Archive for the ‘Democrat National Convention’ category

REWIND: FBI Shuts Down Russian Spy Ring for Getting Too Cozy with Hillary Clinton

July 24, 2016

REWIND: FBI Shuts Down Russian Spy Ring for Getting Too Cozy with Hillary Clinton, PJ MediaPatrick Poole, July 24, 2016

(I put the first paragraph in bold face print. All other bold print is as it appears in the article.– DM)

reset

With the Democratic Party set to officially anoint Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this week, and with accusations of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s supposed close associations with Russia, it is worth noting that Clinton has her Russia issues as well.

In March 2009 (the early days of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State), in Clinton’s first meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, she presented him with a “reset” button said to be emblematic of the Obama administration’s new openness to Russia after the Bush administration.

Sadly, for Clinton, the word printed on the “reset” button was “peregruzka” [“overcharged”] rather than “perezagruzka” [“reset”].

That is not the only occasion that Clinton has got “lost in translation” with Russia.

Just yesterday the Clinton campaign blamed Russia for the hack on damaging internal DNC emails released by WikiLeaks this past Friday that revealed a cozy relationship between the DNC and Clinton during the Democratic primaries.

So it is a bit embarrassing that two years ago today, Clinton bragged in an interview with NPR that the Russia “reset” worked:

And yet even the pro-Hillary shills at the Washington Post have admitted that Clinton’s Russia “reset failed.

Other cozy relationships tied to Russia have previously caused Clinton headaches.

Take, for instance, one ABC News Radio report from April 2012 that a Russian spy ring was taken down by the FBI in 2010 because one of the spies was getting close to Clinton:

A female Russian agent got “close enough” to a sitting U.S. cabinet member that the FBI felt they had to swoop in and arrest the lot — but it wasn’t the famous femme fatale Anna Chapman, federal officials said Tuesday.

Chapman, the seductive 20-something SoHo spy, was named by a British newspaper Monday as the reason the FBI decided to finally round up the Russian ring, which had long been under surveillance, in 2010. The paper cited an interview conducted by the BBC with the FBI’s counter-intelligence head Frank Figliuzzi.

“We were becoming very concerned they were getting close enough to a sitting U.S. cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue,” Figliuzzi said.

But Figliuzzi never named the Russian agent in question. And although the BBC ran images of Chapman — as well as shots of a look-a-like — during the interview, now the FBI says he wasn’t talking about her at all. Instead, officials at the Department of Justice told ABC News Figliuzzi was referring to another of the arrested spies, Cynthia Murphy.

According to court documents relating to the spies’ arrest, Murphy had been in contact with a fundraiser and “personal friend” of Hillary Clinton, who took the office of Secretary of State in January 2009. The fundraiser, Alan Patricof, said in a 2010 statement that he had retained Murphy’s financial services firm more than two years before, had met with her a few times and spoke with her on the phone frequently. Patricof said they “never” spoke about politics, the government or world affairs.

A spokesperson for Clinton told ABC News in 2010 that at the time there was “no reason to think the Secretary was a target of this spy ring.”

At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder said that they considered the threat “a serious thing.”

A July 2010 report in the Washington Post adds more to the story:

Take, for example, Cynthia Murphy, the woman from Montclair, N.J., who worked for a Manhattan tax-advice firm, Morea Financial Services. One of the firm’s clients was New York financier Alan Patricof, a major supporter of former president Bill Clinton and a friend of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.In a Feb. 3, 2009, electronic message to Moscow Center, Murphy reported that she had “several work-related meetings” with a New York financier who was an active political fundraiser and “a personal friend of [current Cabinet member whose name was omitted],” according to the original indictment. In return, Moscow Center tasked Murphy before “Obama’s trip to Moscow” to find information on the U.S. strategic arms treaty, Afghanistan and Iran’s nuclear program. There is no indication she picked up any information from Patricof.

Then there is the ongoing quid pro quo scandal concerning the Clinton Foundation receiving money from investors of Canadian firm Uranium One at the same time that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which Hillary Clinton sat on, was deliberating approval of the sale of a majority stake in Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency.

The CFIUS fast-tracked the Uranium One approval in 52 days, despite a mandatory 75-day review process.

Uranium One’s chairman directed $2.35 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation, a fact that was concealed by the Clinton Foundation despite Hillary Clinton’s promise to the Obama administration that all donations would be publicly identified.

And as the New York Times reported, former President Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Despite Hillary’s media apologists saying there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, the Treasury Department has obstructed FOIA requests related to the CFIUS approval of the Uranium One sale, prompting government watchdog Judicial Watch to file a federal lawsuit last December to compel disclosure on the approval process and any documents by Hillary Clinton related to the matter.

So when Clinton’s defenders throw stones at Donald Trump over his Russia ties, they should be mindful of Hillary’s glass house.

Democrats in Disarray as Convention Begins

July 24, 2016

Democrats in Disarray as Convention Begins, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, July 24, 2016

The Democratic convention begins tomorrow in Philadelphia, with the party’s leaders scrambling to fend off a series of negative stories and present a unified front.

The Wikileaks dump of 20,000 DNC emails has exacerbated divisions within the party. The emails show the DNC’s leadership plotting against Bernie Sanders, exactly as he alleged throughout the campaign. Sanders will have a lot of delegates inside the convention hall, and an unknown number of demonstrators outside. Will he go along with the unity theme? Will his supporters? We will see.

In order to placate the Sanders forces, the Democrats have announced that party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s speaking slot has been canceled. Wasserman-Schultz was the chief anti-Sanders schemer, so canceling her speech may not be enough: this morning, Sanders demanded that she resign as party chairwoman. My guess is that the Democrats will throw her all the way under the bus in a desperate attempt to look unified.

Meanwhile, another controversy has arisen over the convention speeches scheduled to be given by Lezley McSpadden and Gwen Carr, the mothers of Michael Brown and Eric Garner respectively. The Democrats evidently chose to come down firmly on the side of the anti-police movement. But their plan elicited a furious response from John McNesby, President of Philadelphia’s police union:

Phil cops

I like that last line: “Mrs. Clinton you should be ashamed of yourself if that is possible.” The DNC, scrambling once again, now says they will add a couple of policemen to the list of speakers. That’s big of them.

With the exception of Ted Cruz’s performance, the Republican convention came off without a hitch, was not disrupted by protests either inside the hall or in the streets, and presented a positive image of the party. Journalists had to struggle to find negativity, sinking so low as to make a major story out of the fact that Melania Trump’s speechwriter copied a couple of sentence fragments from a speech by Michelle Obama. The horror! It will be interesting to see whether the wheels come off for the Democrats over the next four days, and how the press covers it if they do.

It will also be interesting to see what television ratings the Democrats can muster, compared with the Republican convention. Around 35 million watched Donald Trump’s acceptance speech, a number that reportedly fell below expectations. But how many will tune in to see another speech by tired, old retread Hillary Clinton? That, too, will be something to watch for.

The Democratic National Convention Reportedly Bars Two Male Delegates From Vermont And Orders The Substitution Of Female Delegates

July 22, 2016

The Democratic National Convention Reportedly Bars Two Male Delegates From Vermont And Orders The Substitution Of Female Delegates, Jonathan Turley’s BlogJonathan Turley, July 22, 2016

(One of the commenters suggested that they would not likely have been removed had they been affiliated with Black Lives Matter. — DM)

DNC

There is a little reported story out of the Democratic National Convention where two Sanders delegates have been barred from attending the event. The problem was not their credentials or their conduct. State Sen. Tim Ashe (right below) and Ken Dean are men and the DNC ruled that there were simply too many of that kind in the delegation. Vermont was ordered to replace them with women, any women, so long as the delegation was equal. Ashe and Dean have filed challenges for good reason.

tashe

Coupled with a growing controversy over the determined effort of the Democrats not to release a list of donors to the media, this is hardly a good story to trigger days before the opening of convention. The national party appears to be imposing a quota system on delegates based on gender despite the fact that such delegates can claim that they are qualified through the democratic process. After all Dean and Ashe were elected as delegates on June 11. Then, on July 5, the state party was ordered to remove them due to their gender deficiency.

Of course, the infamous superdelegates remain untouchable. It is just those elected by the people that can be negated solely on the basis for their gender. Notably, eight of 10 Vermont superdelegates are men.

The Democratic party leadership appears to be moving away from the fight against gender discrimination in guaranteeing equal opportunity to the fight for gender equality with the use of quotas to force gender balance. Ironically, it was Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in United States v. Virginia (1996) who warned that “Today’s skeptical scrutiny of official action denying rights or opportunities based on sex responds to volumes of history.” Not only are these delegates saying that they are being denied position due to their gender, but the DNC is negating the choice of Vermont voters — male and female. There is such a thing as individual achievement and choice. The Vermont voters are allowed to select people on the basis for their individual merits rather than categorical exclusions based on race, gender, religion, or other immutable characteristics.

This point was made by the Supreme Court in University of California v. Bakke (1978):

[R]ace, like gender and illegitimacy, . . . is an immutable characteristic which its possessors are powerless to escape or set aside. While a classification is not per se invalid because it divides classes on the basis of an immutable characteristic, see supra at 355-356, it is nevertheless true that such divisions are contrary to our deep belief that “legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing,” . . . and that advancement sanctioned, sponsored, or approved by the State should ideally be based on individual merit or achievement, or at the least on factors within the control of an individual.

Those concerns are heightened in my view when alleged gender discrimination negates the results of a democratic process like delegate selection.

What do you think?

Philadelphia Police Union Rips Clinton, DNC for Not Including Families of Slain Police Officers as Convention Speakers

July 21, 2016

Philadelphia Police Union Rips Clinton, DNC for Not Including Families of Slain Police Officers as Convention Speakers, Washington Free Beacon, July 21, 2016

Philadelphia’s police union is angry with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Convention for giving speaking roles to family members of police shooting victims but not to family members of police officers who died in the line of duty.

John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, told Philadelphia’s local CBS affiliate that the speaker choices were “putting salt in the wound” and promoting an “anti-police movement.”

The union also released a statement that it was “insulted” by the exclusion of police widows and family members, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“It is sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country,” the statement read. “Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself if that is possible.”

The statement came days after the Clinton campaign announced that former President Bill Clinton would speak Tuesday night along with members of Mothers of the Movement, a group that includes Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; and Lezley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown.

Clinton’s campaign responded Wednesday, noting that two members of law enforcement are scheduled to speak at the convention, including former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey.