Inside Judicial Watch: The Politicized DOJ — Mueller, Comey, Strzok, Yates, & More! Judicial Watch via YouTube, December 5, 2017
Posted tagged ‘Clinton lies’
Inside Judicial Watch: The Politicized DOJ — Mueller, Comey, Strzok, Yates, & More!
December 7, 2017Investigate This (3)
October 28, 2017Investigate This (3), Power Line, , October 28, 2017
This is why I believe that the dossier took on added importance after the initial denial of a FISA order. We know, or think we do, that the FBI wanted Steele to do additional research. The focus of that research, however, would have to be to establish “reason to believe” that Trump or persons close to his campaign were “agents of a foreign power.” Only that would get them the FISA coverage they wanted. Lacking those, FISA was the quick route, but it required “reason to believe” that Trump or persons close to his campaign were “agents of a foreign power.” Voila the “dossier” as it apparently featured in the successful FISA application in October, the height of the campaign. And then it came to be used in the attempt to nullify the election (the attempted “coup”?).
****************************
Now we know that the Trump Dossier was not just a product funded by Democrats, but was commissioned by the general counsel of the Clinton presidential campaign. After the Trump campaign collusion hysteria fomented by Democrats and their media friends roughly since the election, we learn that Russian disinformation (as it seems to me) disseminated by the friends of Vladimir Putin (i.e., the Russian officials identified by alphabetic descriptors in the dossier) has come to us courtesy of Hillary Clinton herself. Yet John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and campaign general counsel Marc Elias have all denied knowledge, either now or in the past. Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on. As for Hillary herself, well, “she may or may not have been aware.”
But there is more. Rowan Scarborough has reported that the first of the dossier memos was circulated last year in late June. The first dossier memo is dated June 20, 2016, and cites Sources A (“a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure”) and B (“a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin”). Sources A and B tout the collusion scenario. Sources A and B were not out to help Donald Trump, were they? They were out to throw sand in our gears or to help Hillary Clinton.
Former CIA Director John Brennan was a key player in the collusion scenario, but he has left much to implication in his congressional testimony. Brennan has acknowledged, however, that “that there were efforts made by the [FBI] to try to understand whether or not any of the information in that [dossier] was valid.”
Following up on his comments yesterday, our friend with two decades of experience in counterintelligence as an FBI Special Agent writes to add “some additional context that may be be useful.” He writes:
Why was the “dossier” ultimately so important for the anti-Trump conspiracy (if you think of a better way of putting it, let me know)? The reason, I think, is that the use of standard political smears against Trump had proven ineffective. Therefore it became necessary to take it all a step further and to attempt to make some superficially credible allegations of action against the national interest (again, the vague allegations of Mafia ties had fallen flat).
We know that that effort began some time in the late Spring or early Summer of 2016 because an application was made to the FISC in June/July. That application mentioned Trump by name–and was rejected. Why FISA? Because a Title III “wiretap” would have required an actual investigation based on a violation of a real US criminal law and a quite high and specific standard in the application for a court order.
Why, you might ask, was that application even made? Why not rely on the flow of info coming from NSA, which notoriously scoops up virtually all electronic communications? The answer is that Trump and all those close to him were US Persons (USPERs). The NSA targets foreign powers and individuals. If those foreign powers and individuals of concern are in contact with USPERs and, in the judgment of NSA, US counterintelligence (basically, FBI) should know about those USPERs, then NSA informs the FBI.
In my own career, outside FBI headquarters, I only saw a handful of NSA referrals of that sort. They were mostly general in nature. They could perhaps be used to initiate a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) to gain a bit more insight into the nature of the relationship between the USPER and the foreign power or individual — if we judged that advisable based on our own knowledge and experience — meaning that typically the NSA info would not rise to the level needed in order to say that there was “reason to believe” (i.e., for practical purposes, probable cause) that the USPER was an actual agent of a foreign power. That means: no Full Investigation (FI), therefore no FISA.
But in the anti-Trump conspiracy that’s exactly what was needed: FISA coverage, “wiretaps.” There was no time to do the painstaking research on Trump and his associates–they needed FISA and they needed it NOW. They’d already been turned down at least once. The NSA info was essentially useless, because what they really wanted was to get conversations between Trump and his associates here in the US–all USPERs–not international conversations (those were either lacking or harmless). Yes, NSA probably scoops up internal US communications of USPERs, too, but to use it without a FI and without a FISA order would be illegal. Therefore, the “dossier.”
For the conspirators the significance of the “dossier” was that it provided supposed “reason to believe” that Trump or those close to him were “agents of a foreign power,” subject to blackmail or pressure by a foreign power, already cooperating with a foreign power. The ability to claim that most of this “information” was coming via friendly foreign intel services with contacts in Russia added a bit of verisimilitude.
A “dossier” that could provide that sort of “reason to believe” would justify a FI and then FISA coverage. And therefore access to Trump campaign related communications (the extent would be dependent on the nature of the FISA order, who were the USPERs listed as targets–Page for sure, Flynn maybe, etc.). NB: Although they were claiming Trump collusion with Russia, what they were really targeting was campaign communications. By claiming that key people were foreign agents they could collect ALL their domestic communications with anybody.
This is why I believe that the dossier took on added importance after the initial denial of a FISA order. We know, or think we do, that the FBI wanted Steele to do additional research. The focus of that research, however, would have to be to establish “reason to believe” that Trump or persons close to his campaign were “agents of a foreign power.” Only that would get them the FISA coverage they wanted. Lacking those, FISA was the quick route, but it required “reason to believe” that Trump or persons close to his campaign were “agents of a foreign power.” Voila the “dossier” as it apparently featured in the successful FISA application in October, the height of the campaign. And then it came to be used in the attempt to nullify the election (the attempted “coup”?).
Hillary Clinton’s disingenuous dossier outrage
October 25, 2017Hillary Clinton’s disingenuous dossier outrage, Washington Post, Callum Borchers, October 25, 2017
(Please see also, The Hunt for Red November, about the Washington Post and possibly other leftist media outlets going “rogue” on Hillary Clinton. — DM)
The Washington Post’s Adam Entous looks at the role that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee played in funding the research that led to a dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s links to Russia. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde, Patrick Martin/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
When BuzzFeed published that now-infamous dossier of unproven claims about Donald Trump and Russia, in January, former Hillary Clinton campaign aides expressed outrage that news outlets that had obtained the dossier before Election Day did not make its contents public in time to influence voters, and Clinton later aired the same grievance in her book about the presidential race.
It turns out that the reaction of the Democratic presidential nominee and her team was disingenuous. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday night that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the dossier, compiled by a former British intelligence officer, through a law firm hired to conduct opposition research.
The Clinton camp left out its own role in the dossier’s creation, as it ripped the media for sitting on information that journalists had been unable to verify. What Clinton and her advisers presented as their judgment that the media had made the wrong call was, in fact, their frustration at having failed to plant negative news reports before ballots were cast.
Recall that BuzzFeed published the dossier in full on Jan. 10, after CNN reported that the FBI had briefed President Barack Obama and then-President-elect Trump on its contents. Many journalists criticized BuzzFeed’s decision, arguing that news outlets should not spread claims they can’t corroborate, even if the FBI considers the claims significant enough to share with the president and his soon-to-be successor.
But Clinton press aides Brian Fallon and Nick Merrill contended, on Twitter, that the real journalistic malpractice was not publishing information contained in the dossier earlier.
This was long rumored during the campaign, and many reporters know at least some of what Russia was alleged to have https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/818943951185055744 …
Today has brought a gush of reporting that outlets knew about and sat on prior to November 8
cc: @GlenCaplin1https://twitter.com/PaulBlu/status/818985935450894337 …I repeat: certain media outlets were told this prior to November 8.https://twitter.com/politicalwire/status/818987542527741952 …
In fact, if we want to get specific, one outlet, a very very prominent outlet, threw cold water on this when Slate beat them to the punch. https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/818987726133399552 …
Merrill was referring to the New York Times, which reported on Oct. 31, 2016, that the FBI had “chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.” Journalist Franklin Foer had reported on the possible secret channel in Slate earlier that day.
Also that day, Mother Jones magazine reported that a “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country” had “provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump — and that the FBI requested more information from him.” The memos comprised the dossier that BuzzFeed later published.
Consistent with the Mother Jones report, the Times reported that “intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate.”
“Still,” the Times added, throwing the “cold water” Merrill spoke of, “they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.”
Clinton complained about the Times report in her post-election book, “What Happened”:
In the summer of 2016, according to The Washington Post, the FBI convinced a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there was probably cause to believe that Trump adviser Carter Page was acting as a Russian agent, and the received a warrant to monitor his communications. The FBI also 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. The intelligence community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration.
. . .
Sources within the FBI also convinced the New York Times to run a story saying they saw “no clear link to Russia,” countering Franklin Foer’s scoop in Slate about unusual computer traffic between Trump Tower and a Russian bank.
Note that Clinton described the dossier only as having been “prepared by a well-respected former British spy” — as if the spy, Christopher Steele, had acted on his own. Clinton certainly gave no indication that her campaign helped finance his work.
There is a fundamental contradiction here: Clinton wanted the dossier to be viewed as credible yet she did not want to be connected to it. She hoped the media, before Election Day, would publish claims about Trump to which she was unwilling to attach her own name.
Update: Appearing on CNN Wednesday morning, Fallon said he personally did not know that the Clinton campaign helped fund the dossier and said he was unsure whether Clinton did.
“How could you not know that the Clinton team was paying for it?” CNN’s John Berman asked. “And didn’t someone in the Clinton campaign know this?”
“I’m sure that there’s a small group of folks that were aware,” Fallon replied, “but it was kept, for reasons that I can understand, to a very select group.”
According to Fallon, Clinton “may have known, but the degree of exactly what she knew is beyond my knowledge.”
Fallon might be right, but ignorance is a pretty weak excuse here. At minimum, some people within the campaign were aware of funding the dossier, yet the campaign allowed spokesmen and the candidate herself to make public statements that were misleading by omission.
The Hunt for Red November
October 25, 2017The Hunt for Red November, American Thinker, David Prentice, October 25, 2017
The dam has broken. The waters are unleashed, and there’s no stopping them. Truth is winning. Even the Washington Post is reporting this story. The New York Times and the rest will have to follow. The evidence is too compelling, and the story is out there. Much like the Weinstein scandal, there is simply too much evidence to deflect it. The reporting of John Solomon and Sara Carter has been devastating. They have been doing the work that the leftist American media won’t do. Which is to report on the real Russian meddling in America’s politics: Uranium One. And the Trump dossier.
This is huge. This will not go away. Unlike the leftist media narrative of Trump/Russia collusion, there is actual evidence to show we have been compromised, and it’s not Trump who has compromised or colluded. It’s the group of people the leftist media has vowed to protect. The Obama/Clinton/Democratic party complex.
The evidence is overwhelming.
The Obama/Clinton administration colluded with Russia in the Uranium One deal. They knew what the Russians wanted. They knew the Russians were bribing people. They knew the Clinton family foundations were getting over a hundred million dollars, that Bill Clinton received half a million dollars for an hour speech from the Russian bank involved with Uranium One.
As for the Clinton/Obama/Democratic Party alliance. They are in trouble. Having projected a narrative that was not only untrue about Trump, but was actually true about their own party will be devastating to their base, and the American public will likely not forget.
The leftist media. The Democratic Party. The Obama/Clinton families. Their corruption reaches to the heavens. They have knowingly deceived America in the worst of ways. Let’s hope their stature never recovers.
************************************
The Democratic Party has put forth several narratives since their loss in 2016. They have stuck with those narratives no matter how absurd they have been: Trump was elected because Russia colluded with him. Trump is unstable and unfit. Everything Trump does is wrong, he is a tainted President.
So says the party of Hillary Clinton and Hollywood, the moral arbiters of America. And the leftist mainstream media has followed in the most scurrilous of ways. They have reported only what the Democratic Party narrative says they should report.
Until now.
Follow me here. How long has this search for Trump/Russia collusion been going on? How long has the leftist media been claiming Trump does everything wrong?
Since he was elected last November. They have been hunting him since he won.
But the ground has shifted. It’s been clear for a long time that the Trump/Russia collusion narrative has been just that. It’s been a fable repeated over and over again, the Democratic Party and its media shills hoping that something would stick, helping them regain power through mindless repetition of an empty narrative.
Until now.
Unfortunately for the left, there is not the tiniest bit of evidence to bolster their narrative. There is not a scintilla of truth that shows Donald Tramp colluded with Russia to win. $100,000 of Facebook ads, half of them after November 8, 2016? That’s proof? Lord help us. That is the dumbest idea of proof offered since Piltdown Man. Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with a with someone claiming to have dirt on Hillary and left the meeting early because he saw nothing? Wow. Indict him, and impeach his father.
And that’s all there is?
Yep. That’s all there is.
But now we have an explosion of information about Russian influence on….. *drum roll*…….the Uranium One deal. Perhaps the worst political scandal since Teapot Dome. And then there’s the so-called Trump dossier. Which apparently was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.
The Uranium One deal has been a powder keg since Peter Schweizer wrote about the scandal in the book Clinton Cash. It’s everything a scandal should be. Corruption, illicit bribes, Russians influencing a deal to control stockpiles of Uranium for their own use.
Tucker Carlson reports there is an extremely credible witness that will testify how the Russians did collude with an American President. Unfortunately for the left, it’s the Obama Presidency they colluded with, Hillary Clinton being the chief conspirator. This witness is said to have absolute proof of this collusion.
And the leftist mainstream American media is virtually silent.
But that’s because they aren’t interested in news, or reporting. They’re only interested in the narratives pushed by the Obama/Clinton/Democratic media complex.
Until now.
The dam has broken. The waters are unleashed, and there’s no stopping them. Truth is winning. Even the Washington Post is reporting this story. The New York Times and the rest will have to follow. The evidence is too compelling, and the story is out there. Much like the Weinstein scandal, there is simply too much evidence to deflect it. The reporting of John Solomon and Sara Carter has been devastating. They have been doing the work that the leftist American media won’t do. Which is to report on the real Russian meddling in America’s politics: Uranium One. And the Trump dossier.
This is huge. This will not go away. Unlike the leftist media narrative of Trump/Russia collusion, there is actual evidence to show we have been compromised, and it’s not Trump who has compromised or colluded. It’s the group of people the leftist media has vowed to protect. The Obama/Clinton/Democratic party complex.
The evidence is overwhelming.
The Obama/Clinton administration colluded with Russia in the Uranium One deal. They knew what the Russians wanted. They knew the Russians were bribing people. They knew the Clinton family foundations were getting over a hundred million dollars, that Bill Clinton received half a million dollars for an hour speech from the Russian bank involved with Uranium One.
Quid pro quo. As clear as it can be.
They sold out American interests for thirty pieces of silver.
It’s hard to say which is the bigger disgrace. The Obama Justice Department, the FBI, Obama himself, the Clintons, or our despicably partisan media. Let’s not mince words, they’re all culpable, all guilty of selling out America.
It’s difficult to say enough negative about all of them.
The Trump Dossier.
The one that the Clinton campaign, and John McCain, tried to pass off on the FBI as truth. The one that apparently was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the Democratic Party, and perhaps a Republican donor.
The dossier is so embarrassingly bad, so embarrassingly transparent as a political ruse, there aren’t’ enough words to describe its stupidity and disgraceful place in history.
This dossier became the child of the left, and the child of one James Comey. He pushed it forward with no shame. This dossier is what informed him of why Trump was unfit? Good grief, James, were you that obtuse?
I guess so. You were the one who wanted the Mueller investigation to start. Purposefully. Based on your belief in the (Russian) Trump dossier? Rod Rosenstein appointed your man, Mueller.
And now it’s boomeranging. Just ask the Podesta family.
Trump clearly did nothing wrong, but now it’s going to be revealed just how incompetent and conniving Mr. Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller were and are.
The wrong people have been blamed. And the truth is coming out.
The dam has broken.
The left’s narratives have been reduced to a pile of ashes.
Blaming Trump for colluding with the Russians for almost a year has been a failure. It’s simple, the narrative was never true. It was bound to be shown as false. But the unintended consequence of playing this narrative for the last year has been that a lot of people have come to believe Russia interfered with our political system.
Most of those believers are on the left. The disciples of Rachel Maddow, CNN, Democratic politicians, and the leftist partisan media masquerading as journalists.
The cognitive dissonance has just begun for all of them. The proof is clear, they were all wrong. Extraordinarily wrong. The collusion and sell out was from the very people they put forth as heroes. The Obama/Clinton Democratic Party has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Thirty pieces of silver wasn’t enough. It was millions of dollars and the opportunity to hold power in America that proved to be their downfall. Colluding with the Russians was what they were willing to do in this power play.
The unwinding of this scandal will take time. But the implication is clear. The Trump administration will be fully exonerated. They did nothing wrong. Oh yes, the left won’t admit it, they will be furious (aren’t they always?), but this narrative is over except in the minds of total leftist partisans. Just like the man who threw the Russian flags at Trump. He was aiming for the wrong people.
He just didn’t know it yet. Likewise, the leftist base doesn’t either.
As for the Clinton/Obama/Democratic Party alliance. They are in trouble. Having projected a narrative that was not only untrue about Trump, but was actually true about their own party will be devastating to their base, and the American public will likely not forget.
The leftist media. The Democratic Party. The Obama/Clinton families. Their corruption reaches to the heavens. They have knowingly deceived America in the worst of ways. Let’s hope their stature never recovers.
Hillary Calls Uranium One Stories ‘Debunked’
October 23, 2017Hillary Calls Uranium One Stories ‘Debunked’, Daily Caller, Robert Donachie, October 23, 2017
While Clinton says that anyone who believes that she helped Russia is in the wrong, The New York Times report details how she and her husband directly helped Russia get a vested interest in the U.S. oil market.
The New York Times reported in April 2015 that the Clinton’s had a hand in helping a Russian energy company obtain drilling rights in the U.S. The Russian company had to get State Department help to purchase the Canadian company Uranium One, which made the Russian agency — Rosatom — one of the largest uranium producers in the world. Rosatom purchased the Canadian company — UrAsia — in January 2005, obtaining its uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America.
Clinton did not back up her assertion the reports are bogus with hard evidence.
***********************************
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the stories about her and former President Clinton helping Russia obtain drilling rights in the U.S. through Uranium One have been “debunked” and are just people peddling “bologna.”
“I would say it’s the same bologna they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone. In fact, it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked,” Clinton said in an October interview with C-SPAN.
WATCH:
While Clinton says that anyone who believes that she helped Russia is in the wrong, The New York Times report details how she and her husband directly helped Russia get a vested interest in the U.S. oil market.
The New York Times reported in April 2015 that the Clinton’s had a hand in helping a Russian energy company obtain drilling rights in the U.S. The Russian company had to get State Department help to purchase the Canadian company Uranium One, which made the Russian agency — Rosatom — one of the largest uranium producers in the world. Rosatom purchased the Canadian company — UrAsia — in January 2005, obtaining its uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America.
Clinton did not back up her assertion the reports are bogus with hard evidence.
“But here is what they are doing and I have to give them credit,” Clinton said on C-SPAN. “Trump and his allies, including Fox News, are really experts at distraction and diversion. So the closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians, as we heard Jeff Sessions finally admit to in his testimony the other day, the more they want to just throw mud on the wall. I’m their favorite target. Me and President Obama, we are the ones they like to put in the cross hairs,” Clinton said.
Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One.
Before the Rosatom acquired the Canadian mining stakes, UrAsia had to obtain the vast uranium stakes it held at the time of the merger.
Frank Giustra, a major mining investor in Canada and owner of UrAsia, won a landmark uranium deal in Kazakhstan just days after visiting with Mr. Clinton. The two men boarded Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Kazakhstan where they met with the country’s autocratic president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton, in addition to helping Giustra, undermined American foreign policy by expressing his personal support for Nazarbayev’s desire to head an international elections monitory group, reports The New York Times.
Shortly after the former president and Mr. Giustra visited the nation, the then embryonic UrAsia signed a preliminary contract “giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.” Following this very private visit, Mr. Giustra donated some $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and five months later Mr. Giusta held a fundraiser for the joint Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative where he alone pledged $100 million dollars.
UrAsia merged with Uranium One and almost immediately the new company began picking up uranium holdings in the United States. The company soon purchased in excess of 38,000 acres of across Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and other western states as well. Following this large acquisition, Uranium One stated it’s intent on making itself a “powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” reports the New York Times.
Some $8.65 million dollars in donations were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One and former UrAsia investors between 2008 and 2012.
The new rising global uranium conglomerate experienced a sharp and decisive blow when it’s stock fell 40 percent. Fearing the loss of their holdings in Middle East, Uranium One looked to the US embassy in Kazakhstan to negotiate for them with the nation’s officials, reports the New York Times. These discussions would have gone directly through Secretary of State Clinton, but the Clinton campaign did not respond to inquiries about this deal.
A few days after these negotiations, a subsidiary of Rosatom purchased “17 percent of Uranium One.” Not even a year later the Russian government offered Uranium One stakeholders a “generous offer,” that would give the Russian agency a “51 percent controlling stake.”
The US government had to sign off first, a decision that must go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes executive members of the cabinet, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state.
John Barrasso, a Senator from Wyoming where Uranium One had its largest operation, wrote President Barack Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” During this time, a Russian bank that would assign a “buy rating to Uranium one stock” paid Mr. Clinton $500,000 dollars to speak in Moscow.
The decision had to go through the Committee, which included Secretary Clinton. At the time, her husband, in addition to the speaking arrangements, was “collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.” The Committee approved the deal in October of 2010.
The only reported Uranium Official to give to the Foundation was the chairman, Ian Tefler, who gave in 2007 less than $250,000. Mr. Tefler’s family charity the Fenwood Foundation, however, donated millions of dollars from 2009 to 2013, reports the New York Times.
The Committee approved sale of the Canadian mining stakes provided the Russians with direct control of “one-fifth of all uranium production” in the United States, reports the New York Times. While the Russians were taking control of Uranium One between 2009 and 2013, Canadian records highlight a “flow of cash made its way” into the pockets of the Clinton Foundation.
Rosatom took 100 percent stake in Uranium One in 2013 and shortly thereafter privatized the company.
Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition
November 4, 2016Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, November 4, 2016
And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin. The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.
***************************
Back in May, I had the opportunity to see a screening of Clinton Cash, the documentary based on Peter Schweizer’s book of the same title. I wrote about it in this space here. Now that the commentariat is finally beginning to catch up with reality — at last count, there were five, count ’em five, FBI investigations into the machinations of the money factory known as the Clinton Foundation — I thought it might be worth briefly revisiting the subject.
In May, I asked my readers: “Are you worried about ‘money in politics’?” If so, I suggested that they “Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long, hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years.”
How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?
Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash [which I recommend] is a nauseating experience.
At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.
It’s this last item that’s most worrisome. That the Clintons are a greedy, money-hoovering machine has been clear since they left the White House with cartloads of swag in tow (the exact amount is disputable: that they did so is not). There are some who say her mishandling of classified material is no big deal — it’s just a technicality, who really cares? Can’t we put this behind us? Can’t we move on? At this point what difference does it make?
Well, there used to be such people. If they still exist, they are scarce on the ground now. Thanks to Wikileaks and some recent FBI revelations, it is now clear that Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material was no casual act of inadvertence. It was not, as she at first claimed with false naiveté, done simply as a matter of convenience by someone who was technically ill-informed and maladroit.
No, the whole process was a thoroughly calculated tactic. Given what we know now, there is something slightly nauseating about watching clips of Clinton lie when asked about her emails. One classic is this clip, in which, when asked about whether she wiped her server she said coyly “Like with with a cloth or something?” She knew all about wiping servers, since her IT guys employed a sophisticated tool called Bleach Bit to do the job. (The company even uses an image of Hillary Clinton at their web page.)
Scrutinize Clinton’s performance in this clip. In a way it’s quite masterly. Watch how she coolly modulates between impatience, naiveté, evasion, and outright lies. We turned over the server, she says, what more can we do? “We turned over everything that was work related, every single thing.”
We now know (well, we’ve always known, but now we really do know) that assertion is a lie — not just an untruth, but a deliberate lie.
It’s hard to know what is the most brazen thing about her behavior. Turning over a server for investigation after having it professionally wiped is a candidate for the prize. But for my money the most outrageous thing was responding to a Congressional subpoena by destroying 33,000 emails. (Andy McCarthy lays out the whole story with his customary clarity here.)
The revelation by the FBI last week that material that could be “relevant” to the Clinton email investigation had been found on a laptop shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, amateur photographer and penpal to pubescent multitudes Anthony Weiner, propelled the story to a new and vertiginous stage. Apparently, we are talking about 650,000 emails. How many had to do with yoga routines? How many concerned State Department business? How many did Anthony Weiner see or share? These are just a few of the questions prompted by this ever more bizarre story.
The really amazing thing about the Clintons’ greed is how cavalier it has made them about national security issues. “Oh, that’s just a despicable right-wing talking point,” I sometimes here. Well, here’s what that well known right-wing publication The New York Times had to say in a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported:
… are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Worried yet? It gets worse:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin. The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.
You can Smell Hillary’s Fear
November 4, 2016You can Smell Hillary’s Fear, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 4, 2016
Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.
******************
In the final stretch of the election, Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone to war with the FBI.
The word “unprecedented” has been thrown around so often this election that it ought to be retired. But it’s still unprecedented for the nominee of a major political party to go war with the FBI.
But that’s exactly what Hillary and her people have done. Coma patients just waking up now and watching an hour of CNN from their hospital beds would assume that FBI Director James Comey is Hillary’s opponent in this election.
The FBI is under attack by everyone from Obama to CNN. Hillary’s people have circulated a letter attacking Comey. There are currently more media hit pieces lambasting him than targeting Trump. It wouldn’t be too surprising if the Clintons or their allies were to start running attack ads against the FBI.
The FBI’s leadership is being warned that the entire left-wing establishment will form a lynch mob if they continue going after Hillary. And the FBI’s credibility is being attacked by the media and the Democrats to preemptively head off the results of the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.
The covert struggle between FBI agents and Obama’s DOJ people has gone explosively public.
The New York Times has compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover. Its bizarre headline, “James Comey Role Recalls Hoover’s FBI, Fairly or Not” practically admits up front that it’s spouting nonsense. The Boston Globe has published a column calling for Comey’s resignation. Not to be outdone, Time has an editorial claiming that the scandal is really an attack on all women.
James Carville appeared on MSNBC to remind everyone that he was still alive and insane. He accused Comey of coordinating with House Republicans and the KGB. And you thought the “vast right wing conspiracy” was a stretch.
Countless media stories charge Comey with violating procedure. Do you know what’s a procedural violation? Emailing classified information stored on your bathroom server.
Senator Harry Reid has sent Comey a letter accusing him of violating the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is a nice idea that has as much relevance in the age of Obama as the Tenth Amendment. But the cable news spectrum quickly filled with media hacks glancing at the Wikipedia article on the Hatch Act under the table while accusing the FBI director of one of the most awkward conspiracies against Hillary ever.
If James Comey is really out to hurt Hillary, he picked one hell of a strange way to do it.
Not too long ago Democrats were breathing a sigh of relief when he gave Hillary Clinton a pass in a prominent public statement. If he really were out to elect Trump by keeping the email scandal going, why did he trash the investigation? Was he on the payroll of House Republicans and the KGB back then and playing it coy or was it a sudden development where Vladimir Putin and Paul Ryan talked him into taking a look at Anthony Weiner’s computer?
Either Comey is the most cunning FBI director that ever lived or he’s just awkwardly trying to navigate a political mess that has trapped him between a DOJ leadership whose political futures are tied to Hillary’s victory and his own bureau whose apolitical agents just want to be allowed to do their jobs.
The only truly mysterious thing is why Hillary and her associates decided to go to war with a respected Federal agency. Most Americans like the FBI while Hillary Clinton enjoys a 60% unfavorable rating.
And it’s an interesting question.
Hillary’s old strategy was to lie and deny that the FBI even had a criminal investigation underway. Instead her associates insisted that it was a security review. The FBI corrected her and she shrugged it off. But the old breezy denial approach has given way to a savage assault on the FBI.
Pretending that nothing was wrong was a bad strategy, but it was a better one that picking a fight with the FBI while lunatic Clinton associates try to claim that the FBI is really the KGB.
There are two possible explanations.
Hillary Clinton might be arrogant enough to lash out at the FBI now that she believes that victory is near. The same kind of hubris that led her to plan her victory fireworks display could lead her to declare a war on the FBI for irritating her during the final miles of her campaign.
But the other explanation is that her people panicked.
Going to war with the FBI is not the behavior of a smart and focused presidential campaign. It’s an act of desperation. When a presidential candidate decides that her only option is to try and destroy the credibility of the FBI, that’s not hubris, it’s fear of what the FBI might be about to reveal about her.
During the original FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton was confident that she could ride it out. And she had good reason for believing that. But that Hillary Clinton is gone. In her place is a paranoid wreck. Within a short space of time the “positive” Clinton campaign promising to unite the country has been replaced by a desperate and flailing operation that has focused all its energy on fighting the FBI.
There’s only one reason for such bizarre behavior.
The Clinton campaign has decided that an FBI investigation of the latest batch of emails poses a threat to its survival. And so it’s gone all in on fighting the FBI. It’s an unprecedented step born of fear. It’s hard to know whether that fear is justified. But the existence of that fear already tells us a whole lot.
Clinton loyalists rigged the old investigation. They knew the outcome ahead of time as well as they knew the debate questions. Now suddenly they are no longer in control. And they are afraid.
You can smell the fear.
The FBI has wiretaps from the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. It’s finding new emails all the time. And Clintonworld panicked. The spinmeisters of Clintonworld have claimed that the email scandal is just so much smoke without fire. All that’s here is the appearance of impropriety without any of the substance. But this isn’t how you react to smoke. It’s how you respond to a fire.
The misguided assault on the FBI tells us that Hillary Clinton and her allies are afraid of a revelation bigger than the fundamental illegality of her email setup. The email setup was a preemptive cover up. The Clinton campaign has panicked badly out of the belief, right or wrong, that whatever crime the illegal setup was meant to cover up is at risk of being exposed.
The Clintons have weathered countless scandals over the years. Whatever they are protecting this time around is bigger than the usual corruption, bribery, sexual assaults and abuses of power that have followed them around throughout the years. This is bigger and more damaging than any of the allegations that have already come out. And they don’t want FBI investigators anywhere near it.
The campaign against Comey is pure intimidation. It’s also a warning. Any senior FBI people who value their careers are being warned to stay away. The Democrats are closing ranks around their nominee against the FBI. It’s an ugly and unprecedented scene. It may also be their last stand.
Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.
Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton
November 4, 2016Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton, Power Line,
Barack Obama has emerged as a forceful advocate of Hillary Clinton in the course of the presidential campaign. He is more popular than she is, but they have a lot in common. They both have an equally low opinion of the intelligence of the American voters and they have a lot of evidence to support their opinion. They also share an equally distant relationship with the truth.
Obama’s signature domestic program was built on a torrent of demonstrable lies. Clinton has defended her criminally inappropriate use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business on proposition that have proven false in the fullness of time. They are both unregenerate liars.
Now Obama has stepped forward as a character witness for Hillary Clinton. Despite what you may have concluded on the basis of your own observations, Obama vouches for Clinton as an upstanding public official. In my view, this is akin to John Dillinger serving as a character witness for Creepy Karpis or, perhaps more aptly, Ma Barker. It’s almost funny.
The Media Research Center finds an interesting example of Obama testifying on behalf of Hillary at an Ohio campaign event this past Tuesday (video below). Even speaking briefly, as in this 40-second excerpt, Obama is obnoxious and grating. We are invited by MRC to analyze this somewhat ambiguous assertion: “And when she was challenged, she doesn’t make things up on the spot. She doesn’t double down on lies — that obviously are lies because there’s video.”
(The video is at the link. — DM)
What is he saying? MRC’s Craig Bannister subjects Obama’s assertion to a close reading that probably exceeds what is warranted, asking:
She’ll only tell an obvious lie once, but won’t “double down” on it if challenged?
She won’t keep repeating a lie – if “there’s video”?
