Clinton to produce emails from clintonemail.com. The FBI notes that in the days following the New York Times story, Ms. Mills “requested that PRN [Platte River Networks, the outside company then maintaining the Clinton technology] conduct a complete inventory of all equipment related to [the Clinton server]. And on March 25, PRN “held a conference call with President Clinton’s staff.” A PRN employee then sometime “between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server.” The FBI reports that it had found a “PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, [Hillary attorney David] Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015.” The PRN employee was advised by an attorney “not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege.” What was said in those PRN conversations with Ms. Mills, Clinton aides and Mr. Kendall? Why the sudden Clinton rush to deal with a server that had been sitting quietly for so long? Usually, the FBI is keenly interested in any potential destruction of evidence—especially evidence under subpoena. Yet the FBI didn’t explore the details of the convenient archive deletions. The FBI’s kid-glove treatment of Mrs. Clinton raises serious doubts about the seriousness of Mr. Comey’s probe. His July 5 public rebuke of her “extremely careless” handling of secrets has masked that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were given a pass on much of their behavior and dubious answers. The entire episode is another Jim Comey scar on the FBI’s reputation. __________________________ 
HILLARY'S NEW STAFF PICK: A PRO-TPP GLOBALIST
Obama appointee longtime advocate for 'greenest trade deal ever'Published: 2 days ago CURTIS ELLIS About | Email | Archive Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton’s appointment Tuesday of former senator and interior secretary Ken Salazar to head her transition team, if elected, is undermining her professed opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Democratic Party nominee for president has said repeatedly she opposes the trade pact President Obama is trying to get through Congress before his term ends, even though she previously described it as the “gold standard.” But Salazar was a paid lobbyist for TPP and remains an outspoken supporter of the deal. In an op-ed in USA Today, Salazar called TPP the “greenest trade deal ever” and claimed it would help middle-class families get ahead. Salazar’s law firm lobbied on behalf of global corporations to give Obama extra-constitutional fast-track power to push TPP through Congress. TPP has become a central issue in the presidential campaign. Donald Trump charges its will send more American jobs overseas the same way NAFTA did and vows he would kill the deal if elected. The fierce opposition to TPP by Trump, the American people and Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the Democratic Party primaries, prompted Clinton to disavow her previous support for the deal. As secretary of state, however, she helped negotiate the pact. Clinton now says she opposes the TPP “in its current form,” prompting many to question her honesty. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton approved NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, even though he said he opposed it when he ran for president. Even as Hillary mouths opposition to the TPP, her top advisers are saying she will make sure it is enacted no matter what she says on the campaign trail. Longtime Clinton confidante Terry McAuliffe said that once the election is over, Hillary will push the TPP because she understands “we got to build a global economy.” Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, has supported TPP, though he, too, recently reversed himself. The Salazar appointment has raised the ire of Bernie Sanders supporters. Norman Solomon, national coordinator of the progressive Bernie Delegates Network, said, “If Clinton wants to weasel her way through the TPP issue and set off a war with progressives inside her own party in the process, she’s off to a great start.” This comes after Obama officially notified Congress he will send TPP to Congress for a vote in the lame-duck session after the election, as WND has reported. Hillary Clinton has pointedly refused to lobby Democrats to vote against TPP in the lame-duck session, setting off a firestorm within her party. The progressive Campaign for America’s Future noted, “It is not enough for Clinton to say she is against TPP; [she needs to be] putting herself on the front line, calling Democrats and twisting arms and making deals to persuade members of Congress to vote against it.” The liberal organizations Democracy for America and CREDO are blasting Clinton in an online petition that gained over 60,000 signatures within hours. “Sec. Clinton herself has yet to make a public statement opposing a lame-duck vote,” the petition says. “Tell Sec. Clinton: Publicly oppose a lame-duck vote on TPP … we need to let her know we are counting on her to take the lead in opposing a lame-duck vote.” The Republican Party platform states that trade agreements such as TPP should not be taken up in a lame-duck session of Congress. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a top adviser to Donald Trump, blasted the TPP. “Americans know these agreements have allowed trade practices that unfairly close manufacturing plants, costing millions of high-paying jobs,” Sessions said. Sessions said any move to enact it in a lame-duck session of Congress is an insult to the American people, who have made their opposition to the pact clear. “President Obama knows that the only chance he has of passing the TPP is during this short window [of the lame duck]. His determination flies in the face of the clear will of the American people, as demonstrated in the primaries,” Sessions stated. Salazar’s law firm, WilmerHale, lobbied Congress on behalf of the Business Roundtable, an association of major globalist corporations, to give Obama “fast-track” Trade Promotion Authority. Read more at _________________________ Twilight of the Clintons
 President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton (Photo: Twitter)
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: CLINTONS RUN MONEY-LAUNDERING RING'
This is the type of thing drug cartels or terrorists do,' not presidents, candidates Published: 7 hours ago July 28th GREG COROMBOS About | Email | Archive As Hillary Clinton heads out of the Democratic National Convention to hit the general election campaign trail, allegations of Clinton Foundation corruption are alive and well – and one writer is urging Americans across the country to help hold the Clintons accountable. Dr. Jerome Corsi is an investigative reporter for WND and the author, most recently, of “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit.” His book comes more than a year after Peter Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash” detailed alleged State Department favors Hillary Clinton performed for nations and individuals that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. Corsi told WND and Radio America his efforts to shut down the Clinton Foundation have a much simpler focus. “What I’m maintaining is there is a much easier offense to go after, and that’s what’s called inurement. Inurement is a criminal offense, and it means you run a charity for your own benefit,” Corsi explained. He said that is much easier to prove than the kind of corruption alleged by Schweizer. “You don’t need a quid pro quo,” he said. “You just show the financial reporting is so apparently fraudulent and so masking of money that you know went through the corporation because the United Nations reports more that they gave to the Clinton Foundation reports they got. Where did the additional missing money go?” Corsi said the Clinton Foundation inurement began after the Clintons turned a foundation designed to raise money for Bill Clinton’s presidential library. After leaving the White House, the Clintons used the foundation for disaster relief in placed like India and Haiti. Corsi said Bill Clinton would travel to the scenes of disaster, pose with the survivors, raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the relief effort and then spend just a tiny fraction on the stated mission. “Money gets ripped off in this grifter scheme and enriches the Clintons. You have to ask yourself: They have these $100 million net worths, and they’ve never held a job except for the Clinton Foundation. Where did they get all this money except to rip it out of the foundation?” asked Corsi, who refers to the Clinton Foundation as a “vast criminal enterprise.” Jerome Corsi says Bill and Hillary Clinton may be deep in 'money-laundering' schemeThe instinctive response to that question is that the Clintons have raked in millions of dollars for their speaking engagements. But Corsi said the money trail there is very murky as well. “You can’t tell where the speaking fees went. Were they foundation related? Bill Clinton sets up a dummy corporation, WJC LLC,” Corsi said. “He has a pass-through account in it, where he is able to take the money through various accounts that he passes it through, comes through this WJC pass through, goes out to other nominal accounts. This is the type of thing drug cartels or terrorists do. It’s classic money laundering.” Corsi said the Clinton Foundation cannot be confronted through the federal government, because Americans have seen that Uncle Sam will not punish Democrats when Democrats are in power. “Every criminal in the world knows that this scheme is underway,” he said. “The only people being fooled by it are the citizens of the United States, who are still under the illusion the Department of Justice, the FBI or the IRS operates for equal justice under the law. It doesn’t, not under the Democrats.” As a result, Corsi said the path to holding the Clintons accountable must begin in the states. “Any one state can shut down the Clinton Foundation,” he said. “A person who’s given a dollar to the foundation says, ‘I’ve been defrauded.’ A state attorney general can call for a criminal investigation and suspend the activities of the Clinton Foundation internationally until the determination is made as to whether it’s a legitimate charity.” Corsi is urging Americans to bombard the attorney general in their state to demand answers. He said without such scrutiny, a Hillary Clinton presidency would make past Clinton Foundation abuses pale in comparison. “If Hillary Clinton gets in the White House, it’ll be a grifter’s wet dream. You’ll have Bill Clinton at the foundation and Hillary as head of state,” he said. “No grifter ever fell more into the lap of luxury.” Read more at _________________________ 
WHO IS TIM KAINE, HILLARY’S VP? PART OF THE JIHAD CAUCUS
By Faye Higbee Posted July 25, 2016 In opinion, Politics Who is Tim Kaine, Hillary’s VP? Hillary picked Senator Tim Kaine as her running mate. But who is he? What is he about? Let’s give it a look…and fasten your seatbelts. Tim Kaine is the former Governor of Virginia, and former chair of the DNC. He is a lawyer, one with the same ties to radical Islamist groups as Hillary. The ‘Jihad Caucus’ Senator Kaine was a part of a 14 Senator coalition that demanded 65,000 more Syrian Refugees be brought into the United States in two letters, one in April 2016, and one in May 2016. The 14 Senators were: Dick Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Coons, Tim Kaine, Ed Markey, Sherrod Brown, and Mazie Hirono. Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy called these senators the “Jihad Caucus.” Democrat/Muslim election tactics Similar to the Wikileaks emails from the DNC, back in 2012 they were still doing the same things. Democrats are NOT the party of change, they are the party of dirty tricks. And Tim Kaine is right in the middle of it. According to KeyWiki: “A memo detailing the creation and agenda of the National Muslim Democratic Council that is marked “CONFIDENTIAL; NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION” was leaked. In the section marked “2012 election strategy” the group specifically spelled out detailed plans to support the Democrats and target Republicans in “key races where American Muslims can make a difference.” Support came from Radical Muslim groups Kaine has been supported by MAS – the Muslim American Society, whose Executive Director is Mahdi Bray. They claim that their support is what got Kaine elected to the Senate in 2012. “Ask the governor of Virginia what kind of impact we have. The Democrats’ win hinged on the Muslim vote.” Mahdi Bray This video from 2000 shows Mahdi Bray expressing support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Hanging with jihadists Kaine was on the guest list for the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center’s fundraising dinner in 2010…the same mosque that fed Nasan’s Fort Hood massacre, the same mosque that bred several other jihadists, and was frequented by the 9-11 hijackers. Why didn’t he distance himself from these groups? He tried at least once, when a man that he appointed to the Virginia Commission on Immigration turned out to have posted alleged jihadist sentiments. He pressured Dr. Omeish into resigning. Money trail According to Islamist Watch, in the 2012 Senate race, he received money from organizations that have known connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas: CAIR- Council on American Islamic Relations and the ISNA – Islamic Society of North America. And just for reference, Donald Trump’s name does NOT appear anywhere in these listings. While the amounts aren’t huge for him, Hillary’s from the same organizations are just over $31,000 since 2005. Hillary’s VP running mate is the same kind of swamp as hers. ___________________________  Hillary Clinton on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, N.J. on July 6. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Clinton Casino Royale
She says Donald Trump killed Atlantic City. Here’s the real story. July 6, 2016 7:33 p.m. ET Hillary Clinton on Wednesday accused Donald Trump of looting his casinos and pillaging Atlantic City, and that was the gracious part. If she’s going to criticize Mr. Trump’s business record, she should also have to defend the failure of Atlantic City’s model of progressive governance. Democrats aim to rehash the story of how Mr. Trump loaded his casinos with debt and declared bankruptcy four times—stiffing creditors and workers while shielding himself personally—ad nauseam through November. “He doesn’t default and go bankrupt as a last resort,” Mrs. Clinton declared. “He does it over and over again on purpose.” She’s one to talk about incorrigible behavior. While Mr. Trump may have contributed to Atlantic City’s downward spiral by oversaturating the casino market, it takes more than one man to raze a city. The businessman experienced a moment of lucidity—if only he could expand beyond 140 characters—when he fired back in a tweet that “Democrat pols in Atlantic City made all the wrong moves—Convention Center, Airport—and destroyed City.” In 1976 New Jersey voters approved a referendum that legalized gambling in Atlantic City. The constitutional amendment required casino revenues to fund programs for senior citizens and disabled residents, but politicians have instead funneled the cash to favored projects and businesses under the guise of promoting development. Guess how that’s turned out? A 1984 law required casinos to pay 2.5% of gaming revenues to the state or “reinvest” 1.25% in tax-exempt bonds issued by the state Casino Reinvestment Development Authority for state and community “projects that would not attract capital in normal market conditions.” Investment recipients have included Best of Bass Pro shop, Margaritaville and Healthplex. A decade later, state lawmakers imposed a $1.50 fee (which has since doubled) on casino parking spots to fund Atlantic City transportation, casino construction and a convention center. In 2004 lawmakers added a $3 surcharge for casino hotel stays to finance new hotel rooms and retail establishments, which had the effect of promoting unsustainable commercial and casino development. Then came gambling competition, in Connecticut in 1992 and Pennsylvania in 2004. As more states in the Northeast legalized gaming, Atlantic City’s monopoly withered. In 2014 four Atlantic City casinos shut down even as the state development authority reported $352.2 million in cash and investments and $103.2 million in annual revenues (equal to about a quarter of the city budget). Irony alert: Mr. Trump in 1997 sued to block the state’s redistribution of casino income when a competing developer stood to benefit from its investments. However, New Jersey’s liberal Supreme Court ruled that voters should have known that the referendum was actually intended to revitalize Atlantic City tourism, not help seniors. Employment in Atlantic City has declined by about 10% over the last decade. Since 2010 the city’s property tax base has shrunk by two thirds. Local politicians raised property taxes by 50% between 2013 and 2014 to compensate for the dwindling tax base, but this has merely deterred new business investment and propelled flight. Meantime, local politicians have continued to spend like they work for Google. Between 2010 and 2014, expenditures increased by 10% while government debt doubled. The city government spends about $6,600 a year per resident—more than any other city in the state including Newark ($2,344). Its budget exceeds that of nearly half of New Jersey’s counties. Labor costs constitute about 70% of the budget. Earlier this year, the city emergency manager projected a $393 million cumulative deficit over the next five years absent reforms. More than 100 workers have recently been laid off. In May Democratic legislators and Governor Chris Christie passed a bailout that allows the city to squeeze an additional $120 million out of casinos in revenues annually to compensate for lower property-tax revenue. To sum up: New Jersey Democrats plundered Atlantic City casinos, redistributed the spoils and loaded up the city with unaffordable levels of debt. The gambling mecca is a five-star example of failed liberal policies. __________________________ 
Huma Abedin: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Closest Companion
As Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has campaigned around the country, the media and political observers have noted a near-constant companion by her side at nearly every event and rally she goes to: a tall, thin, long-haired brunette woman named Huma Abedin, who has been Clinton’s personal aide and confidante for nearly 20 years. Abedin, who assumes the role traditionally referred to as “body man” (or in this case, “body woman”), is expected to serve as an assistant, scheduler and valet for the former First Lady. She accompanies, organizes and coordinates for Clinton at all times. Abedin has been working for Clinton ever since she was a sophomore at George Washington University, in 1996, when she was 19 years old and served as an intern to the First Lady at the same time that Monica Lewinsky was serving as an intern to Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton. The especially close relationship between Abedin and Clinton has been written about and been the source for much beltway gossip amongst Washington insiders. But aside from the speculation that their relationship may be more intimate than is commonly perceived, there is a deeper issue at stake that has only recently been discussed widely. Although many people are unaware, Abedin was not raised in the United States nor did she go through what might be termed a typical adolescence. In fact, for nearly the first 18 years of her life, Abedin was raised in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abedin’s mother still lives there and is the founder and director of an organization known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), which has offices in Jeddah and London, England. Both of Abedin’s parents have in fact been strong defenders and fierce advocates of Muslim theology, with Abedin’s father, Syed Zainul Abedin being affiliated with the Muslim Students League at his alma mater, Western Michigan University, and a counselor to that group’s sponsor, the Muslim World League (MWL). The MWL is Saudi Arabia’s largest charity organization, having received over $1.3 billion from the Saudi Arabian government since it was founded in 1962. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam states that “[The MWL] has acted as a mouthpiece for the Saudi Arabian government, which finances it.” The former head of the MWL is a man named Abdullah Omar Naseef, who, in addition to his role overseeing MWL, is the chairman of the board of trustees of the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Huma’s brother is a fellow. Naseef is also a primary sponsor of the Abedins’ IMMA. In 1988, Naseef, the MWL, and the national government of Pakistan created a financial entity called the Rabita Trust, a subsidiary of the MWL; Naseef remains active with this entity to this day. In October of 2001, a month after the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush signed an executive order designating the Rabita Trust a sponsor of terrorism and had the Treasury Department freeze its assets. The Treasury Department stated, the Rabita Trust is run by a man named Wa’el Hamza Jalaidan, a co-founder of Al-Qaeda and at that time the logistics expert for Osama bin Laden. Jalaiden himself was termed a terrorist entity by the Treasury Department, and his personal assets were frozen as well. It turns out that the MWL had been funding a jihadist organization bin Laden had created, the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), since at least the early 1980s. Both the MAK and the MWL used the same offices in Peshawar, Pakistan, and had other personnel in common. For nearly 13 years — from 1996 to 2008 — including during the time she was interning for Hillary Clinton in the White House — Huma Abedin was an editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an academic publication written and distributed by the IMMA, where both her mother, sister and brother are still on its staff. When Hillary Clinton left the White House and became a New York Senator in 2000, Abedin became her personal aide and advisor. After the 9/11 attacks occurred and the assets of the aforementioned Rabita Trust were frozen, no questions were asked about the ties between the Rabita Trust, Abdullah Omar Naseef and the closest aide to one of America’s most important senators and former First Lady. In fact, no questions were asked at all about how someone whose family had close connections to the very terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks was able to become an assistant to the First Lady within two years of coming to the United States. Very quickly, Abedin was able to create a comfortable life for herself in Washington, D.C. Despite earning just $27,999.92 in fiscal 2005, Abedin was able to buy an apartment there costing $649,000 the following year. In 2009, when Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State, Clinton made Abedin her deputy chief of staff. In 2010, Abedin married Congressman Anthony Weiner, a strong supporter and ally of both Clintons until he was forced to resign following a scandal over chasing women who were not his wife. In 2012, Hillary Clinton signed paperwork allowing Abedin to work simultaneously for her at the State Department and at the Teneo Group, a private firm in New York with strong ties to the Clinton Foundation that also happened to employ former President Bill Clinton. In 2012 and 2013, Abedin was allowed to hold two additional jobs simultaneously with the previous two — one at the Clinton Foundation itself (which she continues to work for) and one as the private personal assistant to Hillary Clinton herself. Around this time, Abedin filed inaccurate timesheets that saw her overpaid by at least $10,000. Overpaid or not, Clinton can at least claim that her new assistant was loyal. During the hearings for the infamous Benghazi Consulate attacks, Abedin peppered her testimony with “I don’t recollect” and “I don’t remember” nearly as often as her boss did. Beyond all these matters, we also know that Abedin was directly involved in setting up Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which has been the origin of at least two criminal investigations and may yet be the source of an indictment for Clinton. The Atlantic magazine reported it was Abedin and another Clinton aide, Cheryl Mills, who both personally went through all of Clinton’s emails and determined which were to be deleted. This, of course, meant that Abedin had access to the most classified and top secret emails at the very highest levels of the U.S. government. Today, in addition to continuing to work for Hillary Clinton as the vice chairperson of her campaign, Huma Abedin works for the Clinton Foundation and runs her own consulting company called Zain Endeavors. So close is Clinton with her assistant that she visited the latter’s mother in Saudi Arabia, who is known to be an outspoken advocate of traditional Muslim practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation. This is despite Clinton’s proud claims to be a protector and champion of women’s rights and the living embodiment of female liberation. What Abedin’s real role in the Clinton campaign is is difficult to discern. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and others have recently called on Clinton to return $25 million in donations that she’s received over the years from Saudi Arabia, both personally and via the Clinton Family Foundation. Could Abedin’s close, active role in the Hillary Clinton’s campaign be a quid pro quo for all those donations? Some Washington insiders have loudly wondered if Huma Abedin isn’t a Saudi agent or spy. As more information about Hillary’s closest aide comes to light, the press is likely going to be taking a harder look at this woman who has such close access to a person who has a significant chance of becoming the next president of the United States. If anything more untoward turns up, it may not just be Abedin who will be feeling the heat. ___________________________ Boston Globe unintentionally proves Elizabeth Warren’s ethnic fraud
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, September 16, 2012 at 11:41amSpends 3,000 words trying to cover for her, but facts revealed destroy her claim to be Native American The Boston Globe ran a massive 3,000 word lead article this morning trying to excuse away Elizabeth Warren’s claim during her professional career to be minority and a woman of color based on supposed Native American ancestry. The story, which had the cooperation of the Warren campaign, comes just days before the first debate in Massachusetts’ Senate race. Clearly, the Warren campaign is worried after even Native Americans who are Democrats criticized Warren at the DNC in Charlotte, and is attempting to put its story out there through a friendly source. The article is a masterpiece of distraction, weaving stories from people completely unrelated to Warren as to their own experiences with Native America family lore or growing up as Native American in the 1950’s and 1960’s with bits and pieces of Warren’s story. The end result is an attempt to paint Warren as a victim of circumstance and the times she grew up in, as a means of explaining away the many inconsistencies in her story. Yet when one digs down into the actual facts in the Globe story, it actually is quite devastating to Warren, proving that contrary to her many recent accounts, Native American ancestry was not central to her life at any time prior to the mid-1980s when she claimed “Minority Law Teacher” status in a national law faculty directory. Despite all the verbiage, the following facts emerge from the story: 1. Warren’s claim now is focused on a different family line than originally claimed.Read More... 
Team Clinton Struggles to Win FBI Primary
BY THE EDITORS JUNE 7, 2016, 3:56 AM Democrats are waking up to the possibility that they are the ones flirting madly with disaster. Hillary Clinton’s flaws, once considered politically inconsequential, have been steadily magnified by campaign scrutiny and official investigations. Those flaws now loom bigger than Mount Rushmore. Last week’s report by the inspector general of the State Department made clear that in relying exclusively on a private email server as secretary of state, she violated department policy, put security in danger and lied about what she had done. It is a thoroughly damning document — all the more so because the inspector general who submitted it, Steve Linick, was appointed by President Barack Obama. Anyone groping to excuse Clinton’s conduct eventually has to face the stark, infuriating fact: What she did served no purpose beyond letting her selfishly evade the rules and accountability demanded of everyone else. Her failure to cooperate with the inspector general’s inquiry, at the department she led, iced the cupcake. The gravity of Clinton’s predicament, and its political implications, prompted campaign manager John Podesta to send a letter that attempts to placate her top supporters. While acknowledging that using a private server was a “mistake,” he downplayed its significance. “We are confident that voters will look at the full picture of everything she has done throughout her career,” Podesta wrote. What he didn’t mention is that this episode only reinforces her reputation for evading transparency. From the start of her campaign, Clinton’s supporters insisted that her shortcomings had been fully absorbed by voters who long ago made their peace with her record. But many Americans — including not a few Democrats — are now thinking: Maybe she’s even more flawed a potential president than everyone thought before the IG report. What everyone thought before the IG report was bad enough: Polls had some 56 percent of voters taking an unfavorable view of her, with 38 percent expressing a favorable opinion. The IG findings won’t help her against Trump — or against Bernie Sanders. In politics, timing can be everything. Clinton can be grateful this blow didn’t come a couple of months ago, when it might well have assured Sanders of the Democratic nomination. As it is, she has locked up enough delegates to prevail. For the party, though, this report could hardly have come at a worse time — too late to open the door to a credible alternative nominee (Joe Biden? John Kerry?) but plenty early for Trump to exploit. His nickname for her, “Crooked Hillary,” has enough basis that it might stick. Democrats have something else that wakes them up screaming in the middle of the night: the prospect that the FBI will recommend charges against Clinton or her aides when it completes its own probe. If Clinton loses the FBI primary, Trump could have an unimpeded path to the White House. For most of the past year, Democrats have been happily distracted by the GOP’s apparent urge to blow itself up. They failed to notice they were walking into their own minefield without a map. ___________________________ 
EXCLUSIVE: Persian Gulf Sheikhs Gave Bill & Hillary $100 Million
RICHARD POLLOCK Reporter 10:39 PM 05/11/2016 A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation reveals that Bill and Hillary Clinton received at least $100 million from autocratic Persian Gulf states and their leaders, potentially undermining Democratic presidential candidate Hillary’s claim she can carry out independent Middle East policies.As a presidential candidate, the amount of foreign cash the Clintons have amassed from the Persian Gulf states is “simply unprecedented,” says national security analyst Patrick Poole. “These regimes are buying access. You’ve got the Saudis. You’ve got the Kuwaitis, Oman, Qatar and the UAE. There are massive conflicts of interest. It’s beyond comprehension,” Poole told TheDCNF in an interview. Overall, the Clinton Foundation has received upwards of $85 million in donations from five Persian Gulf states and their monarchs, according to the foundation’s website. Read more: __________________________  Bill and Hillary Clinton
BILL CLINTON'S EX-LOVER OPENS FLOODGATES ON 'CROOKED HILLARY'S' PAST'
I'm so sick of them I could puke' Published: 9 hours ago Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is putting Hillary Clinton on notice: You’re next. And a new release from WND Books may play a critical part in his forthcoming attacks on the past of the woman he calls “Crooked Hillary.” Having vanquished his GOP rivals, Trump is taking aim at the Democratic front-runner and the target-rich Clinton record. Trump told the Washington Post he would target Clinton’s past, because “her past is really the thing, rather than what she plans to do in the future.” Trump characterized Clinton’s record as having “a lot of problems.” Some of the attacks will focus on policy. And because of Trump’s idiosyncratic candidacy, Trump will be using criticisms not typically heard from a Republican. Trump is already hammering Hillary for her support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump called “perhaps in the history of the world, the worst trade deal.” Trump’s strategy is to bring out so called “Reagan Democrats” in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, a possibility even Democratic senators such as Bob Casey are taking seriously. But Trump is also likely to bring up the personal history of the Clintons. Trump recently met with Ed Klein, a reporter who has investigated the allegations against Bill Clinton of sexual assault and against Hillary Clinton of slandering, threatening and intimidating the accusers to silence them. One woman deeply familiar with the Clintons’ predatory patterns is Dolly Kyle, who has known “Billy” since they were both children. Kyle was Clinton’s childhood sweetheart and on-again-off-again girlfriend up until the early 1990s. She believes Trump may be able to open the floodgates and finally force the media to cover the Clintons’ long history of abusive behavior. “Billy Clinton is an untreated sex addict and serial rapist, serial sex abuser,” alleged Kyle. “He’s a sexual predator and Hillary is complicit in all of that. I’m over being outraged about it because I’ve been watching this for 40 years and at this point I’m so sick of them I could puke. But the fact of the matter is, it did outrage me when Hillary Clinton sat in front of the television cameras and said women who have been raped and sexually assaulted should be believed. That was actually the last straw that made me want to write this book. She says women who were raped or sexually assaulted should be believed – unless, of course, it’s Billy who did it.” Kyle says Bill Clinton benefited from a culture in which many rapes and sexual assaults were simply never reported. Now, she says, that culture of silence is changing, even among the feminists who traditionally have defended the Clintons. “In the book, I talk about the National Organization for Women and how their traditional stance on abortion has overridden everything,” Kyle told WND. “Now that they are celebrating their 50th anniversary, they are finally coming around to embracing more issues. And one of the huge issues is rape and sexual assault. Younger women appear to be catching on to that. Older women, some of whom may have been raped or sexually assaulted and never reported it, are still in some kind of denial.” The truth is even worse than what you thought. “Hillary: The Other Woman,” the explosive new book exposing the horrible history of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Available now at the WND Superstore. Kyle blasted what she called a pattern of terrorism the Clintons have been practicing for decades. “If you look at the definition of terrorism, it is using violence, threats and intimidation for political aims,” she charged. “That’s exactly what Hillary Clinton has done ever since she started threatening Marla Crider in 1974!” Crider was a volunteer for Bill Clinton whom Kyle says became romantically involved with the candidate. Following his familiar pattern of letting women fight over him, Bill allowed Hillary to wage what Kyle calls “a campaign of threats and intimidation” against Crider to force the end of the relationship. Kyle said there is far more material for Trump to go into. “One of the chapters of my book literally lists all of these incredible Clinton scandals in alphabetical order,” Kyle said. “The information is out there. It’s hidden in plain sight. The issues about the racial discrimination lawsuits filed against Clinton, financial scandals and so many other things that are there on the record, people don’t know about. Journalists should be embarrassed they haven’t looked into this. I truly hope that younger journalists, people who think of themselves as investigative reporters, will look into it.” Kyle also details the Clintons’ tactics to make these kinds of scandals disappear from the mainstream media. “Nothing new, what’s past is prologue, what they’ve done before they will do again,” she warned. “I know exactly what they are going to do, and I outline the truth-repression techniques they’ve been using to get away with everything for years. I talk about how the Clintons make stories disappear. I talk about my experiences with CNN and NBC and some others. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.” Kyle hopes Trump can do what no one else can, which is break through the conspiracy of silence surrounding Hillary Clinton’s past. The truth is even worse than what you thought. “Hillary: The Other Woman,” the explosive new book exposing the horrible history of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Available now at the WND Superstore. “Most people I know are cowards,” Kyle said sadly. “Including our elected officials, which is why Donald Trump is making the impact that he is. People are sick of cowards in Washington. We have visions of the likes of Davy Crockett in Congress. That’s not what we have.” Kyle told WND she simply wants the Clintons to finally go away and deal with their personal problems. “I would like to see the American people say ‘enough,'” she said. “Bill and Hillary, go to a counselor and get some help. But don’t do it in the public. We are sick of your lies and your hypocrisy. We don’t want to hear anymore of it. Go away!” NOTE: News media wishing to interview Dolly Kyle, please contact [email protected] Read more at _________________________ 
Clinton Promises Al Sharpton A Task Force To Fight ‘Environmental Racism’
CHUCK ROSS Reporter 4:43 PM 04/13/2016 Hillary Clinton will empower the Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency to fight against “environmental racism” through “stronger enforcement” of environmental regulations, she announced on Wednesday. “Across America, the burdens of air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards are borne disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of color,” states a memo on the climate justice initiative released by Clinton’s campaign. The candidate herself introduced the plan during her speech at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network earlier in the day. If elected president, Clinton says she will establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force on her first Read more: _________________________ 
Shocking video: US Marine booed, removed from Clinton rally for asking legitimate question
February 27, 2016 | Carmine Sabia | Hillary Clinton supporters booed and shouted at a Marine veteran until security forcibly removed him – all because he asked about Benghazi. The incident happened at a Clinton rally in Bluffton, South Carolina on Friday, where the man who introduced himself as a veteran asked former President Bill Clinton why his wife “lied over the coffins” of the men killed in the Benghazi attacks. “I did eight years of active duty service, two tours of Iraq,” the Marine said, to a silent reaction from the crowd. “We had four lives in Benghazi who were killed and your wife tried to cover it up,” he said, causing the crowd to boo wildly. To President Clinton’s credit, he thanked the man for his service and tried to answer him, but the crowd was too rowdy shouting, “sit down” and “throw them out.” Social media blasts Bill Clinton for disgracefully telling Marine veteran to ‘sit down’ and ‘shut up.’ “Hillary lied over four coffins!” a woman who accompanied the Marine shouted. While Clinton insisted his wife didn’t lie, the woman was also removed by security as the crowd shouted and jeered. Video: Crowd goes wild when Trump calls up Iraq war vet who ‘handled’ vulgar protester “Those families are lying?” the woman shout as she was being dragged out. “Why are you trying to not listen to my answer?” Clinton asked the woman but he could barely be heard over the crowd. “Are you afraid?” No. I’m not afraid because I know you’re going to lie,” she screamed back. A far cry from how military service members are treated at a Donald Trump rally, or any Republican presidential candidate’s event for that matter. “To me the story is the crowd,” Fox & Friends host and Army National Guard veteran Pete Hegseth said Saturday. “This guy stands up (and) said ‘I’m a Marine. I’ve done two tours in Iraq’ — You go to a Republican rally, tell it like it is, the crowd erupts in applause for the Marine and says ‘thank you for your service this is fantastic,’ instead silence, crickets (at the Clinton rally).” “It shows you we’ve got two very different electorates that look very differently towards that service.” Full interview courtesy of T.J. Champitto of TheBlazingNomad.com. __________________________ 
Bombshell: Clinton Involved in Selling Uranium From Ranches to Russians to Fund Presidential Campaign
When Donald Trump accused Clinton and Obama of creating ISIS, he was absolutely 100% correct. This fact was undeniably established in 2015, when I interviewed former Army Special Operations Officer and adviser to George W. Bush, Scott Bennett. However, this is merely the starting point of this article. A Treasonous Conspiracy of Monumental ProportionsBoth the Bundy and Hammond Ranch affairs are about control of significant amounts of uranium, and the BLM is willing to shed blood in order to procure this uranium for very nefarious purposes. This article will unequivocally implicate Hillary Clinton in her role of deliberately committing abject treason against the people of the United States through the illegal appropriation of uranium at both the Bundy and the Hammond ranches and then selling the uranium to the Russians in order to help fund her presidential run through a largely untraceable offshore account. I am taken back by the brazenness of the plot. I am even further taken back by the fact this event, as the reader will soon learn, was reported in the New York Times, as well as other mainstream media outlets. Is it really necessary to point out that the uranium that is subsequently being sold to the Russians could potentially be used against the American people and its military, in the form of nuclear weapons; and this blood money is helping to fund the presidential campaign of a political despot of epic proportions. Please walk through with me the progression of the events and facts related to this story, which accurately casts Hillary Clinton into the light as the single biggest femme fatale traitor in American History. Read more at _________________________ 
Hillary Clinton’s million little lies
By Michael Walsh November 28, 2015 | 2:26pm Modal Trigger Hillary Clinton's latest "little" lie? Apparently, she'd like you to believe that she tried to join the Marines in 1975. MORE ON:HILLARY CLINTON The Clintons’ Colombian connection: a secret investment fund Ben Carson will take money from anyone — even Hillary's supporters Hillary's 'support' of sexual assault victims is pure hypocrisy Starbucks, you have pissed off this JewTo hear Hillary Clinton tell it, she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest — even though she was already 6 years old when he made his famous ascent. On a visit to war-torn Bosnia in 1996, she claimed she and her entourage landed under sniper fire and had to run “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base” — although videos of her arrival show her waltzing serenely across the tarmac, waving to the crowd. She blamed the 2012 attack on American diplomatic and intelligence-gathering installations in Benghazi on “a disgusting video” when she knew almost from the first moment that it was a jihadist assault that took the lives of four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya. No wonder the late William Safire, writing in The New York Times in 1996, at the height of the Whitewater investigation, called her a “congenital liar.” Said Safire: “She is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.” Photo: ReutersBaron Munchausen has nothing on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now comes the recycling this month of another Clinton tall tale: that shortly before her 1975 marriage to Bill Clinton, she decided in a fit of patriotic fervor and dedication to “public service” to stroll into a recruiter’s office in Arkansas and join the Marine Corps. It’s an anecdote she trots out to charm military audiences, whether it’s a group on Capitol Hill in 1994, or, most recently, to veterans in Derry, NH. “He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you,’ ” Clinton recalled at the New Hampshire event on Nov. 10. “I said, ‘Well, I’m 26. I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army,” she added. Yeah, right. Never mind that the term is “dogface,” used to refer to the Army infantry. And never mind as well that, given the tenor of the times, the Marines or any other service would have taken young Ms. Rodham in a heartbeat, especially given their need for lawyers. Like so many carefully parsed Clintonian statements, Hillary’s Leatherneck fantasy is either unverifiable or dependent upon how it’s phrased. When confronted with the obvious discrepancy in her “Edmund Hillary” story, she characteristically shifted the blame to her mother, Dorothy, saying the fable was something her mother told her. But let’s assume for a moment that, unlike Clinton’s other whoppers, this story is actually, in some sense, true. What are the odds that, in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam, the anti-war Wellesley graduate, who’d written her college senior thesis on “community organizer” Saul Alinsky, had a snazzy Yale Law degree, and who was already envisioning a career in state and national politics alongside Bill (then a candidate for Arkansas attorney general), would do such a thing — and actually mean it? I’m betting zero. A far more likely explanation is that Hillary entered the Marine recruiting office — if she did — not out of any desire to “serve her country,” but as an agent provocateur, determined to show that the Marines were a bunch of bigoted sexist, ageist pigs in order to fuel her sense of outrage. This explanation is given credence by one of Hillary’s Fayetteville, Ark., friends at the time, Ann Henry, who said that Hillary was interested in probing the way the military treated women candidates. “I can remember discussing it, but I cannot give you the details of when and what was said,” Henry told a reporter. “Hillary would go and do things just to test it out, and I can totally see her doing that just to see what the reaction was.” Given the mood of the time, and the vituperative nastiness of the left regarding all things military, it would have been just like the self-aggrandizing Hillary Rodham to try and manufacture a controversy where there was none, to make herself look good. And now she allegedly recasts the story as a legitimate desire to join the military, to show her dedication to public service. Is the story true? And if it is true, were her motives as described? What difference does it make! The late Christopher Hitchens titled his memoir of the Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky circus “No One Left to Lie To,” but even someone as perceptive as Hitch couldn’t foresee that the Clintons, like cockroaches and the Kardashians, would always be with us, forever playing the same shell game on the American people and laughing as we fall for it. That would be the same Clintons (combined current net worth: $101 million) who were “dead broke” when they left the White House. Michael Walsh’s latest book is “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West.” __________________________ 
NEW BOMBSHELL: 5-MONTH GAP IN HILLARY EMAILS
Compared to missing 18 minutes in Nixon Watergate tapes Published: 14 hours ago. Updated: 09/14/2015 at 10:50 PM WASHINGTON – There are gaps totaling five months in the Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday morning. The revelation emerged after a court ordered the release of State Department documents as part of Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act. Emails sent and received by Clinton on her private server are missing over periods totaling five months, beginning when she took office as secretary of state in 2009. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the gaps indicate Clinton lied under oath when she said all her emails had been turned over, and it suggested government officials had not turned over everything they were required to deliver. Fitton said other State Department officials, including the one in charge of email production, Patrick Kennedy, previously had been informed of the five-month gap. What do YOU think? Who will be the Democratic Party nominee? Sound off in today’s WND poll The gap in emails received by Clinton run from Jan. 21, 2009, when she became secretary of state, to March 17, 2009. The gaps in emails sent by Clinton from from Jan. 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, and from Dec. 30, 2012, to Feb. 1, 2013. Judicial Watch said the revelation of the email gap casts doubt on whether Clinton told the truth when she declared under oath last month, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State.” Judicial Watch obtained that statement, made in response to a court order, in separate FOIA litigation. Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network. The announcement of the email gap was made at an event in which many of the best minds in Washington came together to discuss what to do about the many crises plaguing the country during the Obama era. Judicial Watch is holding a day-long “Leadership Summit on Washington Corruption and the Transparency Crisis.” Judicial Watch has been in the forefront of the legal battle to obtain Clinton’s emails and State Department documents concerning the former secretary of state’s use of a private server to conduct all of her official business. Contrary to her denials, government inspectors revealed Clinton did have classified information on her private server, which security experts say was especially vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence agencies. The FBI is investigating Clinton's use of the server and trying to retrieve 30,000 emails she deleted after her own staff deemed them personal correspondence. The State Department said it had received approximately "60,00-70,000 pages of email correspondence printed to paper and stored in twelve bankers boxes," which are "the only comprehensive set of Secretary Clinton's email correspondence." But the department was concerned there were other Clinton emails that would not be found. "However, of the sample examined, many of the emails were from Secretary Clinton's personal email account to official Department email accounts of her staff. Emails originating from Secretary Clinton's personal email account would only be captured by Department systems when they came to an official Department email account, i.e., they would be captured only in the email accounts of those recipients. Secretary Clinton's staff no longer work at the Department, and the status of the email accounts of Secretary Clinton's staff (and other Department recipients) is unknown at this time." Fitton said one State Department official indicated she did not want a written record of the inquiry into Clinton's emails, noting an email in which she said she preferred to discuss the matter on the phone. Every email should have been turned over Fitton also said that among the newly obtained documents is an internal appraisal by the State Department that determined none of Clinton's emails should have been excluded for examination as to whether they were personal or government business. The document, titled "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Email Appraisal Report," dated Feb. 9, 2015, concluded: "As the person holding the highest level job in the Department, any email message maintained by or for the immediate use of the secretary of state is 'appropriate for preservation.' This record series cannot be considered personal papers based on the definition of a record in 44 U.S.C. 3301 or Department policy found in 5 FAM 443." All of Clinton's emails should have been turned over to the government for review, Fitton said. That determination by the State Department is significant, because Clinton said she deleted more than 30,000 emails that her own staff had determined were personal. Fitton emphasized that none of the Clinton emails were made public voluntarily but were disclosed as the result of litigation. He compared the five-month Clinton email gap to the infamous 18-minute gap in the audio tapes turned over to Watergate investigators by President Nixon. The email gap was revealed in documents obtained under court order in the FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State originally filed by Judicial Watch on May 6, 2013. The documents also revealed for the first time the private email account that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills apparently used to conduct government business, [email protected] Classified info The documents also show the State Department had concerns months ago about classified information in Clinton's emails. A letter on March 3, 2015, to longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall said, "Please note that if Secretary Clinton wishes to release any document or portion thereof, the Department must approve such release and first review the document for information that may be protected from disclosure for privilege, privacy or other reasons." Just last week, Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge they had no reason to suspect Clinton had failed to produce any emails requested by Congress or watchdog groups. Monday's revelation of the five-month gaps in emails turned over by Clinton would appear to cast doubt on the Justice Department's assurance. The State Department appraisal report that said Clinton should have turned over all emails, including the 30,000 she deleted, because they were deemed personal, also seemed to contradict the Justice Department. Top Justice Department lawyers Benjamin Mizer and Elizabeth Shapiro said in papers filed in federal court Wednesday: "Because personal records are not subject to [the Freedom of Information Act], and State Department employees may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal, plaintiff's preservation argument reduces to an unsupported allegation that former Secretary Clinton might have mistakenly or intentionally deleted responsive agency records rather than personal records." 'Unprecedented assault' Judicial Watch described the Monday event as a symposium that will "examine how the Obama administration’s corruption and abuse of power have undermined the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution." The group contended the nation is "in the midst of an unprecedented assault on its open records laws by the corrupt and secretive Obama administration and corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton, an assault that we believe poses a serious threat to our country’s future." The event was divided into three sessions, with closing remarks and a question-and-answer period. The first session was "Clinton Corruption Challenge from Benghazi to Clinton Cash." Panelists:
During the first panel, Fund called it ironic that Clinton began her career as a staffer on a House committee investigating the 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes. Fund recalled how her supervisor, a Democrat, had said it would only be a matter of time before the Nixonian traits she had learned would come back to haunt her. The columnist also predicted that investigators would get to the bottom of the email scandal because, he quipped, "I happen to know that President Jarrett is not amused by the scandal" – a reference to Obama's top adviser, Valerie Jarrett. DiGenova claimed Clinton wanted a private email server only to deny access to everyone who had a legal right to see her emails. "If not for Judicial Watch, we would not be sitting here today," he said. DiGenova said Clinton "knew all of her electronic devices were not encrypted," so the suggestions she did not know that she would receive classified information was "ludicrous." "And she knew if she turned over everything, she'd be dead meat." He added, "I know who has all of the emails – the NSA." DiGenova said every one of the emails would have been captured by the spy agency as part of a counter-intelligence program. "One phone call from the attorney general to the head of the NSA would have produced them all," he said. Fitton said he "guaranteed" all of Clinton's emails were in the possession of her attorney, Kendall. The second session was "Illegal Immigration Crisis: National Security, Job Security, Election Integrity and Public Safety." Panelists:
Panelists:
___________________________ 
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary's emails WERE for sale on the open market but the Obama administration didn't go after them, says US intelligence official
PUBLISHED: 11:28 EST, 3 September 2015 | UPDATED: 19:28 EST, 3 September 2015 A U.S. intelligence agency was aware during the summer that a collection of Hillary Clinton's emails was available for sale, but never gave its agents permission to obtain them, DailyMail.com can reveal. A well-placed official inside the agency told DailyMail.com about the U.S. government's interactions with an eastern European man who put them on the market, and said the U.S. could have obtained them. That discussion was spurred by a dubious claim from the gossip website Radar Online that 32,000 messages from Hillary Clinton's now infamous private email account were for sale with an alleged asking price of $500,000. 'I'm not saying we could have gotten her entire email account. I'm not even saying for sure that what has been on the market is genuine,' the official cautioned. 'But opportunities were missed. That much is clear.' +3 WHAT EMAILS? The Obama administration could have procured an unspecified cache of Hillary Clinton's emails durign the summer but its agents found their hands were tied +3 'GUCCIFER': The notorious Romanian hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel got a seven year prison term for, among other things, stealing emails from Hillary pal Sid Blumenthal's AOL account The official said intelligence agencies spend money to buy secrets 'all the time,' and that the dollar amounts involved would likely have been 'small.' It's unclear whether the collection that was reportedly for sale represented some of the more than 30,000 emails Clinton ordered deleted last year before she turned over the rest to the State Department. It's also possible that the cache comprises a complete set of emails stolen from longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal in 2013 by the notorious Romanian hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel. Lehel, a taxi driver better known as 'Guccifer,' hacked into Blumenthal's AOL account and later received a seven-year jail sentence in 2014 in his native country. Included among the messages he pilfered was a series of conversations between Blumenthal and Clinton. A National Security Council spokesperson declined comment about whether the Obama administration has ever soft-pedaled efforts to obtain hacked files that could shed light on Clinton’s email troubles. But the new revelations point to the Obama administration's ambivalence in past months about aggressively pushing an investigation into accusations that the former secretary of state's digital lapses put national security at risk. Around 150 Clinton emails were subsequently classified Clinton, now the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, acknowledged in March that she kept her sensitive emails on a personal server that she controlled during the four years she was secretary of state. Recent court-ordered releases of some of her emails have revealed nearly 200 that had to be scrubbed of classified material before they could be released publicly. But Clinton has insisted that she never sent or received material from her unsecured personal email account that was 'marked classified' at the time. The existence of her private email setup, which she reportedly maintained in her stately Chappaqua, New York home, was first indicated when details of the Blumenthal hack were leaked to the gossip website Gawker. The intelligence official who spoke to DailyMail.com on Thursday said on condition of anonymity that the Obama adinistration believes 'Guccifer' gave a collection of his digital files related to Clinton and Blumenthal to a friend for safekeeping before he was arrested. +3 DEBUNKED: Radar Online's story claiming Hillary's entire email account was for sale leaned heavily on six email subject lines that were published two years ago Clinton: I did not send nor receive classified material The hacker never revealed the full extent of his exploits. But his friend, the official said, began quietly trying to market some of the purloined files over the summer for an undisclosed sum. Radar Online published on Thursday what it said were six email subject lines from Clinton's private account – including 'Libya security latest. Sid' and 'FYI, best analysis so far of hearing Sid' – as evidence that Clinton's entire email account was for sale. All six of the subject lines, however, were already included in the 2013 public airing of Blumenthal's out-box. When Gawker published an image of Blumenthal's 'sent' mail, the subject lines appeared together and in the same order in which Radar Online presented them Thursday Read more: ___________________________ |
HILLARY’S SENIOR THESIS ABOUT ACTIVIST SAUL ALINSKY.Frank Marafiote | January 17, 2013 | Life, Politics |
By Donna Schaper with Rake Morgan and Frank Marafiote contributing.
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
To read Hillary’s Wellesley College thesis about Saul Alinsky click here.
With Hillary Clinton likely to pursue the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.
Americans who graduated from high school in 1965 and college in 1969 were not just part of a population bubble — the “baby boomers” — but a cultural one as well. The children of the Sixties combined the typical young adult developmental cycle with a unique cycle in the life of this nation. They were not only trying to learn about dating, but also about foreign policy, ethics, and racism.
Hillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
Curious about Hillary Clinton?
Search HCQ’s Extensive Article Directory
As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation:
“Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.
This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary. Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.
Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.
Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedagogy” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Read about Hillary Clinton at Yale Law School
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at Wellesley , she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut , taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.
Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge , thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.
By Donna Schaper with Rake Morgan and Frank Marafiote contributing.
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
To read Hillary’s Wellesley College thesis about Saul Alinsky click here.
With Hillary Clinton likely to pursue the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.
Americans who graduated from high school in 1965 and college in 1969 were not just part of a population bubble — the “baby boomers” — but a cultural one as well. The children of the Sixties combined the typical young adult developmental cycle with a unique cycle in the life of this nation. They were not only trying to learn about dating, but also about foreign policy, ethics, and racism.
Hillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
Curious about Hillary Clinton?
Search HCQ’s Extensive Article Directory
As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation:
“Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.
This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary. Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.
Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.
Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedagogy” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Read about Hillary Clinton at Yale Law School
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at Wellesley , she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut , taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.
Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge , thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.