She’ll take her time crafting a lie, not make one up “on the spot”?
Bannister concludes: “Regardless of whether Pres. Obama went off-teleprompter and made this up on the spot, or simply read the words of a speechwriter, any literal interpretation of Obama’s characterization of Hillary Clinton is disturbing, to say the least.”
It is indeed disturbing. We have entered the Twilight Zone of postmodern Democratic politics. I think Obama was lying about Clinton’s lying while revealing a little of his own wayward relationship with the truth in the process.
The Stretch Drive (8)
November 3, 2016The Stretch Drive (8), Power Line,
• The ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary moving back into a narrow lead again, but as all of the results right now are within the statistical margin of error, it means the race is essentially tied, and likely to stay that way through next Tuesday. However, most of the new state-by-state polls, which often lag national polls by a few days, show movement in Trump’s direction. Suddenly New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia, where Hillary had been comfortably ahead, now show the race close or with Trump in a slight lead (New Hampshire).
At the very least, the many people who said Donald Trump would suffer a McGovern- or Goldwater-level landslide loss have badly misjudged the mood of voters.
• Before continuing with election analysis, let’s pause for a moment to take in the feel-good story of the day:
New York Times reports 95.7 percent fall in quarterly profit
The New York Times Co reported a 95.7 fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.
Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.
Revenue fell to $363.6 million from $367.4 million.
The company, struggling to transition to digital, said online ad revenues grew 21.5 percent and now account for more than 35 percent of its advertising receipts.
Slim pickings indeed (heh). Coming soon: New York Times headline on the lousy economy.
• Scott and Paul have reported on the blockbuster Fox News and Wall Street Journal news stories about the ongoing FBI investigations of the Clintons. What this means is simple: if Hillary wins, she’ll take office under a huge cloud of scandal, a potential indictment, and congressional investigations that may well start up during the lame duck session. If Hillary wins, I expect a new bumper sticker to appear by the following afternoon: “Impeach Clinton: This Time We’ll Do the Job Right!”
• This Trump ad is pretty good:
Am I back in Argentina?
November 2, 2016Am I back in Argentina? Israel National News, Rabbi David L. Algaze, November 1, 2016
I awoke last night from a nightmare dream: I was in my ancestral country of Argentina and I was afraid once again of the dictator named Juan Domingo Peron and his wife Evita. That was scary indeed. The government was dominated by a party that made the laws as they pleased and no one had the power to check them, let alone prosecute their misdeeds. Even the press was muzzled or complicit. Here the wife of the president had a special foundation, Fundacion Eva Peron that accepted donations from wealthy donors and who received special treatment from the government. Anyone who dared to challenge this state of affairs was in trouble and the debate over the propriety of any act was thus ended.
But it was morning now and I relaxed knowing that I was now in a democratic country protected by a Constitution, honest organizations and lack of corruption, where no one is above the law, ordinary citizens are not threatened by any arm of the government and where no special favors are dispensed to high donors or foreign entities. Here the law is equal for all, and we can be sure that no one gets special treatment because they give money to a special foundation. My night was over and with it that awful dream.
Suddenly, though, I saw a high government official who was testifying that she never sent any classified material incorrectly, who lied about keeping a private email server. When the secret was out, she and her staff were busy destroying evidence. But wait, the government was investigating and we could breathe easily. After months of “investigation” by top enforcers of the law, the government forgave her trespassing. They criticized her for just being “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but let her off the hook. The FBI did not pursue evidence of any statements that could be false, did not investigate any obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence.
Even more, the agents gave immunity to people who could have provided evidence of crimes and these people went on to plead the Fifth Amendment refusing to testify before Congress. The entire investigation by the FBI and the Department of Justice reeked of willful negligence or favoritism – that is, until this week when the investigation was reopened because of a new set of emails.
Even more striking, I saw that the Clinton Foundation and the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton were one seamless entity, employing the same people and coordinating schedules. Emails discovered by people outside of government — who had forced their release against State Department wishes, showed that Clinton Foundation staff was questioning some State Department decisions by stating that President Clinton “will be very unhappy if that’s the case.”
Donors to the Foundation expected to receive special treatment such as being invited to State dinners or being given special business opportunities. The scandal of President Clinton in Haiti and his business partners, i.e., donors to the Foundation, and the confluence of extraordinarily high speaking fees at groups that later received profitable business deals and special access to the State Department headed by his wife—are these real or imagined?
Donors to the Foundation expected to receive special treatment such as being invited to State dinners or being given special business opportunities. The scandal of President Clinton in Haiti and his business partners, i.e., donors to the Foundation, and the confluence of extraordinarily high speaking fees at groups that later received profitable business deals and special access to the State Department headed by his wife—are these real or imagined?
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments