|Contents||Bulletin||Scripting in shell and Perl||Network troubleshooting||History||Humor|
Hillary Clinton checked
every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18)
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
|News||US Presidential Elections of 2016||Recommended Links||Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton||Questions about Huma Abedin email forwarding||Clinton Cash: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry||Hillary as a pathological liar|
|Is Hillary Clinton a toxic manager?||Shadow IT||Data Stealing Trojans||Beyond your cable modem - How not to do DOCSIS networks||NIST Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security (dated February 2007)||NIST guidelines for the Selection, Configuration, and Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) Implementations||NIST Guidelines on Securing Public Web Servers|
|Email snooping||Female Sociopaths||DNC emails leak: switfboating Bernie Sanders and blaming Vladimir Putin||Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak||Hillary role in Libya disaster||Hillary role in Syria bloodbath||Hillary the warmonger|
|Strategies of Defending Microsoft Windows against Malware||Principle of Least Privilege||Architectural Issues of Intrusion Detection Infrastructure in Large Enterprises||Network Security||Integrity Checkers||DNS Spoofing||Remote Syslog|
|Port Scanners||Nmap||Slightly Skeptical View on NIDS and Network-level Intrusion Prevention||Honeypots and Other Deception-based Security Tools||Introduction to Role-based Access Control||Politically Incorrect Humor||eMail Security|
Due to the size an introduction was converted to three separate pages
Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.comilsm -> geoff ... February 25, 2017 at 01:00 PM , 2017 at 01:00 PMClinton should have been prosecuted.im1dc -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:16 PM
The GOP need not worry as long as the news is Russia!"Clinton should have been prosecuted."ilsm -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 05:12 PM
I repeat to you this umpteenth time 'no mens rea' = no prosecution.The conclusion from 'no mens rea' implies "simple negligence", simple negligence only applies to GS 3's. The managers and the experience are held to a higher standard.libezkova -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 06:13 PM
If it was 'no mens rea' then she was neither qualified nor experienced, she is no accountable.
Which may be okay for crooks in the swamp needing drained.ilsm,geoff -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:16 PM
What she did with "bathroom email server" is worse then a crime. It is a blunder. Which disqualifies Hillary (and her close entourage) for any government position.
The level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is just astounding. Actually it is not astounding. It is incredible. I can't believe that a person with Yale law degree can be so hopelessly stupid and arrogant.
Clinton should have....not been the dem nominee. The Russia fixation is all yours.
Feb 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.comSubmitted via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before getting felled by pneumonia.
And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:
Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.
That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather wearing neither hat nor coat.
That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.
General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged by the CIA. Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.
Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a "traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.
In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.
But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily.
But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen.
It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:
'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release.
Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too. The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.
And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians:
Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed by somebody to do it?"
We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course.
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate, Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
The Donald has been warned.
xythras , Feb 20, 2017 10:02 PMDarktarra -> xythras , Feb 20, 2017 10:11 PM
Assange is about to face censorship from one LENIN Moreno (next Ecuadorian president)
Assange must Reduce "Meddling" in US Policies While in Ecuadorian Embassy
How ironicwanglee -> Darktarra , Feb 20, 2017 10:18 PM
We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ... poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!
Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt. Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!Chris Dakota -> wanglee , Feb 20, 2017 10:59 PM
Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's presidency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November. Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement" of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary" county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.
Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431 ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261... ) DEA Report Shows Infiltration of Mexican Drug Cartels in Sanctuary Cities ( http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/09/08/dea-report-shows-infiltration-... ) Welfare Discourages Work( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/the-science-is-settle... ) Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders's "Free College" Tuition Plan Is All a Lie ( http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clinton-says-sanders-free-tuition-wont-wo... UC Berkeley Chancellor: Hillary Clinton 'Free' College Tuition Plan Won't Happen ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/30/uc-berkeley-chancello... ) Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I'm 'Terrified' of Hillary because we know that there were "People" who "Disappeared" ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/exclusive-bil... ) Former FBI Asst. Director Accuses Clintons Of Being A "Crime Family" ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/former-fbi-asst-director-accuse... ) FBI boss Comey's 7 most damning lines on Clinton ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-da... ). Aides claiming she "could not use a computer," and didn't know her email password– New FBI docs ( https://www.rt.com/usa/360528-obama-implicated-clinton-email/ ). 23 Shocking Revelations From The FBI's Clinton Email Report ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/23-shocking-revelations-from-the-fbis-... ) DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up her email server ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-just... ) Former House Intelligence Chairman: I'm '100 Percent' Sure Hillary's Server Was Hacked ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/former-house-... ) Exclusive - Gen. Mike Flynn: Hillary Clinton's Email Setup Was 'Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior' ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/exclusive-gen... ) Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials ( http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-clas... ) Obama lied to the American people about his secret communications with Clinton( http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/president-barack-obama-hillary-email-... ) Former U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft: FBI didn't 'clear' Clinton ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFYQ3Cdp0zQ ) When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-cli... ) Wikileaks: Clinton Foundation Chatter with State Dept on Uranium Deal with Russia ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/08/wikileaks-putting-on-... ) Russian officials donated $$$ to Clinton Foundation for Russian military research ( http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/16/schweizer-insecure-left-wants-... ) Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-... ) HILLARY CAMPAIGN CHIEF LINKED TO MONEY-LAUNDERING IN RUSSIA ( HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2016/10/HILLARY-CAMPAIGN-CHIEF-LINKED-TO-MONEY-LAUNDE... ) The largest source of Trump campaign funds is small donors giving under $200 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-fund_us_57fd4556e4... ) How mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for Hillary Clinton ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mega-donors-helped-raise-1-b... ) Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2 ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-news... ) Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash ( https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hill... ) Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/judicial-watch-planni... )
President Trump Vowed to Investigate Voter Fraud. Then Lawmakers Voted to "Eliminate" Election Commission Charged with Helping States Improve their Voting Systems ( http://time.com/4663250/house-committee-eliminates-election-commission-v... ) California's Recipe for Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale( http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/27/voter-fraud/ ) California Republican Party Official Alleges Voter Fraud In California, a "Sanctuary" state ( http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/28/trump-among-those-saying-vot... ) BREAKING: Massive Voter Fraud Discovered In Mailing Ballots In Pennsylvania! See Huge Twist In Results! ( http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/massive-voter-fraud-pennsylvania/ ) "Voting Fraud" revealed during "Recount": Scanners were used to count one vote many times to favor Clinton in Wayne County, a "Sanctuary" county including Detroit and surrounding areas.( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-06/michigan-republicans-file-emerg... ) Illegal Voters Tipping Election Scales ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/243947/illegal-voters-tipping-election-s... ) Voter Fraud: We've Got Proof It's Easy ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-... ) Voter Fraud Is Real. Here's The Proof ( http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/ ) Here's Why State Election Officials Think Voter Fraud Is a Serious Problem ( http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/17/heres-why-state-election-officials-thi... ) Documented Voter Fraud in US ( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ViewSubCategory.asp?id=2216 ) No, voter fraud isn't a myth: 10 cases where it's all too real ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth... ) Non-US citizen gets eight years for voter fraud in Texas after "Sucessfully Illegally Voted for at least Five Times" in Dallas county, a "Sanctuary" county( http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/09/non-us-citizen-gets-eight-years-... ) Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale ( http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/james-okeefe-rigging-elections-d... ) Texas Rigged? Reports Of Voting Machines Switching Votes To Hillary In Texas( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-reports-voti... ) Voting Machine "Irregularities" Reported in Utah, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, & North Carolina ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-08/voting-machine-irregularities-r... ) Video: Machine Refuses to Allow Vote For Trump in Pennsylvania ( http://www.infowars.com/video-machine-refuses-to-allow-vote-for-trump-in... ) Electoral fraud ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud ) Voter fraud ( https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_fraud ) Sanctuary Cities Continue to Obstruct Enforcement, Threaten Public Safety( http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map ) List of Sanctuary cities( http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html ) Map Shows Sanctuary City Islands of Blue In Sea of Red ( http://www.infowars.com/map-shows-sanctuary-city-islands-of-blue-in-sea-... )CheapBastard -> Darktarra , Feb 20, 2017 10:19 PM
I hit some long click bait about famous people IQ
Barack Obama 140
Donald Trump 156
Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy him."Chupacabra-322 -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 10:54 PM
Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then, both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time he had to know if something was up.
The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.
I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden. If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will look even more stupid and Fake.oncefired -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 11:07 PM
The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents / Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.
All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large, former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.
It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.
It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-18/jay-sekulow-obama-should-be-hel ...Duc888 -> CheapBastard , Feb 20, 2017 11:11 PM
Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list. That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.
Jan 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.comDrDick, January 25, 2017 at 11:07 AMThis is frankly rather disingenuous. Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like.
libezkova -> DrDick... January 25, 2017 at 09:29 PMsanjait -> DrDick... , January 25, 2017 at 11:20 AM
The first POTUS who cut tax rates was JFK.Read through the link and it's not nearly that simple, especially when you consider the fact that some trends, though plausibly or certainly reinforced through policy, aren't entirely or even primarily caused by policy.DrDick -> sanjait... , January 25, 2017 at 01:45 PMI did not say they were the *only* factors, but they are the primary causes. If you look at the timelines and data trends it is pretty clear. Reagan broke the power of the Unions and started deregulation (financialization is a consequence of this), which is the period when the big increases began. Automation plays a secondary role in this. what has happened is that the few industries which are most conducive to automation have remained here (like final assembly of automobiles), while the many, more labor intensive industries (automobile components manufacturing) have been offshored to low wage, not labor or environmental protections countries.libezkova -> DrDick... , January 25, 2017 at 05:39 PMBoth parties participated in the conversion of the USA into neoliberal society. So it was a bipartisan move.DrDick -> libezkova... , January 25, 2017 at 07:40 PM
Clinton did a lot of dirty work in this direction and was later royally remunerated for his betrayal of the former constituency of the Democratic Party and conversion it into "yet another neoliberal party"
Obama actually continued Bush and Clinton work. He talked about 'change we can believe in' while saving Wall street and real estate speculators from jail they fully deserved.Clinton contributed, but the Republicans did all the real heavy lifting. I was in my late 20s and early 30s during Reagan.libezkova -> DrDick... , January 25, 2017 at 09:25 PMVery true. Republicans were in the vanguard and did most heavy lifting. That's undeniable.
But Clinton's negative effects were also related to the weakening the only countervailing force remaining on the way of the neoliberalism -- trade unionism. So he played the role of "subversive agent" in the Democratic Party. His betrayal of trade union political interests and his demoralizing role should be underestimated.
Jan 19, 2017 | www.investors.com
hile everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity," either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. While serving as the nation's top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least seven foreign governments - a clear breach of Clinton's pledge on taking office that there would be total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
... ... ...
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in August obtained emails (that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton's top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state" for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed the Clintons' affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo - another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, "These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors."
The seedy saga doesn't end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the Clintons' supposed charity.
Americans aren't willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons' problems may just be beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty much summed up the whole tawdry tale : "The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc.," he wrote. "Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle (offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration."
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there's no reason for any donors to give money to the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive "charitable organization," and shows it for what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats' pre-eminent power couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won't be missed.
Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.comilsm : January 13, 2017 at 06:45 PMim1dc -> ilsm... January 13, 2017 at 08:14 PM
I do not know Logan, I know federal records act. Clinton is a felon!
You all got to be careful, after Friday those of us who still have a duty from our oaths have to protect Trump.From Wikipedialibezkova -> ilsm... , -1 January 13, 2017 at 09:06 PM
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position."I know federal records act. Clinton is a felon!"
Good summary, but now, with some time passed, and Hillary out of Presidential race we can create a more detailed summary. Actually for me it is unclear whether she is a felon, but she is definitely a moron (along with all her close entourage).
The key question here is the actual level of damage to national security achieved by her actions (or inactions). It might be great, but it might be nothing at all.
There is no question that Hillary Clinton "private" (aka bathroom) email server violated a lot of regulations and her NDA. So formally she is guilty as hell and as a felon should go to jail, like a lot of common folks do for similar, or even lesser, violations.
But she belongs to the "masters of the universe' and as such is above the common law. So let's limit ourselves to the question whether she really damaged national security
First of all what Hillary did is the not just creation of her private email server. She created her "Shadow IT" Department within State Department staffed with people, who are probably OK or even good for running IT in non-profits and charities, but not above this level. And that even abstracting from formalities such as security clearance, presence of classified mail in her mail stream, wiping the evidence, etc creation of Shadow IT is a a big "No-no". Clearly severely punishable "career-limiting" move. I now understand why Mills advised Hillary not to run. So why she survives after such a move. That's mystery.
In corporate environment the creation of "Shadow IT" is a very serious, typically fatal charge that usually leads to immediate termination. For federal government it is even worse, as it smells with treason. That means that all senior level IT staff of State Department is fully complicit, and needs to be investigated and probably persecuted for their cowardice. They understood well the level of danger and choose to ignore it "hiding their head in the sand, like an ostrich"
But there are a lot of strange thing in this story. Both the behavior of NSA, and, surprise, surprise White house IT staff was very strange. They definitely knew about this setup. They did not directly or indirectly reported to Hillary, unlike IT staff of State Department. And still they did nothing. Obama himself also knew about it. Did nothing. That tells us something about this president. Although interception of domestic communication were never in NSA charter, still this is what they do for living, and that means the NSA also played very strange, unexplainable to me role in this story. NSA staff also knew about the setup from Hillary request to provide a specially secured version of Blackberry (similar to what Obama used). Which surprisingly was denied. Looks like NSA did not like Hillary much, is not it.
Now about the security. On the level required to create State Department infrastructure the setup used was completely childish. It was not even incompetent, it was childish. Probably IT people responsible never saw any other type of IT infrastructure then cash poor non-profits and never ever read NIST recommendations for setup of this type of servers, to say nothing about more serious staff.
Even on my rather primitive understanding of computer security all those men and women involved in Clinton bathrooms mail server drama look like complete and utter morons. But this is a real life and such situations do happen in very large corporations, but not that often. So again what was the real damage?
Any discussion of whether the server was "open" for hacking to state or non state actors or not simply does not make any sense. My impression is that the level of security in Hillary's Shadow IT server infrastructure (which includes internet modem (they were using regular ISP, like any non-profit), router and other staff like networked printer(s)) was much lower that is required for this question to make sense.
Still miracles happen and may be some foreign agencies thought that this is a trap, a "honeypot" in "security-speak". So being utter moron might be a good security protection measure in its own right, as paradoxical as it is.
But it is unclear at what point the traffic was intercepted if it was. People usually concentrate of "bathroom server". But what about internet router and modem?
If traffic was intercepted on the router level in real time (it was not encrypted) then the damage was very real and Hillary can be viewed as a traitor. If not, and only dumps of old emails were obtained after she left her position of State Secratary, the question about real damage is more complex and here the situation is alot similar with the situation with Manning. An old staff (assuming that it was more the a year old) may be embarrsing, may be danaging, bit it is what it is "old". Played cards. Even if some of them were classified it is unclear what useful info can extracted for such emails. Compromising information probably yes. Tactical information that preempts some US actions probably .no.
Also we need to take into account that Huma Abedin was a completely computer illiterate person, who did her own set of blunders (including creating a hidden channel that copied emails to her home server). And that Hillary herself looks like reckless sociopath, concerned only about her personal power and money, not the interests of the state. Not to understand the level of danger she exposed State Department communications is unconceivable for any lawyer, forget about Yale graduate at the top of her class. That increase the damage.
Please note that whether the idea was to hide her activities was connected with "pay for pay" involving Clinton foundation, paranoia, or something else is a completely separate topic.
IMHO Comey proved to be a "despicable coward" who first decided not to derail Clinton run (probably not without pressure from Obama and/or Bill Clinton via Attorney General Loretta Lynch), but then, when he discovered "Abedin channel" it well might be that he has had a second thought. That's how I read his controversial behavior. Nothing honorable in this interpretation of his behavior too.
The whole set of events looks like literally taken from pages of the famous novel "The Good Soldier Svejk: and His Fortunes in the World War". And we know what eventually happened to Austro-Hungarian empire.
Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. : January 13, 2017 at 06:17 AMhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/james-comey-fbi-inspector-general-hillary-clinton.html
Comey Letter on Clinton Email Is Subject of Justice Dept. Inquiry
By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU and MATT APUZZO
JAN. 12, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department's inspector general said Thursday that he would open a broad investigation into how the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, handled the case over Hillary Clinton's emails, including his decision to discuss it at a news conference and to disclose 11 days before the election that he had new information that could lead him to reopen it.
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, will not look into the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton or her aides. But he will review actions Mr. Comey took that Mrs. Clinton and many of her supporters believe cost her the election.
They are: the news conference in July at which he announced he was not indicting Mrs. Clinton but described her behavior as "extremely careless"; the letter to Congress in late October in which he said that newly discovered emails could potentially change the outcome of the F.B.I.'s investigation; and the letter three days before the election in which he said that he was closing it again.
The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically motivated.
For Mr. Comey and the agency he heads, the Clinton investigation was politically fraught from the moment the F.B.I. received a referral in July 2015 to determine whether Mrs. Clinton and her aides had mishandled classified information. Senior F.B.I. officials believed there was never going to be a good outcome, since it put them in the middle of a bitterly partisan issue.
Whatever the decision on whether to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime, Mr. Comey, a Republican former Justice Department official appointed by President Obama, was going to get hammered. And he was.
Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her.
The Clinton campaign believed the F.B.I. investigation was overblown and seriously damaged her chances to win the White House and resented Mr. Comey's comments about Mrs. Clinton at his news conference. But the campaign was particularly upset about Mr. Comey's two letters, which created a wave of damaging news stories at the end of the campaign, when Mrs. Clinton and her supporters thought they had put the email issue behind them.
In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome.
The Clinton campaign said Mr. Comey's actions quite likely caused a significant number of undecided voters to cast ballots for President-elect Donald J. Trump.
F.B.I. officials said Thursday that they welcomed the scrutiny. In a statement, Mr. Comey described Mr. Horowitz as "professional and independent" and promised to cooperate with his investigation. "I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency," Mr. Comey said.
Brian Fallon, the former press secretary for the Clinton campaign and the former top spokesman for the Justice Department, said the inspector general's investigation was long overdue.
"This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey's drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol," he said. "A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore the F.B.I.'s reputation as a nonpartisan institution."
Mr. Horowitz has the authority to recommend a criminal investigation if he finds evidence of illegality, but there has been no suggestion that Mr. Comey's actions were unlawful. Rather, the question has been whether he acted inappropriately, showed bad judgment or violated Justice Department guidelines. It is not clear what the consequences would be for Mr. Comey if he was found to have done any of those things.
The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have a longstanding policy against discussing criminal investigations. Another Justice Department policy declares that politics should play no role in investigative decisions. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have interpreted that policy broadly to prohibit taking any steps that might even hint at an impression of partisanship.
Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct. In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs.
As part of the review, the inspector general will examine other issues related to the email investigation that Republicans have raised. They include whether the deputy director of the F.B.I., Andrew G. McCabe, should have recused himself from any involvement in it.
In 2015, Mr. McCabe's wife ran for a State Senate seat in Virginia as a Democrat and accepted nearly $500,000 in political contributions from Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a key ally of the Clintons. Though Mr. McCabe did not assume his post until February 2016, months after his wife was defeated, critics both within the agency and outside of it felt that he should have recused himself.
The F.B.I. has said Mr. McCabe played no role in his wife's campaign. He also told his superiors she was running and sought ethics advice from F.B.I. officials.
Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton.
Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews.
The law grew out of skirmishes between the F.B.I. and the Justice Department inspector general over attempts by the F.B.I. to keep grand jury material and other records off limits. The new law means Mr. Horowitz's investigators should have access to any records deemed relevant.
Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system.
Although the president does not need cause to fire the F.B.I. director, a critical inspector general report could provide justification to do so if Mr. Trump is looking for some.
Dec 30, 2016 | www.politico.com
their quarter-century project to build a mutual buy-one, get-one-free Clinton dynasty has ended in her defeat, and their joint departure from the center of the national political stage they had hoped to occupy for another eight years. Their exit amounts to a finale not just for themselves, but for Clintonism as a working political ideology and electoral strategy.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points and moving the party toward the center on issues like welfare and a balanced budget, in the process becoming the first presidential nominee of his party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two consecutive terms.
... ... ...
"New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes, and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw when he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!"
Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities -- there are almost no Blue Dog Democrats left after a generation of redistricting, primary challenges and electoral defeats in the South
...while Hillary Clinton recognized the change intellectually, she seemed unable to catch up to the practical realities of its political implications for her campaign
..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran Clinton aide
...Obama had not only largely overlooked the concerns of white working-class voters but, with his health care overhaul, had been seen as punishing them financially to provide new benefits to the poorest Americans. Fairly or not, he lost the public argument.
...Bill Clinton himself was far from an unalloyed asset in Hillary's campaign this year. The rosy glow that had come to surround much of his post presidency, and his charitable foundation's good works around the world, receded in the face of Trump's relentless reminders of his personal and sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic corner-cutting-a point Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
Aug 06, 2011 | nytimes.com
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply, and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics - in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration that so many of us have felt watching Mr...AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...cdearman Santa Fe, NM August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it,...SP California August 7, 2011
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class; and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!farospace san francisco August 7, 2011
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?Richard Katz American in Oxford, UK August 7, 2011
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well, he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?An Ordinary American Prague August 7, 2011
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum. He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem. -->martin Portland, Oregon August 7, 2011
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA. Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans, he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are.
Perhaps all of these are true.
Dec 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.comEMichael : December 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM , 2016 at 12:47 PMYou guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.im1dc : , December 26, 2016 at 01:51 PM
"Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the first black president.
In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration, and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care reform.
Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."
https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Whistle-Politics-Appeals-Reinvented-ebook/dp/B00GHJNSMUReading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:likbez : December 26, 2016 at 02:49 PM , 2016 at 02:49 PM
Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million
The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all.
And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote big too.
It is not any more complex than that.
So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?
PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.
That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade' and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.
Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements that would not otherwise exist.You are dreaming:
"The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play for all. "
The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.
Nov 30, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
What follows is from Today's Democratic Party: Meeting America's Challenges, Protecting America's Values , a.k.a., the 1996 Democratic Party Platform. This is the section on immigration. I took the liberty of bolding pieces I found interesting.
Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship , and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.
We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape, and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and truly call America their home.
Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.
President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.
However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.
Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries. We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be held legally responsible for supporting them.
Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.netStrong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.
bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
“… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …”
“… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …“
“… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner’s Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … “
“… Here’s the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …”
“… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just “forces” that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …”
“… This was not your grandfather’s Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …”
“… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …”
“… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn’t really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn’t get re-elected, Obama isn’t really trying. …”
“… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …”
Nov 14, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
William Meyer 11.13.16 at 9:40 pm 4Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr. Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
Neville Morley 11.14.16 at 7:11 am ( 31 )
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris.
Chris S 11.14.16 at 7:31 am
I assume he meant certain professors. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest.
Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.comby Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,
In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".
When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.
Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.
He goes on to state:
That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.
Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.
No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion.
They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.
Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!
Enough with the damn emails?
Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.
You can watch the full interview below:
Nov 14, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.comweejonnie Intheround 11h ago ...In the last 8 years the Democrat party.
Lost control of the Senate
Lost control of the House of Representatives
Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.
In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled. And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards her.
Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. : November 13, 2016 at 03:48 AM
EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.
MEDIA CULPA? THE PRESS AND THE ELECTION RESULT
By John Cassidy , NOVEMBER 11, 2016
Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.
Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."
It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday. As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062 votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.
Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble. But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that prove so difficult this year?
It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer, and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.
To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used to interpret the incoming data.
It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel Trump to victory.
Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white voter' candidate is Donald Trump."
The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted as recently as the summer."
Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard to pull off."
Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."
In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September, David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."
In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.
There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.
In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.
First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls, in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.
A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.
Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed among non-college whites."
The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only" prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.
These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals, looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic terms, which many people haven't.
The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts. The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward: when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls are off, so are the models.
Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result wrong.
I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College. In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.
Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans and demoralized Democrats.
One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October 18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."
Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.
Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
kidneystones 11.10.16 at 10:39 am 161
... .. ...
@138 The woman is wrong. Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for 'work' as a special correspondent, whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a 'board member' of IAC. Chelsea's speaking fees were a mere $65 k per.
The NYT offers a more severe critique of the IAC board deal readable by clicking through the links. There will be those who see nothing improper about a fifth-estate firm paying a 31 year-old graduate student $600 k, or awarding her a board seat and stock options at $300k. Others may disagree, and perhaps with some good reason.
The defeat of the democratic candidate by a rodeo clown is a slap in the face. Contra Manta @71 I do not believe that anything less than a slap in the face of this order would be enough to jar the successful and well-fed out of their state of complacency and indifference to the plight of both the blacks and whites left behind by 8 years of Democratic rule, and far longer when we're talking about urban African-Americans.
As noted, I believe the Republican candidate to be far and away the more sober, safer choice both on domestic and foreign policy. Now we'll find out.
Thanks for the kind words to Rich, Bruce, T, bob mc, and others.
Best to you all.
Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comJSM November 10, 2016 at 3:51 pm
Willing to go out on a speculative limb. Some people want answers like Giuliani, and not because they're interested, as Holder shrilly claimed, in 'jail[ing] political opponents.'
Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former.
If military intelligence folk gave Trump his insider knowledge about Weiner's laptop, maybe they suspected the source of leaking intelligence. Dig?
Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.orgKen Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55Susan Sunflower @ 48h | Nov 11, 2016 2:53:37 PM | 56
Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do exactly that. My guess is, want to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure he will have to pass out plenty of pardons. Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then seal the testimony -- or never bother to get any testimony. So many games.
For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day in office, from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.
Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is, Giuliani has been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer would do if he was trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them he would be agreeing with the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong doing, and then change his mind once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.
With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is likely to come out of this.
Maybe I saw the question about a 9/11 investigation on the other thread, but someone here asked if this is true. Well, it appears to be on a burner -jdmckay | Nov 11, 2016 2:58:20 PM | 57
Ken Nari @ 55Mina | Nov 11, 2016 3:03:16 PM | 58
From what I've read, prez pardon comes with explicit admission of guilt. Highly questionable either (or both) Clintons would accept that.
Simply brilliantSusan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 3:12:12 PM | 59
(it could be on the other thread, sorry)
@ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
I heard a podcast on Batchelor with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if there are no obvious likely criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot of "leniency" because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents, as I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the Foundation was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating; and others, foreign who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations, opening the possibility that if the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very very strict law) might proceed, and that they might well be investigated (prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.
The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a playground of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written policies on many practices ...
This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective action may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even before Hillary's loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011) memo. Unprofessional to the extreme.
It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365 for the next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be, I'm not looking for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the accusations/recriminations) I somehow thought they'd have been more careful with their "legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997, 2008 is a very long time to be operating without written procedures wrt donations, employment
from 11/08/2016, Batchelor segment page
Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence tells New Hampshire residents that "mishandling classified information is a crime" and is discussing Hillary Clinton's ethical lapses.
During a rally in North Carolina on Sunday, Pence taled about FBI Director James Comey, shortly after news broke that Comey issued a written that the bureau had "not changed" its conclusions that Clinton should not face indictment over her raucous email scandal.
Speaking at the Hickory Regional Airport, Pence said, "You have a four-star general that might get five years in prison, before the end of this year, for mishandling classified information," of retired Gen. James Cartwright who was charged with lying to the FBI about discussing classified information with reporters about Iran's nuclear program, during a probe.
Pence continued, "you have a sailor that just went to jail for taking a half-a-dozen photographs in a classified area of a nuclear submarine. So let me say this, if only for their decades of self-dealing with the politics of personal enrichment, mishandling classified information and compromising our national security, we must ensure that Hillary Clinton is never elected president of the United States of America."
... ... ...
Comey wrote, "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."
Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true."
He also pointed out that Clinton said she did not email any classified information to anyone. "And the head of the FBI told to Congress, there was classified information that was emailed."
Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server.
RNC chairman Reince Priebus issued a statement to Breitbart News, following Comey's announcement, making it clear that the FBI's public corruption investigation of the Clinton Foundation - which has raised billions of dollars - is ongoing:
The FBI's findings from its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's secret email server were a damning and unprecedented indictment of her judgment. The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about her reckless conduct. None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton should never be president.
Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra said that he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies.
"I said this right away when we found out she had a secret server. I said, 'OK, that thing was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and maybe some other governments,'" Hoekstra said on "Breitbart News Saturday" on Sirius/XM Channel 125.
Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty.Breitbart News has led the media in exposing the national security ramifications of Clinton's private email server. In a recent piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Email Case Explained," Breitbart News reported:
... ... ...
Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest.
So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server.
Hillary's 2008 campaign IT specialist Bryan Pagliano labored for months in a room on K Street in Washington, D.C., building the server for Clinton to use.
Hillary Clinton kicked off her State Department career in Foggy Bottom in January 2009 with a private Apple server, then switched to Pagliano's handcrafted server in March 2009…
…Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to hide the fact that she was using a private email server. She emailed with President Obama while Obama was using a pseudonym. She kept her own State Department IT Help Desk in the dark about her secret email activities, because her private email account got flagged when she tried to send emails to her own staff. "It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU," Abedin told her. Clinton even paid a firm in Jacksonville called "Perfect Privacy LLC" to plug in phony owner names for her email network on Internet databases.
The server had an open webmail portal, making it easily vulnerable to run-of-the-mill hackers. James Comey noted evidence showing hacks by "hostile actors." Capitol Hill sources speak in hushed tones about the "Russian Files," which are said to include information about a Russian hack. Clinton was warned of a security "vulnerability" on her BlackBerry on her first official trip to China, and the State Department told her to stop using it. But Clinton decided to keep using it. She told a private audience in a paid speech that her BlackBerry was under attack constantly by the Chinese and Russians.
The State Department warned Clinton to stop using her Blackberry to conduct email business after the Department flagged a major security "vulnerability" on Clinton's first official trip to China as Secretary of State. But Clinton ignored the warning and kept using her Blackberry.
Nov 07, 2016 | www.breitbart.comFlynn said that the media is covering up Clinton's alleged crimes:
People need to know what this is and so the mainstream media-all of the media, basically 99 percent of the media-doesn't even bother with it anymore. Nobody even covers it anymore. This is dangerous for our country and then you throw in all this stuff from this past week-you have this case against Anthony Weiner and he's directly tied to Hillary Clinton.
He's under multiple investigations. Then you have the Clinton Foundation, which is under multiple investigations by the FBI, and not just one but multiple.
You have the reopening of the national security investigation by the FBI directly against Hillary Clinton, that's another one that's open.
So I mean we are stupid people, we are stupid people in this country is we elect Hillary Clinton to be our next president because we're going to have nothing but scandal and dark cloud scandal over our country for the next four years and we cannot afford it with all the problems we face in this country and all the problems we face around the world.
What we need is we need to drain the damn swamp .
We need to get new leadership in our country, we need to get fresh blood in our country, and we need to stop the madness we are facing with this era of corruption in our country that has been going on for decades. We have got to stop it.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.
A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:
In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]
McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.
Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.
Second McWilliams quote:
In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".
I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."
There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.
Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.
The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.
It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:
Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.
The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.
I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.
End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though
Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."
Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.
I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.
Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.
Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?
Make your own list.
Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.
I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?
Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.
And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.
Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?
Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?
Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?
Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "
I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.
Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)
That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.
Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.
I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Sunday that he had seen no evidence in a recently discovered trove of emails to change his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.
... ... ...
The letter was a dramatic final twist in a tumultuous nine days for both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, who drew widespread criticism for announcing that the F.B.I. had discovered new emails that might be relevant to its investigation of Mrs. Clinton, which ended in July with no charges. That criticism of Mr. Comey from both parties is likely to persist after the election.
Nov 06, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Three weeks ago, when we first reported that Qatar had offered to pay the Clinton Foundation $1 million after a hacked Podesta email disclosed that the ambassador of Qatar " Would like to see WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011 ", we said that in this particular case, the Clinton Foundation may also be in violation of State Department ethics codes.As we said in early October, while this has been seen by critics of the Clinton Foundation as yet another instance of influence pandering and "pay-to-play", this time there may actually be consequences for the Clinton Foundation: according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation.
Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation.
Of course, US foreign policy could be very easily swayed if Hillary accepted money and simply did not report it the receipt of such money.
sushi 1980XLS Nov 5, 2016 8:30 AM ,She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative.clooney_art sushi Nov 5, 2016 8:32 AM ,
The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work.
Next question is - Where does the money go? And who benefits? ,"Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qssushi clooney_art Nov 5, 2016 8:46 AM ,http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/chai-management-mutinyThe Saint bamawatson Nov 5, 2016 10:47 AM ,
CHAI is often portrayed by the Clinton Foundation (CF) as an initiative of the Foundation. . . . We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds.
See paragraph 4 on page 3 of the full memo which is a part of the above ZH post.Hillay said at one of the debates that the Clinton Foundation pays out 90% to charity.Cigar Smoker The Saint Nov 5, 2016 12:42 PM ,
NOT SO. Latest filing - 2014 - shows that only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses.
The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia.Ten years ago I considered setting up a Non-profit Family Charitable corporation, the minimum yearly donation was 7% at that time, of course it may have changed.The Saint Cigar Smoker Nov 5, 2016 2:16 PM ,Here's something new from WND/Breitbart:
Citing a "well-placed source" in the New York Police Department, Blackwater USA founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik Prince.....said the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in the Weiner investigation but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.
"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'"
Nov 05, 2016 | dailycaller.comHillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea.
The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of documents recovered by the FBI from Clinton's private email server.
The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain , entitled "Update," started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.
The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as "Confidential," was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds."
The American Conservative
For, if true, Clinton could face charges in 2017 and impeachment and removal from office in 2018.
According to Baier, FBI agents have found new emails, believed to have originated on Clinton's server, on the computer jointly used by close aide Huma Abedin and her disgraced husband, Anthony Weiner.
Abedin's failure to turn this computer over to the State Department on leaving State appears to be a violation of U.S. law.
Moreover, the laptops of close Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, thought destroyed by the FBI, were apparently retained and are "being exploited" by the National Security division.
And here is the salient point. His FBI sources told Baier, "with 99 percent" certitude, that Clinton's Chappaqua server "had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence services."
If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not?
The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority."
Specifically, the FBI is looking into published allegations of "pay-to-play." This is the charge that the Clinton State Department traded access, influence, and policy decisions to foreign regimes and to big donors who gave hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with 15 years of six-figure speaking fees for Bill and Hillary.
According to Baier's sources, FBI agents are "actively and aggressively" pursuing this case, have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple persons, and are now being inundated in an "avalanche of new information" from WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments.
Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut.
Books have been written alleging and detailing them.
Also, not only Fox News but also the Wall Street Journal and other news sources are reporting on what appears to be a rebellion inside the FBI against strictures on their investigations imposed by higher ups in the Department of Justice of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Director Comey has come under fire from left and right-first for refusing to recommend the prosecution of Clinton, then for last week's statement about the discovery of new and "pertinent" emails on the Abedin-Weiner computer-but retains a reputation for integrity.
And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday.
What is predictable ahead?
Attorney General Lynch, whether she stays or goes, will be hauled before Congress to explain whether she or top aides impeded the FBI investigations of the Clinton scandals. And witnesses from within her Justice department and FBI will also be called to testify.
Moreover, Senate Republicans would block confirmation of any new attorney general who did not first promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the email and pay-to-play scandals, and any pressure from Lynch's Justice Department on the FBI.
Even Democrats would concede that a Department of Justice staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees could not credibly be entrusted with investigating alleged high crimes and misdemeanors by former Secretary of State Clinton and confidants like Abedin and Mills.
An independent counsel, a special prosecutor, appears inevitable.
And such individuals usually mark their success or failure by how many and how high are the indictments and convictions they rack up.
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.
Nov 03, 2016 | thesaker.is54 Comments Guest Posts The Saker
Originally written for RT
Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).
How's that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?
It's possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria, is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall Street/corporate media axis.
But History has a tendency to show us there's always a straw that breaks the camel's back.
... ... ...
As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com , for its part, has connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)
Exceptional bananas, anyone?
The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to "evil" Russian hacking when the real source for the leaks might have come straight from the https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/ belly of the (Washington) beast.
At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin
http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/articles/vladimir-putin-took-part-in-the-valdai-discussion-club-s-plenary-session/ only a few sentences to debunk the whole Clinton machine narrative with a bang:
"Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.
I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people's choice? America is not some kind of 'banana republic', after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong."
Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances, configuring a giant black hole of transparency.
Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clintons-latest-email-scandal-why-it-deserves-scrutiny_us_58177d54e4b08301d33e0cdb?24hp9z9vxqa6y9zfr acknowledging how Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of "philantro-capitalism" (actually a money laundering "pay to play" racket), a practice "by no means confined to the Clintons".
And the racket prospered with inbuilt nuggets, such as Hillary being http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html perfectly aware that prime Clinton Foundation donors Qatar and Saudi Arabia were also financing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Huma, the Fall Princess
Now, less than a week before the election, we have come to the crucial juncture where the WikiLeaks revelations are merging with the FBI investigations – all three of them.
Exhibit A is https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF
this WikiLeaks bombshell; Peter Kadzik, who's now in charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe into the 650,000 emails found on the laptop shared by Clinton's right-hand woman Huma Abedin and her estranged, pervert husband Anthony Wiener, is a Clinton asset.
Not only Kadzik was an attorney for Marc Rich when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton; Podesta – as also revealed by WikiLeaks – thanked Kadzik for keeping him "out of jail"; and it was Kadzik who gave Podesta a secret heads up https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF on the Clinton email investigation.
The Clinton machine, starring a self-described virtuous Madonna, is actually a pretty nasty business. Huma and her family's close connections to Saudi Arabia – and the Muslim Brotherhood – are legendary (that includes his brother Hassan, who works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Podesta, by the way, is a handsomely remunerated lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington; that's part of the Clinton Foundation connection.
Yet now, with Huma in the spotlight – still maintaining she didn't know all those emails were in her and Wiener's laptop – it's no wonder Hillary has instantly downgraded her, publicly, to "one of my aides". She used to be Hillary's ersatz http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser "daughter"; now she's being framed as The Fall Princess.
And that brings us to the intersection of those three FBI investigations; on Hillary's Subterranean Email Server (in theory closed by FBI's Comey last summer); on the Clinton Foundation; and on Wiener's sexting of minors. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year now. Let's try to cut a long story short.
Follow the evidence
Last July, the DOJ – under Clinton/Obama asset Loretta Lynch – decided not to prosecute anyone on Emailgate. And yet FBI director Comey – who nonetheless stressed Hillary's "extreme carelessness" – turbo-charged his no-denial mode on another investigation, as in the FBI "sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe."
Soon we had Clinton Foundation FBI investigators trying to get access to all the emails turned over in the Emailgate investigation. The East District of New York refused it. Very important point; up to 2015, guess who was the US attorney at the East District; Clinton/Obama asset Lynch.
Enter an extra layer of legalese. Less than two months ago, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators discovered they could not have access to any Emailgate material that was connected to immunity agreements.
But then, roughly a month ago, another FBI team captured the by now famous laptop shared by Huma and Wiener – using a warrant allowing only a probe on Weiner's sexting of a 15-year-old girl. Subsequently they found Huma Abedin emails at all her accounts – from Humaabedin@yahoo.com to the crucial firstname.lastname@example.org . This meant not only that Huma was forwarding State Dept. emails to her private accounts, but also that Hillary was sending emails from the "secret" clintonemail.com to Huma at yahoo.com.
No one knew for sure, but some of these emails might be duplicates of those the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators could not access because of the pesky immunity agreements.
What's established by now is that the metadata in the Huma/Wiener laptop was duly examined. Now picture both teams of FBI investigators – Clinton Foundation and pervert Wiener – comparing notes. And then they decide Huma's emails are "relevant".
Key questions apply; and the most pressing is how the emails were deemed "relevant" if the investigators could only examine the metadata. What matters is that Comey certainly was made aware of the content of the emails – a potential game-changer. That's why one of my sources https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201610311046920348-clinton-fbi-november-surprise/ insists his decision to go public came from above.
The other key question now is whether the DOJ – via Kadzik? – will once again thwart another investigation, this time on the Clinton Foundation. Senior, serious FBI agents won't take that – massive euphemism – kindly. The FBI has been on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. Now, arguably, they are loaded with evidence – and they won't quit. Winning the presidency now seems to be the least of Hillary Clinton's Bonfire of Scandals' problems.
Eric, November 4, 2016 1:08 pm
After the Nixon Watergate scandal, which avoided discussion of his war crimes and treasonous undermining of Vietnamese peace talks, and probable role in JFK's assassination. And after the Iran Contra scandal which also involved illegal arms transfers, obstruction of justice, end running around supplying arms to terrorists, drug dealing, etc., it is refreshing that after Bill's impeachment on relatively minor charges (do older guys having affairs with younger women occur, and they don't want to talk about it?), to see some Democrats, who have always portrayed themselves as the good guys against the evil Nixons and Reagans and Bushes, being caught red handed in good oldfashioned money laundering, gun running, supplying arms to terrorists and cavorting with and accepting money from good old fashioned head chopping human rights violators, in true treasonous style.
As the saying goes, "The country is run by gangsters, and the ones who win are called 'The Government'.
Vote Third Party.
Nov 04, 2016 | www.breitbart.comBlackwater founder and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his "well-placed sources" in the New York Police Department, "The NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making" in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.
Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server . "I mean, it's not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they've hacked and stolen your data," Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.
Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's email server last week.
"Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing," Prince claimed.
"They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said.
"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" Prince explained.
"I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they've gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That's the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters," Prince said.
"There's five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860," Prince declared.
Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.
"NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop," Prince elaborated. "Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton's own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found."
"So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn't," Prince contended.
"There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they've seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs," he stated.
"So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that's the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue," Prince said.
He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, "but they can't convene a grand jury. They can't file charges."
"The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that," he explained. "Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he's a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing."
Marlow agreed that Bharara's "sterling reputation" as a determined prosecutor was "bad news for the Clintons."
Prince agreed, but said, "If people are willing to bend or break the law and don't really care about the Constitution or due process – if you're willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure" could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?
"The point being, fortunately, it's not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well," Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has "exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department" against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to "keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed."
"The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done," he warned.
As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that "de Blasio wants to stay away from this."
"The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling," he said.
Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case "have not been named yet," and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.
"I wish they'd do it today," he said. "These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today , and shine the light of truth on this great evil."
"From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down," he added.
Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.
"Sure, that's it. That's the argument for it," Prince agreed. "But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they'd be talking about it. They'd be shouting it from the rooftops."
"This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don't have to make any judgments. Just release the emails," he urged. "Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth."
Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that "forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate."
"This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest adviser for the last 20 years," he said of the new bombshells. "This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation."
Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.
"There's a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information," he said. "Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That's the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world."
"That's not who you want in the White House," Prince declared.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Thirdeye | Nov 3, 2016 8:44:28 PM | 45And the hits just keep on comin' with the Abedin email stash:
"These emails, CBS News' Andres Triay reports, are not duplicates of emails found on Secretary Clinton's private server. At this point, however, it remains to be seen whether these emails are significant to the FBI's investigation into Clinton."
psychohistorian | Nov 3, 2016 9:10:02 PM | 49I haven't read where this has been posted yet but evidently the FBI took Clinton II up on her demand that all the emails be releasedpsychohistorian | Nov 3, 2016 9:25:22 PM | 51
I am sure glad I went long on popcorn....should have enough to last through next Tuesday.I am sorry for not providing the FBI link which is below
Nov 03, 2016 | www.thehill.comTwo sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI's investigations told Fox News Wednesday that a probe of the Clinton Foundation is likely to lead to an indictment.
Fox News's Bret Baier said Wednesday that the FBI probe into a possible pay-to-play scheme between Democratic presidential nominee and the Clinton Foundation has been going on for over a year. Sources told the news network that the investigation, which is conducted by the White Collar Crime division of the FBI, is a "very high priority."
One source further stated that the bureau collected "a lot of" evidence, adding that "there is an avalanche of new information coming every day." Baier also said that the Clinton Foundation probe is more expansive than previously thought, and that many individuals have been interviewed several times throughout the course of the investigation. Sources said that they are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case" and that investigations are likely to continue. Baier added that when he pressed the sources about the details of both probes, they told him that they are likely to lead to an indictment. Additionally, Baier reported that according to Fox News's sources, Clinton's private email server had been breached by at least five foreign intelligence hackers. FBI Director James Comey said in July that he could not say definitively whether her server had been breached.
Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.comIt's looking increasingly like there is an ongoing mutiny underway within the FBI as the Wall Street Journal is reporting that, according to "officials at multiple agencies", FBI agents felt they had adequate evidence, including "secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation" , to pursue an investigation of the Clinton Foundation but were repeatedly obstructed by officials at the Department of Justice.
Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.
The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton.
Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn't think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn't let them pursue , they said.
Despite clear signals from the Justice Department to abandon the Clinton Foundation inquiries, many FBI agents refused to stand down. Then, earlier this year in February 2016, the FBI presented initial evidence at a meeting with Leslie Caldwell, the head of the DOJ's criminal division, after which agents were delivered a clear message that "we're done here." But, as the WSJ points out, DOJ became increasing frustrated with FBI agents that were " disregarding or disobeying their instructions" which subsequently prompted an emphatic "stand down" message from the DOJ to "all the offices involved."
As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first. In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York-Mr. Capers' office-didn't attend, these people said.
The public-integrity prosecutors weren't impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. "The message was, 'We're done here,' " a person familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.
Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to " stand down ,'' a person familiar with the matter said.
The FBI had secretly recorded conversations of a suspect in a public-corruption case talking about alleged deals the Clintons made , these people said. The agents listening to the recordings couldn't tell from the conversations if what the suspect was describing was accurate, but it was, they thought, worth checking out.
Nov 03, 2016 | profile.theguardian.com
MerlinUK 10h agoObama can GTFO. He created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised, as well as himself. The BFBI was left with little choice but to go public in a legal way via FOIA requests, something that the corrupt DoJ can't stop. Jason Chaffetz has now formally asked another member of the corrupt Government to recuse himself, as he too is compromised and was tipping off the Clintons. We have yet to find out just how far these rabbit holes go, but the Illuminati appear to be worried - $150M is a lot to explain away...
BillFromBoston 10h ago
Obama criticizes the FBI today...but didn't have a single bloody word to say when BillyBob (that's Bill Clinton to you Brits) happened to bump into the nation's Attorney General several days before she declared Hillary to be a candidate for sainthood.
But that's understandable...after all, all they talked about was grandchildren and golf.Just ask them,they'll tell you!
curiouschak 10h ago
Idiot democrat primary voters. They actually ended up selecting such a toxic, defensive, shifty corrupt candidate that she may up handing the election to an orange turd with a dead raccoon on its head.
They couldn't do the right and smart thing and elect Sanders. He would have wiped the floor with this tangerine blowhard
Chuckman 10h ago
You are pathetic, Obama, absolutely pathetic. Who ever heard of the chief magistrate criticizing law enforcement during an investigation about which he indeed knows very little.
Or, maybe that should be, pretends to know very little. There are suggestions that some material could be dangerous to Obama.
His previous testimony that he knew nothing about illegal, insecure computers being used at State appears contradicted by the fact we now know from Wiki-Leaks material he had a pseudonym and had e-mails back and forth from Hills and Company.
www.breitbart.comIn an interview with House magazine, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux – the former Chief of the Defence staff – said Mr. Trump is "wise enough to get good people round him and probably knows that he's got to listen to them and therefore I think we should not automatically think it will be less safe".
He added: "It's non-state actors like Isis that are the biggest threat to our security. If countries and states could coalesce better to deal with these people – and I think Trump's instinct is to go down that route – then I think there's the case for saying that the world certainly won't be any less safe.
"It's that lack of understanding and empathy with each other as big power players that is a risk to us all at the moment.
"Therefore I think he would reinvigorate big power relationships, which might make the world ironically safer."
During the interview Lord Richards also discussed the somewhat controversial view that the West should partner with Russia and Bashar al-Assad to take back the Syrian city of Aleppo.
He said: "If the humanitarian situation in Syria is our major concern, which it should be – millions of lives have been ruined, hundreds of thousands have been killed – I believe there is a strong case for allowing Assad to get in there and take the city back.
"The opposition groups – many of whom are not friends of ours, they're extremists – are now intermingled with the original good opposition groups, are fighting from amongst the people. The only quick way of solving it is to allow Assad to win. There's no way the opposition groups are going to win."
Lord Richards added: "We want the humanitarian horror of Aleppo to come to a rapid halt. The best and quickest way of doing that is to encourage the opposition groups to leave. The Russians are undoubtedly using their weapons indiscriminately. If they're going to attack those groups then there is inevitably going to be civilian casualties.
"The alternative is for the West to declare a no-fly zone and that means you've got to be prepared to go to war with Russia ultimately. I see no appetite for that and nor, frankly, do I see much sense in it. It sticks in my throat to say it because I have no love for Assad.
"The fact is, the only way to get it to stop now is to allow Assad to win and win quickly and then turn on Isis with the Russians."
Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:
Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com. . . _ _ _ . . . Nov 3, 2016 9:24 AM ," Podesta is also the appointed Congressional lobbyist for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – for the modest amount of $200,000 per month."
Nov 02, 2016 | truepundit.com
New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit.
NYPD sources said Clinton's "crew" also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders.
The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday.
But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
- Money laundering
- Child exploitation
- Sex crimes with minors (children)
- Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
- Obstruction of justice
- Other felony crimes
NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.
"What's in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach," the NYPD Chief said. "There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold my own press conference if it comes to that."
The NYPD Chief said once Comey saw the alarming contents of the emails he was forced to reopen a criminal probe against Clinton.
"People are going to prison," he said.
Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said.
"If they don't cooperate they are going to see long sentences," a federal law enforcement source said.
NYPD sources said Weiner or Abedin stored all the emails in a massive Microsoft Outlook program on the laptop. The emails implicate other current and former members of Congress and one high-ranking Democratic Senator as having possibly engaged in criminal activity too, sources said.
Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records, law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however, the FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell phone activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge.
The new emails contain travel documents and itineraries indicating Hillary Clinton, President Bill Clinton, Weiner and multiple members of Congress and other government officials accompanied convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on his Boeing 727 on multiple occasions to his private island in the US Virgin Islands, sources said. Epstein's island has also been dubbed Orgy Island or Sex Slave Island where Epstein allegedly pimps out underage girls and boys to international dignitaries.
Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island.
Laptop Also Unveiled More Classified, Top Secret Breaches
According to other uncovered emails, Abedin and Clinton both sent and received thousands of classified and top secret documents to personal email accounts including Weiner's unsecured campaign web site which is managed by Democratic political consultants in Washington D.C.
Weiner maintained little known email accounts that the couple shared on the website anthonyweiner.com. Weiner, a former seven-term Democratic Congressman from New York, primarily used that domain to campaign for Congress and for his failed mayoral bid of New York City.
At one point, FBI sources said, Abedin and Clinton's classified and top secret State Department documents and emails were stored in Weiner's email on a server shared with a dog grooming service and a western Canadian bicycle shop.
However, Weiner and Abedin, who is Hillary Clinton's closest personal aide, weren't the only people with access to the Weiner's email account. Potentially dozens of unknown individuals had access to Abedin's sensitive State Department emails that were stored in Weiner's email account, FBI sources confirmed.
FEC records show Weiner paid more than $92,000 of congressional campaign funds to Anne Lewis Strategies LLC to manage his email and web site. According to FBI sources, the D.C.-based political consulting firm has served as the official administrator of the anthonyweiner.com domain since 2010, the same time Abedin was working at the State Department. This means technically Weiner and Abedin's emails, including top secret State Department emails, could have been accessed, printed, discussed, leaked, or distributed by untold numbers of personnel at the Anne Lewis consulting firm because they can control where the website and it emails are pointed, FBI sources said.
According to FBI sources, the bureau's newly-minted probe into Clinton's use and handling of emails while she served as secretary of state, has also been broadened to include investigating new email-related revelations, including:
- Abedin forwarded classified and top secret State Department emails to Weiner's email
- Abedin stored emails, containing government secrets, in a special folder shared with Weiner warehousing over 500,000 archived State Department emails.
- Weiner had access to these classified and top secret documents without proper security clearance to view the records
- Abedin also used a personal yahoo address and her Clintonemail.com address to send/receive/store classified and top secret documents
- A private consultant managed Weiner's site for the last six years, including three years when Clinton was secretary of state, and therefore, had full access to all emails as the domain's listed registrant and administrator via Whois email contacts.
Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if the server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors.
Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner.
Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail portals.
Clinton did not have a computer in her office on Mahogany Row at the State Dept. so she was not able to read timely intelligence unless it was printed out for her, Abedin said. Abedin also said Clinton could not operate the secure State Dept. fax machine installed in her Chappaqua, NY home without assistance.
Perhaps more alarming, according to the FBI's 302 Report detailing its interview with Abedin, none of the multiple FBI agents and Justice Department officials who conducted the interview pressed Abedin to further detail the email address linked to Weiner. There was never a follow up, according to the 302 report.
But now, all that has changed, with the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation and the husband and wife seeking immunity deals to testify against Clinton and other associates about the contents of the laptop's emails.
Senior FBI officials were informed about the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at least two weeks before Director James B. Comey notified Congress, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.
The officials said that Comey was told that there were new emails before he received a formal briefing last Thursday, although the precise timing is unclear.
The information goes beyond the details provided in the letter that Comey sent to lawmakers last week declaring that he was restarting the inquiry into whether Clinton mishandled classified material during her tenure as secretary of state. He wrote in the Friday letter that "the investigative team briefed me yesterday" about the additional emails.
The people familiar with the investigation said that senior officials had been informed weeks earlier that a computer belonging to former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) contained emails potentially pertinent to the Clinton investigation. Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, shared the computer with her husband, from whom she is now separated.
Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
ghengis86 Nov 3, 2016 12:20 PM ,Changing subject lines of classified e-mails days before attorneys delete e-mails of personal nature by...subject line contents!?!?! Intent motherfuckers.Handful of Dust jcaz Nov 3, 2016 12:42 PM ,
Holy crap.....they are both changing this email to be personal so it can be deleted and not turned over! This is obstruction of justice!
Podesta replies, changes the subject line, and adds personal comments a month later because that is when the lawyers were sorting through the emails to determine which ones were personal. Hillary replied too!
This is big!
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/10221/2014/09/30/clintons-lawyers-are-sent-the-rest-of-clintons-emails-so-they-can-finish-sorting-them/ ,gratis already......two hoots Nov 3, 2016 12:21 PM ,
Hillary deleted her incriminating emails. State covered it up. Asked about using White House executive privilege to hide from Congress.
· "They do not plan to release anything publicly, so no posting online or anything public-facing, just to the committee."
· "That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over. It also includes emails that HRC had that Sid didn't."
· "Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will."
· "We brought up the existence of emails in reserach this summer but were told that everything was taken care of."
· "That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over."
· The State Department was:
o (1) Coordinating with the Clinton political campaign.
o (2) Colluding with the press to spin it positively.
o (3) Doing so BEFORE they released it to AN EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. The Clinton campaign was always a step ahead of the committee investigating them. Shameful.
· Nick states "Just spoke to State" He goes on to reveal that State colluded with him about which emails are being revealed to committee and that the State plans to plant a story with AP.
· Shows intent to withhold emails from the subpoena.
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/Withdrawn Sanction two hoots Nov 3, 2016 12:44 PM ,
The Presidency is the Clinton's last chance to protect their empire.Worked for el-BJ....until it didnt...until he was hounded from office for the war HE started. Hubris has its own set of checks and balances.Rebel yell Nov 3, 2016 12:31 PM ,People are theorizing that the Clinton emails were in a folder marked life insurance because Uma feared for her life and thought that the folder would protect from being murdered. Good thinking Uma!tarabel Rebel yell Nov 3, 2016 12:32 PM ,
Clinton dead bodies toll at 90:
You know, Huma looks so totally clueless about everything mechanical or technical that I might actually believe it if she were to nailgun herself to death. Same for Hillary, for that matter.
Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.comstratplaya , 3 Nov 2016 17:1>Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will contain emails related to yoga classes or national security
Rouvas -> stratplaya 45m ago
Why does she get immunity anyway? Usually you give someone immunity in return for getting them to blab on someone...
Oh yes, silly me, it's the Clinton's we are talking about... different rules apply
Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Today's release follows dramatic revelations in which we learned that the DOJ's Peter Kadzik had colluded with John Podesta in the early days of the Clinton campaign, while in a serpate email we found more evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign, the NYT and the State Department in drafting the "breaking" story that exposed Hillary's possession of a home email server.
Zero HedgeNow that thanks to first the WSJ, and then Fox News, the public is aware that a probe into the Clinton Foundation is not only a hot topic for both the FBI and the DOJ (and has managed to split the law enforcement organizations along ideological party lines), but is also actively ongoing despite the DOJ's attempts to squash it.
In the latest update from Fox's Bret Baier, we learn that the Clinton Foundation investigation has now taken a "very high priority," perhaps courtesy of new documents revealed by Wikileaks which expressed not only a collusive element between Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the "charitable foundation's" donors, which included the use of funds for personal gain, but also revealed deep reservations by people within the foundation about ongoing conflicts of interest.
As Baier also notes, the Clinton Foundation probe has been proceeding for more than a year, led by the White-Collar Crime division.
White Collar Crime Unit pursuing @ClintonFdn case. pic.twitter.com/PLgNLfF08K
- Fox News (@FoxNews) November 3, 2016
Fox adds that even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, and FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people regarding the case.
"There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, adding some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, Baier's sources said. Agents also are going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews as well as the FBI 302 documents, which agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources.
As expected, the Clinton Foundation denied everything, and Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian, told Fox news a statement: "We're not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney's Office and we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies."
.@ClintonFdn on @WSJ report. pic.twitter.com/8ZqSTDP8sS
- Fox News (@FoxNews) November 3, 2016
Now that details of the infighting between the DOJ and FBI regarding the Foundation probe have been made public, Loretta Lynch may have no choice but to launch an official probe, including subpoeans.
The information follows a report over the weekend by The Wall Street Journal that four FBI field offices have been collecting information about the foundation. The probes – in addition to the revived email investigation – have fueled renewed warnings from Republicans that if Clinton is elected next week, she could take office under a cloud of investigations.
"This is not just going to go away … if she ends up winning the election," Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" earlier this week.
Donald Trump has referenced this scenario, repeatedly saying on the stump this past week that her election could trigger a "crisis."
Separately, Fox News reports that authorities also are virtually certain, i.e., "there is about a 99 percent chance", that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News. If so, it would suggest that the original FBI probe - which found no evidence of breach - was either incomplete or tampered with.
The revelation led House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to describe Clinton's handling of her email system during her tenure as secretary of state as "treason."
"She exposed [information] to our enemies," McCaul said on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning. "Our adversaries have this very sensitive information. … In my opinion, quite frankly, it's treason."
McCaul, R-Texas, said that FBI Director James Comey told him previously that foreign adversaries likely had gotten into her server. When Comey publicly discussed the Clinton email case back in July, he also said that while there was no evidence hostile actors breached the server, it was "possible" they had gained access.
Clinton herself later pushed back, saying the director was merely "speculating."
But sources told Fox News that Comey should have said at the time there is an "almost certainty" that several foreign intelligence agencies hacked into the server.
The claims come as Comey's FBI not only revisits the email investigation following the discovery of additional emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner – the estranged husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin – but is proceeding in its investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
In other words, Anthony Weiner may be ultimately responsible not only for the downfall of Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, but also the collapse of the entire Clinton Foundation... which incidentally is just what Donald Trump warned could happen over a year ago.
A summary of Baier's latest reporting is in the clip below...
The FBI has unexpectedly published papers from an over ten-year-old investigation of former president Bill Clinton's controversial pardon of a financier, reports NTB.
The case against Clinton was dismissed without charges in 2005, and several Democrats therefore question why the 129-page report of the investigation is published right now, a few days before the election, in which Bill Clinton's wife Hillary Clinton is trying to become president.
The rage against the FBI is already great in the Democratic Party after the federal police last week announced they will investigate new emails relating to Hillary Clinton.
Financier Marc Rich was indicted for tax fraud and lived in exile in Switzerland when Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day as president on January 20, 2001. Several reacted to the pardon, especially since Rich's ex-wife was a major donor to the Democratic Party.
The FBI started to investigate the pardon the year after.
Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
From: E-mails - Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood, by Thierry Meyssan
by: Thierry Meyssan
"Huma Abedin is a US citizen who was raised in Saudi Arabia. Her father is director of an academic revue – of which, for many years, she was the sub-editor – which regularly prints comments from the Muslim Brotherhood. Her mother is president of the Saudi association of female members of the Brotherhood, and worked with the wife of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. Her brother Hassan works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the religious authority of the Brotherhood and spiritual counsellor of Al-Jazeera."
... ... ...
Huma Abedin is today a central figure of the Clinton campaign, alongside the campaign director, John Podesta, ex-General Secretary of the White House under the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Podesta is also the appointed Congressional lobbyist for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – for the modest amount of $200,000 per month. On 12 June 2016, Petra, the official Press agency of Jordan, published an interview with the crown prince of Arabia, Mohamed Ben Salmane, in which he affirmed the modernity of his family, which had illegally financed Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign to the tune of 20%, despite the fact that she is a woman. The day after this publication, the agency cancelled the dispatch and claimed that its Internet site had been hacked.
... ... ...
As it happens, in the team of her challenger, Donald Trump, we note the presence of General Michael T. Flynn, who attempted to oppose the creation of the Caliphate by the White House, and resigned from the direction of the Defense Intelligence Agency in order to signal his disapproval. He works alongside Frank Gaffney, a historical "Cold Warrior", now qualified as a "conspiracy theorist" for having denounced the presence of the Brotherhood in the Federal State.
It goes without saying that from the FBI's point of view, any support for jihadist organisations is a crime, whatever the policy of the CIA may be. In 1991, the police – and Senator John Kerry – had provoked the ecollapse of BCCI, a Pakistani bank (although it is registered in the Cayman Islands), which the CIA used for all sorts of secret operations with the Muslim Brotherhood and also the Latino drug cartels.
www.chicagotribune.comIt's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.
FBI director James Comey's announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious.
This can't be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner's wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been "reckless" with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution.>
... ... ...
What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.
The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media - fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee - should begin demanding it.
... ... ...
The Clintons weren't skilled merchants. They weren't traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.
All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.
If a presidential election is as much about the people as it is about the candidates, then we'll learn plenty about ourselves in the coming days, won't we?
www.reddit.comOriginal Email Chain ('Here's what I mentioned') from August 19th
Same Email but with Personal Subject Line ('Congrats!') from September 28th
After Podesta mentions in the original email chain 'Yes and interesting but not for this channel.', he then sends this email back to Hillary's inbox a month later with a subject line of 'Congrats!'. Could this be an example of altering email subject lines for the purpose of getting deleted as 'personal' emails? This chain appears to have classified material. I would assume Clinton would not want this email in her system, and Podesta very blatantly was aware of it not belonging there. (More aware than Clinton herself, which is quite frightening).
Can we compare this email to the emails that were turned over to state? Or, compare it to the date that Congress sent the order to provide all emails? When was that again? I'm assuming it's certainly not there.
EDIT: The dates line up. This email subject was changed and sent at the same time Hillary's team was wiping personal emails.
EDIT 2: This needs to get out to everyone. Media / FBI / Wikileaks / TYT / You name it. Please share/tweet/whatever!
Nov 03, 2016 | speisa.com
A second FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton is ongoing. The investigation to uncover corruption by the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton, is given high priority and now runs parallel with the reopened FBI case of her using a private email server to avoid the Federal Records Act.
The FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation that has been going on for more than a year has now taken a "very high priority," separate sources with intimate knowledge of the probe tell Fox News .
FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case, which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI's White Collar Crime Division is handling the investigation.
Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News.
"There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, sources said.
Agents are also going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews and the FBI 302, documents agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources.
Nov 01, 2016 | www.breitbart.com"In my view, what has not been reported, and what I think is very significant, is that we've all forgotten that Anthony Weiner is under investigation for what amounts to child pornography, alleged child pornography," said Klein.
"Now, if he's found guilty on multiple charges, they can put him away for life because each charge brings 15, 20 years. So if you're his attorney, you say to him, 'Tony, what can you give the prosecutors in exchange for bringing down the number of years you're gonna have to serve?' And it's my view that what he offered them was the computer, and that in exchange, he has gotten an agreement to reduce his charges," he speculated.
"This computer apparently was unknown to the FBI, and I think the reason that it took two, three, or even four weeks between the time that they stumbled on this computer – because Weiner made it available in exchange for a deal – and the time that [James] Comey knew about it, the director of the FBI, was because they were in the process of cutting this arrangement," Klein continued.
"Finally, it came to Comey's attention, as we know, and it became obvious to him and imperative to him that he do something about it – because if he didn't, can you imagine what would happen after the election, and it became knowledge that he knew about this, did nothing about it? Clearly, the Congress would open a probe of the FBI and why it did nothing about it. And Comey would be, not only on the hot seat, but perhaps even impeachable. So I think that this is the untold story of behind-the-scenes maneuvering on these emails," he said.
Klein was convinced the allegations of Weiner "sexting" with underage children were "the alpha and the omega of this whole story" because "otherwise, this computer would never have come to light."
Another factor Klein highlighted was the revolt among FBI agents angry at political interference in their investigations of Hillary Clinton.
"That's not my opinion; this is my reporting," he said. "My reporting indicates from several sources that the atmosphere at the FBI has never been, the morale has never been lower, that there is a stack, literally a stack of resignations waiting on Comey's desk for him to sign, which he has yet to do, that people, when they meet him in the hallway, and he says, 'Good morning' to them, many of them don't even reply because they're not talking to him; that the sense within the FBI is that he disgraced the institution back in July, when he knew quite well, obviously, that Mrs. Clinton had violated not one, but several federal statutes in jeopardizing national security, and raked her over the coals verbally – and then, for reasons that I think had to do with his not wanting to interfere in the presidential race, let her off legally."
"Many of the people in the FBI thought that that was disgraceful," Klein asserted. "I think he's been under huge pressure ever since to redeem himself. I'm told his wife even – who is not only his most personal, deepest relationship, but also a major adviser in his career – has been telling him, 'Jim, you've got to do something about this.'"
"This is a guy who goes to church every Sunday. He's an evangelical Catholic," he said of Comey. "He gets on his knees every night, prays to God, prays about his dead child that he lost, two or three days after the child was born, believes deeply in his own moral rectitude and constantly thinks that he is on the side of the angels. And I think he felt that what he did this time around, which was to send this letter to the Congress, was the highest right, moral thing to do. Whether it was or not, I think that's what motivated him."
Marlow suggested Comey would not have reopened the Clinton investigation "unless he knows he's got the goods."
"I agree with you. I think the disgrace is not James Comey. I think the disgrace is the White House and the Justice Department because as I report in my book Guilty as Sin, despite what Loretta Lynch said about how independent she was or is, she and Valerie Jarrett were having secret meetings last summer about the email investigation, keeping the President and the White House up to date on everything that Jim Comey was doing," Klein said.
"And Valerie Jarrett was under explicit orders – I know people say, 'Well, you never really tell the Attorney General exactly what to do; you kind of wink.' There was no wink. She was told in no uncertain terms, according to my sources, that under no circumstances should Hillary Clinton be indicted because Barack Obama wants desperately for Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, and not to have Donald Trump in the White House because Donald Trump will completely undo everything that Obama thinks is his legacy," he added.
"So I think the disgrace is the Attorney General, and the Attorney General trying to interfere with the FBI's investigations – both of the emails and the Clinton Foundation," Klein reiterated.
Marlow mentioned a theory proposed by Breitbart News Daily callers that Obama's real endgame is to get Clinton over the finish line in the 2016 election, then let her running mate, Tim Kaine, the "real Obama guy," take over if she's removed from office.
"That's not such a crazy theory," said Klein. "It may be a little far-fetched, but your callers are completely right: Tim Kaine and the Clintons were never good friends because Tim Kaine backed Obama in 2008 against Hillary, and one of the deals for Obama to back Hillary this time was for her to pick Tim Kaine, Obama's boy, as her vice president."
Oct 31, 2016 | dailymail.co.uk
'The people he trusts the most have been the angriest at him,' the source continued. 'And that includes his wife, Pat. She kept urging him to admit that he had been wrong when he refused to press charges against the former secretary of state.
'He talks about the damage that he's done to himself and the institution [of the FBI], and how he's been shunned by the men and women who he admires and work for him. It's taken a tremendous toll on him.
'It shattered his ego. He looks like he's aged 10 years in the past four months.'
But Comey's decision to reopen the case was more than an effort to heal the wound he inflicted on the FBI. He was also worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism. His announcement about the revived investigation, which came just 11 days before the presidential election, was greeted with shock and dismay by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the prosecutors at the Justice Department.
'Jim told me that Lynch and Obama are furious with him,' the source said. As I revealed in my latest New York Times bestseller Guilty As Sin Obama said that appointing Comey as FBI direct was 'my worst mistake as president.' 'Lynch and Obama haven't contacted Jim directly,' said the source, 'but they've made it crystal clear through third parties that they disapprove of his effort to save face.'
Nov 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alleges that FBI Director Comey has violated the law by announcing the re-opened investigation into Clinton emails so close to the presidential election.
Is he right?
One of the top constitutional law experts in the United States (and a liberal), Professor Jonathan Turley, says no :
[Reid's] allegation is in my view wildly misplaced. Reid is arguing that the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey violates the Hatch Act . I cannot see a plausible, let alone compelling, basis for such a charge against Comey.
In his letter to Comey, Reid raised the the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan politicking by government employees.
5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) prohibits a government employee from "us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
"Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law."
The reference to "months" is curious. Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.
Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that "We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway."
However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter's justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations. You can disagree with the timing of Comey's disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.
Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using "[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.
Such violations under the Hatch Act, even if proven, are not criminal matters . The Office of Special Counsel can investigate such matters and seek discipline - a matter than can ultimately go before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Oct 31, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
The Washington Post editors today added to their hypocrisy with three additional anti-Comey op-eds:
- Eric Holder: James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake
- The costs of Comey's appeasement
- Comey's mistaken quest for transparency
I interpret that as naked fear that their candidate Hillary Clinton may now loose. That fear is justified.
The Wall Street Journal today added to its so far excellent reporting on the Clinton issues by revealing the much bigger story behind it: FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe - Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton's private server (open copy here ).
According to the reporting, based on FBI sources, FBI agents in New York and elsewhere have been looking into the Clinton Foundation for several months. They suspect that this "charity" was selling political favors by then Secretary of State Clinton in exchange for donations that personally benefited the Clinton family.
The Justice Department blocked further aggressive investigations into the issue, allegedly because of the ongoing election. A high FBI official, Andrew McCabe, also showed disinterest in a further pursuit of the issue. McCabe's wife had just tried to get elected as state senator and had receive a campaign donation of nearly $500,000 from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton friend and at times board member of the Clinton Foundation. The FBI agents pursuing the investigation into the Clinton Foundation were not amused.
The separate investigation into former Congressman Weiner for sexual contacts with minors was looking for pedophile stuff on Weiner's electronic devices. It didn't find any as far as we can tell, but found some 650,000 emails archived on a laptop.
Several thousand of these emails were sent or received by Weiner's spouse, the intimate Clinton aide Huma Abedin. They came through Clinton's private email server. At least some of these thousands of emails are likely copies of those that were deleted from Clinton's server when the (separate) investigation into it started.
They may be evidence that Clinton sent and received classified documents through her unsecured system. Some of these emails may also contain serious dirt related to the Clinton Foundation. (It is highly likely that at least some FBI agents know "unofficially" what these emails contain. Legally they could not look at them without a warrant which they only got today.)
Thus we have three ongoing FBI investigations:
- into Clinton's private email-server used illegally for official State Department business;
- into the Clinton Foundation and its role in peddling political influence in exchange for donations;
- into the personal conduct of Anthony Weiner.
Additional investigations that may come up are on:
- the mixing of donations to the Clinton Foundation and personal compensation for Bill Clinton for holding highly paid speeches;
- for profit activities by the group of people running Bill Clinton's businesses as well as the Clinton Foundation financing;
- inappropriate hindering of the FBI investigations by the Justice Department and/or by McCabe.
With such a list of potentially very serious scandals pending it is highly understandable that FBI director Comey went public and did not follow the advice from the Justice Department to pursue these issues only on a reduced level. It would have been political suicide to try to keep this silent. Way too many FBI agents eager to pursue these case were in the known and would have talked, as they do now, to the media.
If Clinton gets elected she will be hampered by these scandals for the next two years. The Republicans in Congress will jump on these issues as soon as possible. There will be endless hearings with large media coverage. The only question is when the first attempts at an impeachment process will be made - before or after she moves back into the White House. She and her family may be better off with her losing the campaign.
b on October 31, 2016 at 03:19 PM | PermalinkMadMax2 | Oct 31, 2016 3:49:02 PM | 2
Yup. Al Capone went down for tax evasion.If I'm not mistaken Eric Holder was a recurring chatacter in that 80's TV show CHIPS was he not...? Something about that greasy B-Grade pornstar moustache.Zico | Oct 31, 2016 3:51:48 PM | 3
B, you're dead right, Hillary is screwed either way. Uncle Bill won't get to wave his mouldy bratwurst in the East Wing for long if she does get through this.
But she wont. Hillary has fallen off the cliff (see poll below) in the poll below and we're all gonna get to Pitch'n'Putt a nice little 18 holes around the White House lawns on the back of The Don.
No MSM poll is worth anything, especially with so many closet Trump voters this election... but the USC/Dornslife Daybreak differs a little in it's methodology that's worthy of inspection (random selection of 600-800 of the same 3000 participants emailed each day being the main feature). Also worth checking the Characteristics of Candidate graphs - really interesting to get ro know the demographics of what is going to drive what is now a likely landslide win.
The methodology behind this poll was developed by the RAND corp and correctly predicted Obama beating Romney to 0.5 percentage points in 2012.Seems the entire "Atlantic media"(bbc, cnn etc etc, aka msm) have all put their collective eggs in Killary's leaky basket. Any pretence of balanced journalism's been thrown out of the window and replaced with brutal yellow propaganda - one which will make chairman Mao blush.chet380 | Oct 31, 2016 3:52:36 PM | 4
Trump is gunning for the WH those concerned better get use to it. The sad part is, the American people are f*cked either way. Killary will only hasten America's decline and Trump will make it a slow motion one.
What I don't get is, out of the approximately 300 million US citizens, couldn't they find any smart,less crooked person to lead them???Comey caved to right-wing criticism and pressure. In the U.S. there is a law that prohibits a public official from influencing, or attempting to influence, an election and yet he took this incomprehensible step against the advice of the Justice Dep't. lawyers.WorldBLee | Oct 31, 2016 3:53:15 PM | 5The only downside of this for voters and for the people of the world is that a wounded Hillary Clinton may be even MORE likely to push for confrontation leading to WWIII. Once talk of war starts, all concern over illegal wrongdoing will fade to the background as everyone rallies in the US to support the "Commander in Chief".
Many people have already voted via early voting and can't take back their votes even if they wanted to. However, I suspect that dyed in the wool Clinton/DNC/Democrat zealots will continue to shout that this is all a vast alt-right conspiracy to tarnish their sweet, innocent Hillary.stumpy | Oct 31, 2016 3:59:43 PM | 7So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy?JohnH | Oct 31, 2016 4:08:03 PM | 8Agree with WorldBLee. Hillary has virtually no mandate, little trust, and little support from we, the people...unless she can make the case for a big war.Northern Observer | Oct 31, 2016 4:08:13 PM | 9
To rule, she will have to rely on her friends on Wall Street, the security establishment, and the media...all of whom find war to be lucrative.You do not want to give the GOP control of three branches of government, unless you really hate the American people and want to see them suffer. Actually now it makes sense...Mina | Oct 31, 2016 4:12:59 PM | 10I suggest a triumvirat Trump-Johnson-Wilders or The Three Blond Mops to rule Amerikka and let the rest of the world be a safer place without their interventionism (but if we look at the UK, France or the Turks not to mention KSA and Qatar or Israel, it is hard to believe it would work out).karlof1 | Oct 31, 2016 4:18:53 PM | 11Marcy Wheeler weighs-in on the scandal here, https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/10/30/story-judicial-dysfunction-behind-comey-whiplash/jfl | Oct 31, 2016 4:22:26 PM | 12
The dirt unearthed on HRC ought to have her facing prison for life. Never knew about the quaint rule chet380 @4 alludes to until I read Wheeler's item--a rule that grossly undermines the Rule of Law and shouldn't exist!
If HRC should somehow get elected, more than enough evidence already exists to Impeach and Convict -- but then the same was true regarding WJC's impeachment.b, you don't list the significance of the 650,000 (!) emails themselves among your bullets. That number of emails may well represent an image of Hillary's private server email store. It's said that several of her aides were tasked with their destruction ... but it now looks like Abedin 'forgot' about the copy on this machine. Once they're loose ... you're right when you say of Hillary that ...Edward | Oct 31, 2016 4:23:58 PM | 13She and her family may be better off with her losing the campaign.... and the people on the other end of all those emails will be able to see that - and even more clearly that they may be better off with her losing her campaign - even if dogged determination keeps the blinders on the Clintons themselves.
Maybe Clinton will withdraw from the race. The DNC apparatchniks and the establishment have a stake in defeating Trump. At what point do they bail on Hillary?jfl | Oct 31, 2016 4:27:35 PM | 14@7 stumpy, 'So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy?' Very succinctly and well-put.jfl | Oct 31, 2016 4:31:53 PM | 15b, 'The Washington Post editors today added to their hypocrisy with three additional anti-Comey op-eds:
Eric Holder: James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake ...'
That has got to be the kiss of death in itself ... Mr Too-Big to Jail weighs-in in defense of the world's - well, the country's - most jailable whale.
Oct 31, 2016 | nypost.comTeam Clinton was keeping tabs on Anthony Weiner's sexting habits as far back as 2011, according to WikiLeaks emails.
One disturbing report came to the attention of John Podesta, now chair of Clinton's presidential campaign, and Neera Tanden, a Senate aide and 2008 presidential campaign staffer, when Jennifer Palmieri, the current campaign communications director, forwarded news of an investigation into Weiner's contacts with a Delaware teenager.
"Police on Friday afternoon came to the home of a 17-year-old high school junior to ask her about direct online communications she has had with Rep. Anthony Weiner," read the report dated June 10, 2011.
"Two officers from the New Castle County Police Department arrived at the girl's home around 4:30 p.m. and asked to speak with the girl's mother about the daughter's contact with Weiner. Another officer appeared at the home a short time later."
A FoxNews.com reporter was at the home when the police arrived, the story from Fox News stated.
Palmeiri passed along the news story to Podesta and Tanden with a one-word comment: "Oof."
Weiner resigned from Congress on June 21, 2011, after he accidentally tweeted a picture of himself in bulging briefs.
He apparently intended to send the photo privately to a woman he communicated with online - and though he first insisted his Twitter account had been hacked, he later admitted wrongdoing and stepped down from Congress.
Weiner, who is married to Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, was recently busted for sexting another underage girl - a 15-year-old in North Carolina.
We must forgive Mark Twain for his error when he declared that "history never repeats itself but it often rhymes." After all, he'd never met the Clintons.
... ... ...
...Clinton is understandably panicked because the timing of Comey's announcement could cost her the election. Her demand that he release everything immediately is also understandable, even as she knows it is impossible for him to release potential evidence before it is examined.
Clinton created the mess with her incredibly stupid decision to use a private server as secretary of state.
... ... ...
She could simply order Abedin to hold a press conference and answer any and every question about the newest batch of emails. Let reporters ask Abedin directly:
- What's in those emails?
- Did any contain classified material?
- Why didn't you turn that computer over to the FBI during its initial investigation?
- Did you lie to the FBI about having work-related emails on it?
- Also, did Weiner have access to classified material?
- Was the computer ever hacked?
... ... ...
Hillary won't do any of that because the potential downside is also huge. My guess is she fears the worst, and may secretly subscribe to the idea that Comey wouldn't have acted in such a bold and controversial way without some conviction that he had stumbled on a potential bombshell.
.... ... ...
Oct 31, 2016 | archive.fo
The continuing work means that if Mrs. Clinton wins the White House, she will likely do so amid at least one ongoing investigation into her inner circle being handled by law-enforcement officials who are deeply divided over how to manage such cases.
The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, that while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they had recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they said, were from the accounts of Ms. Abedin, according to people familiar with the matter.
Those emails stretched back years, these people said, and were on a laptop that both Mr. Weiner and Ms. Abedin used and that hadn't previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.
The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, people familiar with the matter said, but the warrant they used didn't give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton's email arrangement at the State Department. Mr. Weiner has denied sending explicit or indecent messages to the teenager.
In their initial review of the laptop, the metadata showed many messages, apparently in the thousands, that were either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton's home that had been the focus of so much investigative effort for the FBI. Senior FBI officials decided to let the Weiner investigators proceed with a closer examination of the metadata on the computer, and report back to them.
At a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department's senior national-security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop, the people familiar with the matter said. At that point, officials realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant, these people said.
... ... ...
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in that probe, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case.
That led to frustrations among some investigators, who viewed FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.
Such internal tensions are common, and it isn't unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundation show the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
Mr. McAuliffe had supported Dr. McCabe in the hopes she and a handful of other Democrats might help win a majority in the state Senate, giving Mr. McAuliffe more sway in the state capitol. Dr. McCabe lost her race last November, and Democrats failed to win their majority.
A spokesman for the governor has said that "any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous."
Dr. McCabe told the Journal, "Once I decided to run, my husband had no formal role in my campaign other than to be a supportive husband to me and our children."
In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post, making him second only to Mr. Comey. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.
FBI officials have said Mr. McCabe had no role in the Clinton email probe until he became deputy director, and there was no conflict of interest because by then his wife's campaign was over.
But other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months, according to people familiar with the matter.
Early this year, four FBI field offices-New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.-were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.
Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation, these people said.
The Washington field office was probing financial relationships involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board member, these people said. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity.
Clinton Foundation officials have long denied any wrongdoing, saying it is a well-run charity that has done immense good around the world.
The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said.
In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn't go well.
... ... ...
Justice Department officials told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn't authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were still well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said.
In July, Mr. Comey announced he was recommending against any prosecution in the Clinton email case. About a week later, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI's New York office would take the lead with assistance from Little Rock.
The Washington field office, FBI officials decided, would focus on a separate matter involving Mr. McAuliffe. Mr. McCabe had decided earlier in the spring that he would continue to recuse himself from that probe, given the governor's contributions to his wife's former political campaign.
Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly senior officials at the Justice Department, felt that both probes were weak, based largely on publicly available information, and had found little that would merit expanded investigative authority.
According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe, despite the department's refusal to allow more aggressive investigative methods in the case. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn't use those methods.
... ... ...
Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: "Stand down." When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director-Mr. McCabe.
Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.
For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership's handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns, these people said. For those who felt the probe hadn't yet found significant evidence of criminal conduct, the leadership's approach was the right response to the facts on the ground.
In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.
Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they could not "go prosecutor-shopping."
Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau's leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey's disclosure to Congress and setting of the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.
Oct 31, 2016 | stateofthenation2012.com
_ _ _
"Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news… we need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say state.gov"
"How is that not classified?" Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
I can't state how huge this is, it's a cover up involving the President of the United States. There are a lot of emails implying this, but this email states it very clearly so anyone can understand. The email proves obstruction of justice and shows how they lied to the FBI, and likely perjury of Congress. This at the very least proves intent by her Chief of Staff.
Obama used executive privilege on their correspondence. Cheryl Mills (who was given immunity) states they need to "clean up" the Clinton/Obama e-mails because they lacked state.gov.
Additionally, Obama on video publicly denied knowing about the server. He also claimed on video that he learned about the secret server through the news like everyone else. The corruption goes all the way to the top! Obama is lying to the American public.
Hillary Clinton set up her private server to hide her pay to play deals discovered throughout these leaks, and to prevent FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.
Paul Combetta was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a VERY VERY VIP individual, i.e. change the name of who it was from. If you read Stonetear/Combetta story , it's easy to see this is exactly what he was attempting. He wanted to change header information on already sent mail to show "state.gov" instead of Hillary's private email address. Multiple people informed him of the infeasibility (and illegality) of it, so somewhere in the next 6 days it was decided that simply eradicating them was the only option left.
The FBI said they could not find intent of trying to break the law, therefore no recommendation of prosecution. This email proves, in plain language, that there was intention, and knowingly broke the law.
Ask yourselves: why would they both be communicating on a secret server to each other? Why not through normal proper channels? What were they hiding? We may soon find out…
(Source: The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks )
For the uninitiated this breakdown essentially says that President Barack Obama is stone-cold guilty of crimes and cover-ups that would make Watergate look like a walk in the park .
"How Is This Not Classified?"- Obama Used A Pseudonym In Emails With Hillary, FBI Data Dump Reveals
In fact, Obama is so deeply involved with the criminal workings of State that he had no choice but to lie about his knowledge of Clinton's private server and personal email account. This is why Emailgate is so HUGE- it's a massive cover-up of the greatest crimes EVER committed by the US Government . And Obama lied his way all through the never-ending conspiratorial saga. As follows:
VIDEO: Barack Obama Outright Lies To The American People On National TV About Clinton's Private Email
Oct 31, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
"Clinton Foundation: Inurement" [ Amy Sterling Cassill ]. Word of the day: "The concept of "inurement" is one that most nonprofit organization board members should be familiar with. In common language, "inurement" is a concept that means a board member, donor, or employee can't benefit excessively from the organization's funds."
"Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders" [Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek ]. Oppo garbage truck unloads….
"Harry Reid's incendiary claim about 'coordination' between Donald Trump and Russia" [ WaPo ].
But there is no public evidence to support Reid's claim of actual "coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And were that to be the case, it would be a scandal of epic proportions. Asked what evidence exists of such a connection, Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson cited classified briefings. "There have been classified briefings on this topic," Jentleson said. "That is all I can say."
Nudge nudge wink wink. Say no more! Say no more!
"Signs Grow of Another Third-Party Fizzle" [ Wall Street Journal ]. "But it appears increasingly likely that no outside candidate will take a meaningful chunk of the national vote, as seemed plausible in the early summer. The combined clout of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein fell from 17% of registered voters in July to 9% in the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The running RealClearPolitics polling average of all four candidates is even less generous, showing Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein dropping from around 12% at various times this summer to just 7% now."
"Would Trump "Make a Deal" With The Left?" [ Michael Tracey ]. I doubt it. And would the Left make a deal with Trump? Still, if the deal were to prevent a war…
UPDATE "CNN says it is 'completely uncomfortable' with hacked emails showing former contributor and interim DNC chair Donna Brazile sharing questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary, and has accepted her resignation" [ Politico ]. Too funny! Instant karma, and Brazile turns out to be just as clumsy and dishonest a hack as Wasserman-Shultz. No doubt there will be a place for her in the Clinton administration.
"FT endorsement: For all her weaknesses, Clinton is the best hope" [ Financial Times ].
"Donald Trump has a path to victory again thanks to Florida" [ WaPo ]. "Remember that winning Florida isn't a luxury for Trump - it's a necessity. If Clinton wins the 18 states (plus D.C.) that every Democratic presidential nominee has carried between 1992 and 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 to that total and Clinton is at 271 and the election is over."
Democrat Email Hairball
"How Clinton plans to deal with Comey's October surprise" [ Politico ]. "Projecting confidence" and "galvanizing supporters." Those are the talking points? Really? Seems a little meta.
"A $72-million apartment project. Top politicians. Unlikely donors." [ Los Angeles Times ]. "No one is registered to vote at the run-down house on 223rd Street. The living room window has been broken for months. A grit-covered pickup sits in the dirt front yard with a flat tire. Yet dozens of donations to local politicians - totaling more than $40,000 - have come from four of the people who have lived there over the last eight years." That's so dumb. If you want to launder money, you set up a family foundation. What's wrong with these people?
"When CIA and NSA Workers Blow the Whistle, Congress Plays Deaf" [ The Intercept ].
Jim Haygood, October 31, 2016 at 2:18 pmhunkerdown, October 31, 2016 at 3:07 pm
One could add a few more. The Panic of 1907. The bear market of 1917. The recession and bear market (50% decline) of 1937. The recession and bear market of 1957. The bear market of 1977.
Not that I would trade on this decadal pattern alone. But "7" years see more than their fair share of calamities.Jim Haygood, October 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm
Christine Lagarde said something about sevens six months before MH17 was downed by drunken Ukies. 7 is one of the more common digits coerced into weak passwords by password "diversity" standards.
It's bisyllabic and sibilant, therefore powerful and mystical to the ear.Tom, October 31, 2016 at 2:28 pm
This ought to shut up Harry Reid.
But then again, who cares what a lame duck thinks?
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday said President Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey was meddling in the presidential election by announcing Friday that his agency discovered new emails that may be related to its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private server.
In his daily press briefing, Earnest said Obama believes Comey "is a man of principle and good character," and "doesn't believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of the election."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-earnest-on-comey-letterhunkerdown, October 31, 2016 at 3:08 pm
Hillary Clinton 10/28/16:
"We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe. I'm sure there will be even more rumors," she explained about the new emails being connected to Abedin and Weiner. "That's why it is incumbent upon on the FBI to tell us what they're talking about."
Who is this we you're talking about?Jen October 31, 2016 at 2:29 pm
Incumbent. I do not think that word means what you think it means, Madame Secretary.Pat October 31, 2016 at 2:33 pm
Well, well. Another feud breaking out in the open?Tom October 31, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Interesting. Obama going high, or deciding where the chips may fall.temporal October 31, 2016 at 2:38 pm
I think the latter.
For Comey to do what he did, when and how he did it, I gotta believe there is some extinction-level event inside those emails. Something so toxic that even Obama is throwing up his hands, or at least easing hiimself way, way back on the periphery.NYPaul October 31, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Personal briefing perhaps? Most likely this is just as it appears. It's all going to be about the Weiner and the person that shared his hardware.NotTimothyGeithner October 31, 2016 at 3:20 pm
I'd like to know more about the folder, "life insurance."Roger Smith October 31, 2016 at 3:15 pm
Don't forget Obama can't be embarrassed or make mistakes. Comey as an Obama appointee will always be defended by Obama until there is a risk of the stench reaching Obama or missing a round of golf.
If Comey is playing politics with such an important job or can't even handle a mutiny us department, why did Obama nominate a life long Republican to the post of FBI Director?MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 31, 2016 at 3:23 pm
Interesting to literally see where Obama draws the line in the sand. "Sorry, you're on your own (smug Barry laugh meme)."
Does it mean that the Russians have Comey and Obama working for them?
Who can you trust but Hillary?
Oct 31, 2016 | www.zerohedge.comKrungle Bastiat Oct 31, 2016 1:39 PM ,Their IT guy, Justin Cooper I believe, put spyware on Bill's phone (per Chelsea in one of the Wikileaks emails) and also embezzled CF money (again, per Chelsea).
Also, he's apparently kind of dim as he had to get IT advice from Reddit. So either JC was deep undercover for the feds and he set them up, or, when Huma was working from home during his pregnancy he set up auto-sync on her devices. Or...if they were using iPhones and Macs, they idiot proof syncing and it happens without someone who isn't computer literate even knowing.
The most likely scenario IMO is simply hubris and stupidity. IT guy set that laptop on auto-sync, they forgot about it when the FBI came calling the first time because that computer had fallen into Weiner's sticky fingers full-time for a few years by that point.
Carelessness and poor judgement seem most likely here--remember thesee folks can get the best Google IT people to their home anytime to deal with their IT needs. They could have gotten the best people at the NSA. They didn't even get the best guy out of the phone book. As their colleagues say in various Wikileaked emails, they have terrible judgement.....
Oct 31, 2016 | blog.dilbert.comBack to Comey.
I'm hearing several interpretations for these two observations:
1. Comey seemed pro -Clinton when he dropped the initial email case.
2. Comey seems anti -Clinton this week because he announced a new round of investigations right before the election.
How can both behaviors be explained? Or, as I like to ask, which movie does the best job of explaining our observations and also predicting the future?
Some say Comey is a political pawn in a rigged system. By that movie script we can explain why he dropped the initial email case. But we can't explain why he's acting against Clinton's interests now. What changed?
Well, some say Comey had to reopen the case against Clinton after discovering the Weiner laptop emails. If he failed to act, there might be a revolt at the FBI and maybe a whistleblower would come forward. But that leaves unexplained why Comey detailed to Congress how Clinton appeared to be guilty of crimes at the same time he said the FBI was dropping the case. If Comey had been protecting Clinton on the first round, he would have softened his description of her misdeeds, wouldn't he? But he didn't seem to hold back anything.
And none of those hypotheses explain why the people who know Comey have high regard for his integrity. Comey also has the security of a 10-year appointment as Director, so he has a low chance of getting fired or politically influenced. That's exactly why the job has a 10-year term. Given what we know of Comey before any of the Clinton emails, any movie that casts Comey as an ass-covering weasel is probably making a casting mistake.
So allow me to offer an interpretation of events that casts Comey as more of a patriot and hero than an ass-covering weasel. Compare my interpretation with whatever movie you have in your head and see which one works best for explaining and predicting.
My movie says Comey had good evidence against Clinton during the initial investigation but made a judgment call to leave the decision to the American public. For reasons of conscience, and acting as a patriot, Comey explained in clear language to the public exactly what evidence the FBI found against Clinton. The evidence looked damning because it was. Under this interpretation, Comey took a bullet to his reputation for the sake of the Republic. He didn't want the FBI to steal this important decision away from the people, but at the same time he couldn't let the people decide blind. So he divulged the evidence and stepped away, like the action hero who doesn't look back at the explosion.
In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton's rights.
But Comey couldn't easily raise a red flag to warn the public because it was against FBI policy to announce a criminal investigation about a candidate so close to election day. So Comey had a choice of either taking another bullet for the Republic or screwing the very country that he has spent his career protecting.
In this movie, Comey did the hero thing. He alerted the public to the fact that the FBI found DISQUALIFYING information on the Weiner laptop. And he took a second bullet to his reputation.
How do I know the new emails are that bad?
I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey's critics concede he's smart.
The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he's got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic.
According to this movie, no matter who gets elected, we'll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.
And we can't say we weren't warned. Comey took two bullets to do it.
So compare this movie to your own movie and see which one does the best job of explaining the observed facts. And when we find out what is in the Weiner laptop emails, compare that news to my prediction that the information is disqualifying.
The Persuasion Filter says there is no prefered reality. We all see our own movies. In my movie, Comey's has a consistent personality from start to finish. He starts out his career as a smart, competent patriot and he later proves it by taking two bullets for the Republic. If your movie script has Comey suddenly changing his basic character for this election season, don't expect an Oscar.
Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.comTwelve facts reveal what everyone needs to know about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.
Those twelve facts consist of:
On October 3, FBI agents seized a laptop, an iPhone, and an iPad from disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, as part of the investigation into a report that he was sexting a 15-year-old girl. While searching the laptop, FBI agents uncovered new emails that are likely connected to the agency's investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server. The laptop was used by Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin and reportedly has 650,000 emails on it. Earlier in the investigation, Huma Abedin swore under oath in a deposition that she had turned over the devices that may have been used to email Clinton: two laptops, a BlackBerry, files she found in her apartment. Huma Abedin reportedly did not know about emails that were on the computer the FBI discovered. "The possibility that this device contains any emails of hers is news to her," a source familiar with the investigation told CNN . Anthony Weiner is cooperating with the FBI's investigation, according to Fox News anchor Bret Baier . FBI Director James Comey was reportedly informed about the new emails last Thursday. He notified Congress the following day. Comey had testified to Congress that the investigation was complete. He sent a letter on Friday to both Democrats and Republican members of Congress to clarify that the case remained open. Justice Department officials tried to stop James Comey from sending the letter, according to the New York Times , warning that it would be a break of longstanding policy. Investigators believe that some of the emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server are on this laptop, according to CNN . Many of the emails were "either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton's home," according to the Wall Street Journal . Officials received a court order during the weekend to investigate the emails. The process has begun, but it will take weeks, according to several sources.
Oct 31, 2016 | endingthefed.com
EndingFed News Network
Huma Abedin has VOIDED her immunity deal with the FBI. She will be facing jail time or give up dirt on Hillary Clinton. Hillary has got to be crying big ol' gator tears right about now…
Huma Abedin has been by Hillary's side for a long time. After those emails were found on her husband Anthony Weiner's computer. Hillary Clinton does not want her around anymore. According to Hillary's campaign, Abedin is now sitting in a different section of the plane when it was traveling to Florida.
Oct 31, 2016 | endingthefed.com
Chic gal pal? Mild mannered politician's wife? Harmless clotheshorse? Saudi plant? Innocent aide? Handler?
Huma Abedin is Vice Chair of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. But Huma is more, much more than that. She is the person closest to the most powerful woman in American politics and perhaps the next President. Huma has been described variously as Hillary's "body woman," a sort of glorified go-to personal maid, gentle confidant, and by others as an Islamic spy. She may be all of these things, because as we shall see, Huma Abedin has an interesting and complex career history.
Abedin was deeply involved with the establishment of Hillary's private email server, which was used for all of her work as Secretary of State. Now, since we know Hillary had hundreds of classified or top-secret documents on her vulnerable server (despite her early lies saying she did not), any faith in Huma's judgment - at the very least - has been demolished. You will soon ask yourself, "how did this woman get a security clearance?"
She was born Huma Mahmood Abedin in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian and born in New Delhi. In the early 1970s, he was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association at Western Michigan University. The Muslim Students Association or MSA was started in 1963 by Saudi Arabia's biggest charity, the Muslim World League, a group formed and funded by the Kingdom to spread Islam throughout the world.
... ... ...
There were several issues being investigated both internally by the State Department and Sen. Charles Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee for conflicts of interest and embezzlement . She filed inaccurate time sheets overpaying herself $10,000. Mr. Grassley has also questioned whether the deal with Abedin really met the requirements for a special government employee status. One of those requirements is that someone's work as a contractor be different enough from the original job to warrant giving the person contractor status. Documents acquired by the Washington Times show that she told State officials that she planned to do the same kind of work as an SGE that she did as Deputy Chief of Staff.
She became part of Hillary's transition team in 2013, helping her to return to private life. She continued her work at the Clinton Foundation and set up her own consulting firm, Zain Endeavors LLC .
On October 16, 2015, Abedin testified in a closed session before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in a session that was expected to focus on the 2012 Benghazi attack during which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. She said, "I came here today to be as helpful as I could be to the committee. I wanted to honor the service of those lost and injured in the Benghazi attacks," adding she was "honored" to work for Clinton at State and "proud" of her service there. Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican panel member, said Abedin frequently answered questions with responses of "'I don't remember' and 'I don't recollect.'"
There is no doubt that she and Hillary have an extremely close relationship. She has been loyal and faithful to Hillary for twenty years. "I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would be Huma." So spoke Hillary in 2010. She even visited with Huma's mother Saleha in Saudi Arabia in 2011, telling her that Huma's position was "very important and sensitive." Saleha is reportedly an outspoken advocate for genital mutilation for girls in the Islamic world.
So how has the media dealt with Huma Abedin? In short, they haven't. The family's critics have been attacked and labeled as conspiracy theorists.
One exception to this was the February 2016 issue of Vanity Fair . Author William D Cohen's story, titled "Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?" tackled some of the issues I have gone over in this piece. It was well written, informative, and controversial. The backlash was immediate.
Oct 31, 2016 | washingtonpost.com
HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:44 PM ESTAs I watch the Post twist itself into a pretzel, trying to explain, carefully walking through this latest Clinton mess, picking certain facts, ignoring others, not asking the obvious questions (e.g. are some of the emails found on Weiner's laptop copies of the 30,000 emails that Clinton destroyed, even though she was under subpoena to turn them over to the State Dept.?) it makes me believe that there is not an honest, moral, trustworthy person, left in our government, our political leadership, or our press corps.HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:09 PM ESTIn a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.
The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?) laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years. Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein (one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:
"We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..."
Oct 31, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comfresno dan October 30, 2016 at 7:39 am
Top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has told people she is unsure how her emails could have ended up on a device she viewed as her husband's computer, the seizure of which has reignited the Clinton email investigation, according to a person familiar with the investigation and civil litigation over the matter.
The person, who would not discuss the case unless granted anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer, and even when she agreed to turn over emails to the State Department for federal records purposes, her lawyers did not search it for materials, not believing any of her messages to be there.
Abedin told the FBI in an interview in April that her attorneys asked for guidance from the State Department on how to conduct that review but did not receive a response.
Summarizing Abedin's interview, FBI agents wrote that she told them the attorneys "erred on the side of caution and opted to include anything that they were unsure about."
In a sworn deposition in June, Abedin said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."
Curiouser and curiouser.
Sherlock Holmes: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
We have a Russian Weiner in our computers… And in an abundance of caution, I am checking my drawers…
Oct 31, 2016 | arstechnica.combettercitizens Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Oct 30, 2016 3:15 PMI work with classified data and create derivative classifications as part of my job as a civilian with the Navy. Classified information is a pain in the ass, but it has to be dealt with properly and securely. That is why we have SIPRNET to e-mail classified data.Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
The SIPRNET system forces a header at the top of all e-mail messages stating the classification level and if foreign nationalities can view the data, etc. Additonally when creating a derivative classification one has to consult the security classification guide for the program and mark the data properly in any files.
I have to take the same or similar training as Hillary Clinton must have taken when she was secretary of state. The difference is that I do not have selective memory like Hillary nor am I a pathological liar. If I had done what Hillary has done no doubt I would be in federal prison!
Cheers, DC... ... ...
IMO either one is disqualifying to be President of the United States. Her extraordinary incompetence need not rise to the level of criminality. The court of public opinion is not a court of law, and candidates running for public office are judged in the court of public opinion accordingly.
Thoughtful Ars Tribunus Militum et SubscriptorDrone13 Smack-Fu Master, in training reply 5 hours ago drachasor wrote:
... ... ...
What may have been confusing you is that POP3 clients (generally speaking, unless told NOT to) remove e-mail from the server and keep it locally. IMAP and MS Exchange can do that too but you have to take extra configuration steps to ensure that the client removes the mail and stores it locally (instead of the e-mail simultaneously residing on both the client and the server).whobeme Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Oct 30, 2016 1:01 PM Drone13 wrote:
... ... ...
Apparently Weiner is "cooperating" with the FBI, which gives them the right to search emails on the laptop without an additional warrant... including the Abedin emails. I would likely think this would involve a plea deal for Weiner for throwing Abedin and Hillary under the bus. Despicable , but this is Weiner we're talking about.
This morning the FBI also secured a warrant for the notebook, so warrant-less search is no longer an issue to discuss. It has also been reported that there are somewhere around 650,000 emails to sort through between Weiner's and Abedin's emails. That has to be a very distasteful task.. separating the wheat from the shaft.
... ... ...
I believe the first one indicates this scenario is unfolding:
1. laptop went with Weiner when they split, so the FBI did not review it during the initial investigation. (Gross incompetence on their part.)
2. In the later investigation for Weiner's weenie wagging the FBI obtained the laptop and reviewed HIS emails. In the process they found some to or from HER, most likely in a separate login account. The warrant they were using for his investigation did not apply to the Clinton investigation, and they passed the observation up the chain of command but did not read those emails (or will not admit to reading them.)
which brings us to today
3. Huma says she doesn't know what is on that laptop and does not know how any of her emails got there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
We have been speculating previously about what mail protocols were used. The presence of a large number of emails when she expected none suggests to me that at some point she borrowed his machine to check her emails. (Hers being on the blink or left at the office or some such thing.) The email client used may have employed IMAP and while she thought it was just showing her the couple of emails she needed to look at, in the background it was downloading a full copy of each folder she accessed. She may not have expected that because on her machine whichever email client this was was configured to not make local copies.
MichaelKenyon 29 Oct 2016 17:50
I think the reason people don't like Obama is because he has bombed 7 countries. Maybe Clinton can get to 8 if she goes after Russia.
NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 17:52
How do the Americans ever get anything done when 18 months of their electoral cycle is taken up with campaigning for the next one.
riggbeck -> NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 18:13
Then there's the lunacy of mid-term elections. Four years isn't very long for a president to deliver on major election promises, yet the constitution potentially halves that time with the threat of losing majorities in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Checks and balances turn into gridlock.
GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 17:54
It's not the FBI that made her use a private e-mail account. It's not the FBI that decided to install a private server. Get real. These were her decisions in an attempt to conceal her activities while in public office.
Preparetobeoffended 29 Oct 2016 17:58
And so it goes on.
Clinton, still heading for the White House? What planet are you on!
Will Bernie supporters vote for Clinton knowing the Democrats conspired to steal the nomination from him. Will they, really.
Will Wikileaks and Project Veritas`s most damning offerings be ignored by these sheep with hands covering ears yelling I`m not listening! Will they, really.
Trump is the less frightening of two frightening options, but at least he has going for him the fact that he has tenaciously attacked the corruption clear to all capable of an independent thought.
Trump is going to win, and going to win comfortably. Get used to it.
GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 18:01
2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:06
We don't know what the emails are, I wouldn't expect us to. If there's an investigation then you don't release confidential information. But the information that we have gleaned from Wikileaks shows that the State authorities have been involved in shutting things down, as has the Clinton campaign and we know that a large and suspicious payment was made to a close relative of an investigator.
We also know that the IRS has been used over a period in a partisan manner to the disadvantage of the Republicans and that the previous decision on the emails not to take action was met with incredulity within the FBI.
If the FBI is making this announcement now then it must have discovered something that has worried it. It made the announcement soon after the matter arose as it should have done given that this is a very important piece of information of which voters need to be aware.
The press to date has handled Clinton with kid gloves and it still wants to do so. Fortunately the revelations coming out and probably the true polls have been making them think again and so they are allowing a little doubt to enter their coverage.
Hopefully this will be the end of the Clinton campaign, but with the money, contacts and other resources available to it there will be an immense effort, from the State and campaign, to blacken the reputation of a body which previously has served Clinton so well.
absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:16
Can I point out as well how biased the reporting of the Presidential campaign has been in the UK? Most of the media have been acting as the publicity wing of the Democrats and the only people to be interviewed, especially on the BBC, seem to have been from the liberal Clinton supporting press
AndyPandy1968 29 Oct 2016 18:29
I am sorry to say my personal feeling is that this is the last straw and Trump will win.
I don't support him but he is not stupid, and he was running too close for comfort even before this. He is not playing to the Guardian, he is playing to an American audience, many of whom have a totally different view of the world.
The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason he invited Farage over was because he knows this.
That is why he says these clumsy things. Not because he is stupid. He says them because he is playing to that audience. It is deliberate.
Let's hope I am wrong.
DogsLivesMatter 29 Oct 2016 18:31
When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance.
Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal that doesn't care about the poor or the working class.
Even the UN and WHO are stacked with those who have influential connections. Pay to Play has become the norm. What choice does anyone have anymore other than going with the devil you know? None!
Sappho53 29 Oct 2016 18:35
The world wants a complete investigation into the illegal Iraq War with consequences. The world is still reeling form this Republican LIE and it has cost US allies dearly in lives, finances, and terrorism. The Republicans have hidden from the biggest scandal of the past one hundred years. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice must answer and so must all of their supporters in the Republican Party.
Glenn Smith 29 Oct 2016 18:40
Contrary to your interpretation, Mr. Wolffe, I think the FBI's brave action is going to have precisely the result of denying Hillary the election, and justifiably so (and not that I think Trump is any better): it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite sex is a common clandestine maneuver.
providenciales -> BlueberryCompote 29 Oct 2016 19:12
Actually, people will be able to buy the insurance they can afford and that they want if we get rid of Obamacare. You wouldn't like unaffordable insurance with deductibles that mean you don't have any coverage either.
Trump has already said who he would nominate to SCOTUS so you can't scaremonger on that score. He gave a list in fact.
The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them.
Casey13 29 Oct 2016 18:51
Once Hillary is elected the whole stinking cesspit of Clinton Inc will start crashing down around her in a hodgepodge of scandals that make Watergate look like Jay walking. She will be Impeached within a year.
JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 18:56
The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke!
boxcarwillie -> JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 19:08
exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery.
Theleme1532 29 Oct 2016 19:03
"Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man and go directly to her campaign website.
boxcarwillie 29 Oct 2016 19:06
Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother type who's trying to look more motherly. doesn't work. with that said, the article is right - this has been a dumpster fire campaign and i'll be glad to see it over. i doubt HRC will make good on any of her campaign promises, but i would be afraid Trump would. Hope it's better next time. Bernie would be 78, but that's not as old as it used to be.
Reality_Man 29 Oct 2016 19:14
On the web I read that the NY FBI office is in open rebellion with the DC FBI and that during the Antony Wiener investigation they found classified emails on a shared laptop PC. Who knows maybe Huma will be under arrest before November the 8th. One way or another it was done for a reason I would suggest that the FBI is still a law enforcement agency not a political organization. As the end of the Obama administration comes to pass it's only natural that the Chinese made him get out of the back of air force one to show a lack of respect and other countries and agencies may be showing what they feel. Strong Together may not work if Huma is separated from her baby. She just may sing terrified bird. Just Saying.
Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:15
This election is a sad reflection on the current state of democracy across much of the Western World. The major political parties are so compromised with insider politics and a lack of genuine concern for the long-term benefit of the voters they purport to represent that they keep on producing candidates of the worst quality.
Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing.
Our democracies - not just in the United States but around the world - are under threat from this same malaise. It starts with political parties that care more about protecting the interests of a few insiders and influential interest groups. These political movements no longer appeal to the majority of voters.
Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a game show.
It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run.
BlueberryCompote -> Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:22
You've got to admit, however, that America has the worst and most extreme version of this problem with little sign of anyway out.
bookworm7 29 Oct 2016 19:29
This raises the obvious question: what on earth was the FBI director thinking when he dropped his letter on Friday making it crystal clear that he knew nothing?
He said the investigation was being re-opened in the light of new evidence. If the investigators 'knew everything' why would they investigate? The above is a piece of sophistry conflating the knowledge of the facts with the knowledge that the facts are to be investigated.
I can see how the timing looks suspect, but consider the alternative; if he knew about the new evidence necessitating the re-opening of the investigation, and withheld telling Congress on purpose because Clinton was a politician close to an electron, would this also not look bad? Could he not be accused of withholding pertinent information for political purposes?
Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period?
PlayaGiron 29 Oct 2016 19:32
No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary.
Gangoffour -> Bifocal 29 Oct 2016 20:52
Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as "a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes, along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too.
I'm sure it's a lot easier to pick up honey pots when they provide a sympathetic shoulder to snuggle into because your wife refuses to satisfy your needs since she's doing all of Hillary's work.
Who wouldn't want to be part of the Clinton matchmaking machine?
Berkeley2013 29 Oct 2016 20:22
Mr Wolffe writes:
"From the Clinton Foundation to the private email server, from Benghazi to Weiner, from Whitewater to Monica, the list is as long as it is utterly spurious. Whatever crumbs of wrongdoing there may be, they don't amount to something worthy of Watergate, or even the myriad gate-suffixed scandals since. Questionable behavior is not the same as criminal or even impeachable conduct."
How could anything involving the protocols and laws regarding national security communications be called "spurious?"
How can anything involving many separate pieces of DoS communication be called "crumbs of wrongdoing?"
gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:41
When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc. etc. etc.
BlueberryCompote -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:45
The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time.
nostrobo -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:57
" progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these just two of your go-to slurs?
AdamEdward88 29 Oct 2016 21:10
She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. I'd be quite interested to find out what was in any she might have sent to Tony Blair. She hasn't got a good track record on the Middle-East and we base our opinions in this country on a different set of media reports to people in the US.
Starwars102 29 Oct 2016 21:11
The integrity of the Obama administration.
You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program, NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping, Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ?
That list of problems was a mile long and there is probably a lot more I have not mentioned. Says a lot about Obama's time in office.
mrjonno 29 Oct 2016 21:26
And we still look to the USA for leadership in the world? Give me a break. This is a country that is responsible for destroying much of the world through the economic paradigm of neoliberalism which has seen the introduction of economy based in 'throw away and buy new' along with 'dodgy money' to create the 1% leading to resource overshoot. On current trends we are well in deficit. From World Footprint -
Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.
Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable presidential material but when has the USA ever been about being suitable for the world? Never.
BTW Earth Overshoot Day happened on August 8 this year. Since then we are using more than the planet Earth can absorb or replenish. We are on a collision course with catastrophe.
Well done America....
unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:34
"The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency. But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign."
Pseudo-scandal??!! Where in Gods name are you coming from to arrive at that conclusion? FBI Director Comey closed the file on further investigation a few months ago saying while Clinton's casual handling of certain State Dept classified emails was reprehensible, he was not recommending criminal action because there was an absence of any evidence she had acted with criminal intent.
Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him otherwise.
Yet now, despite clearly realising its dramatic effect on the impending presidential election Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened because of new emails that have come to light. However, since his original ruling was that he saw no criminal intent in Clinton's careless dissemination of State emails to private servers it is difficult to understand why that ruling doesn't also cover the latest emails that presumably are from Clinton's secretary's -or spouse- computer.
A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive time for the election to reopen criminal investigations.
OXIOXI20 -> unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:44
Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened because of new emails that have come to light.
NOT TRUE. That's the bullshit Trump is spewing. Comey has not re-opened the investigation, he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part.
HerrPrincip -> sgwnmr 29 Oct 2016 22:38pfox33 29 Oct 2016 22:13
How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many.Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong.JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:15It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it".
Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile of shit to the whole world
antobojar -> JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:29
..Do you expect that declining empire, led by arrogant, corrupt and greedy "elite" can act rationally..?
Look, who they chosen as a prospective saviours.. he he..
AveAtqueCave 29 Oct 2016 23:13
Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit.
irishguy 30 Oct 2016 0:33
The author is baffled as to why the FBI has intervened this late in the election by opening an apparent pseudo-scandal case against Clinton? Here's my theory why:
Maybe it's all about managing the psychology of the the majority voters through the media.
Maybe this whole episode has been orchestrated by the establishment (who want Clinton in); is designed to go nowhere and allow Clinton to ultimately claim she was vindicated in the whole email affair while at the same time with the purpose of maintaining a perceived sense of tension in the minds of the US public in the run up to election day – in the sense that the election result is not perceived to be a foregone conclusion already.
However, when you take a step back, it's not realistic to think Trump has a chance of getting in at this point. He's alienated too much of the electorate already.
But the majority voters need to be made feel they're doing something positive by averting the danger of Trump through voting Clinton – not simply voting for Clinton as the establishment's chosen candidate in a foregone conclusion.
HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 1:26
Hillary Nixon. I mean would you buy a used car from her?
JVRTRL -> HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 3:19
It depends who the customer is. The Clintons have always taken very good care of their biggest money donors. For ordinary people, it would be a bad idea. For their connected donors, it's a completely different reality. The dealership and the other employees would have the problem, not the rich and connected customer.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, would pawn off the lemons on unsuspecting customers, loot the dealership purely for his own benefit, somehow get a tax credit for his trouble, and brag to the world about what a smart and ethical guy he is.
europeangrayling 30 Oct 2016 1:35
Looks to me like the FBI got done taken over by Putin. This Putin guy, he is everywhere. Pike fishing on horseback in Siberia while banging some hot Russian gold medal gymnast and overthrowing the US government and running the FBI now. Putin is on a whole new level, he is changing the game.
And a few days ago, I got a pizza with hamburger and mushroom, and I didn't like it as much, the regular mushroom one was better, and I said 'f-ing Putin man'. This guy, he did it again, made me question myself and order that hamburger, meddling in our democracy. It was still OK, I ate it, but that's 20 bucks I could have spent on a much better regular mushroom instead of that Russian hamburger crap. Or at least put some chicken on it. Putin man.
furminator 30 Oct 2016 1:53
Anyway Howard Dean, you know primal scream Dean, is saying on his twitter that Comney is on the side of Putin. Yes the Director of the FBI is really a Russian stooge, a sleeper agent. Poor Hillary, the FBI, which is controlled by the Justice Department, which is controlled by the Obama White House, is out to get her coz Russia. She's the victim of a vast right and left wing conspiracy.
Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:31
John Pilger's latest article:
"Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia – and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
And they love war.
While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life."
furminator -> Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:56Kess 30 Oct 2016 3:00
Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war. This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped.
The media hasn't exactly cover itself in glory either. Throughout the nomination process Clinton was given an incredibly easy ride. If the media (including the Guardian) had highlighted her issues earlier then perhaps the DNC would'be been forced to nominate a candidate with a little more integrity, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance.
BelieveItsTrue 30 Oct 2016 3:13
People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is public knowledge now and not speculation.
Of course HC has said publicise everything but she does not have to wait for the FBI to do this, she could have done this to begin with, before she bleached her server, before evidence was destroyed by the Democratic campaign (13 smart-phones) and lap tops destroyed by the FBI. It is a croc and if you do not wake up to this, the world is lost.
Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government. There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world.
Oct 30, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.orgJuan Moment | Oct 30, 2016 8:53:27 AM | 2Comment on Twitter, made me laugh.Fontana | Oct 30, 2016 9:24:31 AM | 3
Schrodinger's Election: Simultaneously hacked by Russia to make Trump win and not rigged at all if Killary wins.Whatever else happens in this race, it has been a pleasure watching the media destroy what little credibility they had left.Noirette | Oct 30, 2016 10:22:56 AM | 8
Comey is under pressure. Either thru his own reading of the situation and head banging ("I have to act now"), because threats of new/other leaks are looming, or because some are pushing to break the dams (e.g. internal to FBI) or just becos the info is so damning covering it up if it ever comes out will spark disaster for him in any case. Or a combination, or even other, extra, reasons.Jackrabbit | Oct 30, 2016 10:29:38 AM | 10
He is compelled, or wishes to as a white knight, I doubt that actually, to 're-open' with vague, indeterminate words, the HRC e-mail private-server matter. Obviously coverin' his ass but waiting on decisions from the VIPs. (Lynch. Clinton.)
3 FBI investigs. are ongoing:
1) Into the Clinton Foundation, which was never halted but seems to limp along (held back? bogged down as very complicated, e.g. insider trading?) See also the Bill Clinton foundation, though afaik it is not under scrutiny?
2) Into the sexting Wiener scandal, which was 'independent'? Not, imho, an FBI matter, but NY authorities? - Charges of sexting to minors, one person, one count, not too hard to deal with, but when huma - clinton - govmt. e-mails were found on 'his' laptop, another dimension came into play…
3) Killary private server, e-mail scandal, bis repetita
…> there might even be other unknowns
Imho these 3 investigs. have now become intertwined, there is simply no way for the FBI to keep up any Chinese Walls any longer.I wrote about Comey and the newly discovered emails on the Open Thread here and hereBen | Oct 30, 2016 10:53:28 AM | 13
There's still lots of questions.
Some thought that Comey was part of the 'fix' when Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac and Comey subsequently made the judgment call to NOT recommend prosecution.
We then heard about flaws in the investigation:1. Hillary's tech guy asking questions on Reddit about how to manipulate/destroy email info for a VIP;
2. Immunity given to virtually everyone involved that was close to Hillary. I believe that the number was 5 people. This seems overly generous and not in keeping with good investigative practice.
Comey's letter to Congress has reinvigorated the Trump campaign but also:1. served as a distraction to Wikileaks release of the Podesta emails (MSMS wrote more about Russian hacking than about the Podesta emails)It's likely that Huma has told Hillary what these emails are (if Hillary didn't already know) . So look at how hard Obama/Hillary fight the FBI to get a sense for how important these emails are.
2. allowed Hillary & Co. to grandstand and beat their chests
There's a possibility that these emails are a nothingburger and that the Hillary campaign ultimately benefits from the perception that Republicans are after Hillary.
#9Bill H | Oct 30, 2016 11:15:24 AM | 14
Have you ever been party to a bureaucracy with electronic mail policies? If you are anal-retentive, have no family life and sleep an hour a day, you could possibly comply with the panoply written by lawyers covering the legal ass of the organization. Other than that….
"He should have pressed for charges against Clinton..."Virgile | Oct 30, 2016 11:34:13 AM | 15
Sorry, no. It is not his position to press for charges or to advocate against him. It is his job to perform the investigation and turn to facts over to the prosecutor who decides whether or not a prosecution is warranted. He may decide that duties assigned to him are not consistent with the law and refuse to perform them, and has done so, but he does not decide how the law should be enforced.The weiner-abedin computer that carries sexting and US state emails has certainly been hacked. US state secrets are intermixed with porno emails and available to the public. yes america is great!TG | Oct 30, 2016 11:34:45 AM | 16I would like to propose an alternative explanation.
Yes, people less well connected have gone to jail for lesser offenses than Hillary Clinton and her unsecured email thing. However, I think this issue is being deliberately raised specifically to shield Hillary Clinton and boost her candidacy. It's being used to flood the airwaves, and drive out the even more damning evidence against her.
I mean, consider what she did in Libya: attacked a relatively prosperous and stable nation that was not a threat to us and was actually trying to cooperate, she allied us with Al Qaeda (!! why is this not blowing people's minds !!) blew it all to smithereens leaving behind a Mad max-style dystopia. And that's just for starters. There is her apparent desire to attack Russian forces in Syria, her desire to loot social security and give it all to her buddies in Wall Street, her desire to tear up the constitution and give supreme plenary power to multinational corporations... She is the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War. She is Vlad the Impaler on crack.
I think the FBI suddenly raised this issue because the polls are tightening, and the establishment would prefer that in the remaining few days the airwaves be filled with lesser offenses that many Americans regard as technical, than with solid coverage of just what a corrupt monster Clinton really is. I mean, do you really think that any high governmeant official does anything that is not scripted and approved in advance?psychohistorian | Oct 30, 2016 11:50:33 AM | 18
This would all be funny if it didn't represent the machinations of our overlords. This is like a carousel that is spinning out of control and now the pieces are starting to break off.Denis | Oct 30, 2016 11:53:30 AM | 19
I hope that question that the rest of the world is asking itself is: Why the heck are we continuing to buy American T-bills?
The global plutocrats have had since 2008 to set this casting of throwing the US under the bus up. The US public will rise up but have been too brainwashed to do anything intelligent, unfortunately.
We need to rid ourselves of the tools that the global plutocrats use to retain control of the West, Private Finance and unfettered inheritance.
And yes, I voted for Jill Stein again because I want to see the Green party get to at least 5% so we can build another choice than the bifurcated one before Americans currently.
What is next? I don't think the show is over yet.
b: "I for one believe that Comey was wrong in July and is right today. He should have pressed for charges against Clinton early on."psychohistorian | Oct 30, 2016 12:41:46 PM | 28
Looks like he was wrong a lot farther back than July. Now we know that there was never a grand jury. Even the astute, ex-judge Andrew Napolitano claimed on more than one occasion that a GJ must be sitting. For instance, when the FIB gave immunity to Pagliano, that signaled to many in the know that a GJ had to be sitting. Not so. W/out a GJ, there was no real investigation. 147 FIB agents working on a sham.
Napolitano also predicted a Saturday Massacre if Hilton was not indicted -- dozens of FIB agents would resign. Two days day before Comey's October IED Napolitano claimed that was now happening -- FIB agents are resigning and once they are out, the leaks will become a flood. Comey is the Dutch boy with his thumb stuck
up his assin the dike. He is doing Hilton a favor by trying to keep pissed-off FIB agents from jumping ship and spilling beans in the week before the election.
There is one certainty in this election: Whoever loses it will be someone most Americans absolutely despise. (It is important to emphasize the positive.)And in other empire building/dying news there is this from Turkeyvirgile | Oct 30, 2016 12:46:20 PM | 29
Hillary is taking a risk in asking the FBI for more details. It could backfire. If Comey is put under heavy pressure to unveil the reasons that made him send this warning to the Congress, he may admit that at least one email his team checked was classified.Kalen | Oct 30, 2016 12:55:53 PM | 30
That would be a huge blow to Hillary's campaign. She may have either to withdraw from the elections or risk been prosecuted after she is elected. She should pray that the FBI does not release more details...
The funny aspect of this struggle is three women are involved in the justice abuse drama: Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and Loretta Lynch, while three men are involved in the sexual abuse drama: Trump, Bill Clinton and Weiner.
This will make the next successful series on HBO: Sex, power and politic!Had enough to of this meaningless disgusting farce called elections in the US and what wonder the hell purpose it serves?Penelope | Oct 30, 2016 1:46:43 PM | 33
Here is the answer:
Here's stuff you didn't know about Trump. Not silly or salacious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60nOmmLtJSYmauisurfer | Oct 30, 2016 2:22:28 PM | 36
President Putin's speech at Valdai:Denis | Oct 30, 2016 2:22:36 PM | 37
October 29, 2016.
(Putin covers everything, deserves a full read)
The story now is that FIB agents investigating Weiner's kiddie sexting stumbled on Abedin's em's on Weiner's laptop. Apparently, they think they have to have a special search warrant to look at her em's.Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 2:29:36 PM | 38
Let me tell you, if the FIB ever got a search warrant for your husband's computer and found your criminal em's on that computer, the original search warrant for the computer would be more than enough to allow them to open your em's. But the rules are different for Hilton, Bilton, and the entire Clinton RICO team.
Sounds like FIB is going to Abedin's suits and asking for permission to look at the em's. Like WTF???? Since when does FIB or any law enforcement seek permission from a target's legal team to carry out an investigation?
CNN also raises the specter of spousal privilege between Wiener and Abedin. Shouldn't be a problem. Spousal privilege means one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another. It does not provide a safe haven on one spouse's computer for illegal em's of the other . . . well, you know, unless you are on the Clinton RICO team. CNN's theory (probably from Jeffrey Toobin) would be like saying, the cops can't look in a wife's underwear drawer for a pistol used by the husband to commit a murder. What BS.
As far as I can tell, Comey knew that getting an expanded warrant (to cover actually opening Abedin's newly discovered email trove) would be leaked and that that would be more damaging (in many ways to many people) ... so he bit the bullet and is being subjected to massive criticism from everyone ...schlub | Oct 30, 2016 2:37:49 PM | 39
Imagine the bombshell if they had attempted to keep this secret and it had been revealed next week or after the election ...""The issue is complicated because the computer is considered to belong to Anthony Weiner, her estranged husband, and the case may raise spousal privilege legal protections for Abedin.
Government lawyers hope to secure the warrant to permit investigators to review thousands of emails on a computer Abedin shared with Weiner, officials said.The new search warrant is needed because the existing authorization, covered by a subpoena, related only to the ongoing investigation of Weiner, who is accused of having sexually explicit communications with an underage girl.Investigators from the FBI's New York field office who are conducting the Weiner investigation " ""
cnn: Justice Department seeks approval for email search
(there are reports that Abedin -- as is customary -- swore under oath that she had scrubbed all state department documents from all of her personal devices ... and -- FWIW -- she was granted immunity during the earlier investigation ...http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/30/491364/US-presidential-election-Donald-Trump-Hilalry-Clinton-polls-911tom | Oct 30, 2016 2:41:29 PM | 41
A political commentator believes the polls in the United States are being "manipulated," adding that they are not reflecting the will of the American people.
"Trump is an outsider. He is coming in new. He does not have any political history, he has no political experience. He is coming as an agent of change," Mike Harris told Press TV in an interview on Sunday.
SCARY...Helloween coming,& you know what that means...Samhain.
That's right...even worse than this this year:
Sometimes right on time, almost as if using a calendar(!), like 2011 when they decided to sacrifice MF Global.
Or 2011 also when they ended their murderous bombing of Libya, started earlier MAR 31 by those uncouth frenchie fokkers.
Sometimes "celebrated" late, as in 1956 NOV 5 with Brits sending invasion force to take back Suez that Nasser just nationalized, or 1979 NOV 4 Iran US embassy hostages (not like that wasn't due...Mossadegh was overthrown in 1953).So Comey didn't use any of the Podesta files as evidence ? He's still an establishment coward. Comedy is a A lower class of criminal still serving a higher class of partisan criminals.
Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 2:58:32 PM | 44
Sure drove WikiLeaks' (damning) Band memo out of discussion or consideration ... and the irony is that this probably -- ultimately -- has nothing to do with Clinton ... I think Abedin's career is over ... which is a good thing since the reports of Clinton's cult-like oh-so-"loyal" inner circle were dismaying (cough).s | Oct 30, 2016 3:04:35 PM | 45
GOP congresscritters were already having kittens over the number of Clinton insiders granted immunity during the long tangled course of the investigation ..
Cnn 09/23/201 .
Caveat: I previously found mention of Abedin getting immunity prior to July and now cannot find a confirming source .... sighIf using a private server to get around FOIA was a problem, it was a problem then, not now. But getting around FOIA was something everybody else, as well as Clinton wanted. That's why they had no problems sending and receiving emails from another server. If most of these people never really look at urls, their tech people and security people, did. They passed it as acceptable.schlub | Oct 30, 2016 3:22:46 PM | 48
Comey couldn't prosecute Clinton without prosecuting all those people too, which is impossible. Pretending you really give a shit about the server when you don' care about all those other people who committed the same crime just proves one thing: It's a political prosecution aimed exclusively at an opponent. Another phrase for political prosecution is "show trial." You can't always make sure only the people you don't like get prosecuted.
And, security issues? In the world of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and wikileaks, no sensible and honest person thinks using government equipment means security.
The only use for this fake scandal is to pander to mad dog reactionaries.
Huma no sign of today 30th on or near Clingon campaign plane Florida this AM.
Supposedly Lord O tried but failed to directly intercede to block the FBI from searching Anthony's computer.
Maybe that 'suicided' top US missile general a day ago was the start of the cleanup crew moving, & the rats are doing what they always do---ratting, or scurrying for cover.
OH, the Huma-nity!harrylaw | Oct 30, 2016 3:45:04 PM | 51
virgile | Oct 30, 2016 4:41:50 PM | 59
...Did Hilary Clinton give non cleared people access to classified information? Comey.. Yes sir. http://www.libertywritersnews.com/2016/10/breaking-obama-just-caught-trying-sabotage-new-clinton-email-investigation-sick/Obviously Huma had an email account on Weiner's computer. It seems that the existence of this account and its email contents were found while looking at Wiener's email account.Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 4:51:18 PM | 60
Possibly it is a pop3 account (connected to Hillary server) meaning that these emails have been downloaded from the server and are physically on the computer probably without any password. If these emails are duplicates of 'classified' emails that Hillary has purposely deleted from her server, then she and Huma could be in deep trouble. In any case Huma is in trouble even if the emails are not classified as she did not declare their existence to the FBI. I understand the Wiener computer is in the hands of the Wiener's case investigators.
My guess is that the FBI has already had access to that computer and had a peek at these emails. I think that after examining some of them, they realize they were relevant to the investigation. As they have no warrant, they cannot announce anything officially. The FBI is now waiting for a warrant from Huma's lawers to officially view the account.
If Hillary is so keen to have details from these email, Huma should immediately give the ok for a warrant.
My opinion is that Hillary is terrified that these emails are very damaging so she needs to obstruct their release, while still accusing the FBI of backstabbing. It seems that her only chance is to discredit Comey and she is working on that now.My suspicion was always that Comey was trying to preempt a leak ... likely by some FBI-well connected congress critter ... According to the NYT, while Weiner investigators (and god knows who else) have known about the e-mails for weeks, Comey was not informed until shortly before his announcement (he must have been angry and horrified).
I still think that the shit-storm that would have erupted from a "leak" of a "secret" newly expanded arm of a "closed" investigation would have been far worse ... wrt to the whole "undermining" or "rigging" the election meme being sold -- by both parties ...
I'm getting conflicting impressions of "plausible deniability" by folks claiming to have been blind-sided by Comey's announcement ... I think (as I've said before) Comey is the designated whipping boy, and perhaps even volunteered to be just that, as everyone and their brother expresses horror at something that cannot be undone ...virgile | Oct 30, 2016 5:04:41 PM | 62
Calling for the FBI to release information is double edged. If the emails are copies of the ones that Hillary destroyed from her server because they were too compromising then she will be in deep trouble.virgile | Oct 30, 2016 5:08:38 PM | 65
I guess her only way out is to discredit Comey and get him out of the way. Is Comey strong enough to stand against the war Clinton will start on him?Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 67Gee! What could go wrong with a scenario like that – a high-ranking government official seeking to become president who exhibits callous disregard for national security protocols, a trusted aide who worked in her family magazine in Saudi Arabia on behalf of radical Islamic causes who was married to a Jewish member of Congress who had a propensity for compromising himself through illicit and bizarre sexual activity?http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/why-hillary-is-disqualified-for-president/
"I have an idea! Let's make the architect of this mess the president of the United States." That's what the Democratic Party decided.Demanding that the DOJ or FBI "release all the information" is simply grandstanding ... they can't (they apparently don't have legal access and haven't reviewed it) ... and Weiner and Abedin are entitled to privacy protection for all non-related content, and the various government agencies also have security and other concerns ...Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 5:22:47 PM | 68
Demand away!!! Film at 11!!! Shake that fist, hold your breath until your face is read and your eyes bulge ... show the world just how well you can simulate OUTRAGE.and let's not forget -- as everyone seems to be doing -- that these e-mails are years old and that there is no genuine urgency to this matter, no matter how much outrage and urgency and panic and other theatrics are demonstrated.Ken Nari | Oct 30, 2016 5:38:24 PM | 69
This investigation is (almost certainly) a dead parrot ... but like Weiner's sexting, it's something everyone can quite safely be OUTRAGED!!! about. Democrats and Clinton supporter long ago announce they didn't give a flying fig about Clinton's disregard for rules or transparency or truthfulness ... and the Republicans demonstrated -- that like Whitewater and Benghazi that came before -- that they didn't care about a lack of actionable findings as determined by those empowered to make such determinations ... There were no indictments because even the wrongdoing that was found was "determined" to not rise to the criteria necessary wrt to intent.
so, they cry ... let's have another investigation, more hearings, maybe a change in venues, leadership, oversight authority ...
(is it rigged? almost certainly, but more more and more isn't likely to change the outcome)Susan Sunflower @ 40
Probably just a coincidence, but as for Kaine making demands on Comey, one has to wonder why he doesn't just pick up the phone and call him?
How close they are (were) is hard to say, but they are certainly well acquainted. Both lived in Richmond, and taught at the University of Richmond Law School, a small, private school. Both moved in the same Richmond social circle and have friends in common.
Believe me, I do not move in that social circle, or have many friends in Richmond, but at least two are also friends of both Kaine and Comey. Maybe Kaine's wife could just call Comey's wife to find out what's going on. Or maybe Kaine is starting to get cold feet about running with Hillary and put Comey up to this. :-)
Small world. Just another oddity of this comedy-horror show of an election.Petri Krohn | Oct 30, 2016 6:00:39 PM | 71
Re: But this season's version has at least some amusing moments.Petri Krohn | Oct 30, 2016 6:02:04 PM | 72
I have tried to collect the funniest moments to this page on ACLOS:
US presidential elections
1 - Trump loves Putin
1.1 - Trump conspires with Putin
2 - Putin rigs elections
2.1 - Trump and Putin poisoned Hillary
2.2 - Assange sucks Putin's dick
2.3 - McCarthy runs for president
3 - News of Putin's rigging of election makes Americans question integrity of election
3.1 - Obama threatens WW3 with Russia
3.2 - Obama launches cyber attack on Russia
3.3 - Trump won't accept result if he loses
4 - Obama cancels elections
5 - Hillary grabs pussy
6 - Historians find signs of intelligent life
7 - The ballots
Everything is sourced to the most reliable sources, like the Washington Post , Wall Street Journal , and The New York Times .Sorry, the link was broken: US presidential electionsTobin Paz | Oct 30, 2016 6:14:30 PM | 74
@NemesisCalling | Oct 30, 2016 3:11:26 PM | 47Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 6:21:50 PM | 75
I do believe that Trump is a safer candidate than Clinton, but he is still seriously flawed. He stands out as a peace candidate next to Clinton, but he still makes statements about bombing ISIS and their family members. Two war crimes in that statement seeing as the US is in Syria illegally. He also wants to increase the defense budget... WTF, it's already more than half of the federal discretionary spending. His choice of Pence is also a huge warning sign.
Stein is the only candidate that I have heard make a rational statement regarding Syria... stop sending in more weapons. I'll concede that I may be naive, but as a true outsider she has the best chance to rein in the military. We could discuss the deep state and who calls the shots, but at point it wouldn't matter who gets elected.
Baraka's Soros connection should be considered, but let's not forget that Rothschild helped bailout Trump with his casino. I'm also very concerned about his dealings and potential ties with organized crime.
... ... ..
I think the possibility that there were "rogue" FBI investigators keeping Comey in the dark -- to create an "October surprise" -- may be the most significant (and scary) part of this story (if true) ... shades of the numerous other "rogue" factions we've seen under Obama ... see also the 50 anonymous state department dissenters to Obama's policies (obviously endorsing Hillary). I'm curious if they and this ruse will ever be mentioned again.likklemore | Oct 30, 2016 6:24:46 PM | 77
Another failure of the chain of command ... lack of respect for authority within the highest levels of government. I'm thinking some people understood the message in too many movies glorifying renegades and mavericks. This isn't whistleblowing because no one will listen, this is subverting the process because you didn't like the outcome ... will cheating and fabrication come next to these ideology driven zealots? Has it already?
The Bezos' Wapo rag is expected to be selective. Credibility destroyed. Now, with all the howling from The Clinton gang. The best display of what goes around, comes around! ……likklemore | Oct 30, 2016 7:10:05 PM | 81
Let's recall 24 years ago the 11th hr indictment of Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger that doomed the re-election of president George H.W. Bush .
This was the weekend before the election!
Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election
[24 years ago], as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a "culture of corruption."
[.] Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush's claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration."
[.]The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a "culture of corruption" that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush's poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election.
Shortly after the election, a federal judge threw out the new indictment because it violated the five-year statute of limitations and improperly broadened the original charges. President Bush then pardoned Weinberger.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Speechless but I am not shocked.
@ Susan Sunflower 75persiflo | Oct 30, 2016 8:16:06 PM | 89
I think the possibility that there were "rogue" FBI investigators keeping Comey in the dark -- to create an "October surprise" -- may be the most significant (and scary) part of this story (if true) ... shades of the numerous other "rogue" factions we've seen under Obama ... see also the 50 anonymous state department dissenters to Obama's policies (obviously endorsing Hillary). I'm curious if they and this ruse will ever be mentioned again.
It's called Mutiny in D.C. Comey's hand was forced.
Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents
and, add this to the mix – I read an article on a credible site of a new bombshell but before I link to it, the contents should be confirmed during week of November 1st. However, this gem was included in the article:
"people at the Pentagon are aligned:
Will not silently sit still as one of their 4-Star generals get ramrodded for MUCH less than Hillary did. They are aligned with the insurrectionists at the FBI.
The general in question
Oct. 17, 2016 NYT
James Cartwright, Ex-General, Pleads Guilty in Leak Case,
(General Cartwright's undoing)
"It was wrong for me to mislead the F.B.I. on Nov. 2, 2012, and I accept full responsibility for this," General Cartwright said. "I knew I was not the source of the story and I didn't want to be blamed for the leak. My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it."
~ ~ ~ ~
Brace for more bombshells – up next, The Clinton Family Foundation.
Question of the day. Over half million emails on Weiner's computer, are the 33,000 deleted emails in this trove?There is another, rather adventurous accounting of the investigation. According to this transcript from a chat board, some anonymous analyst at the Bureau turned to the public, basically saying they can't do anything about the Clinton Foundation because the case is too big - it would mean taking on the totally implied government, and exposing deeds that they fear might lead to foreign declarations of war. He proceeded to ask the public instead to go after the Foundation. But after seeing this route did actually not work out, the people at the Bureau might have come up with plan B. This seems consistent; as long as you accept the assumption. The transcript is a bit hard to read, but the story rather thrilling, and definitely "se non è vero, è ben trovato".Tobin Paz | Oct 30, 2016 8:21:00 PM | 90
You also might appreciate Bill Still's narration of the Phoenix incident with Loretta Lynch.@jdmckay | Oct 30, 2016 7:38:37 PM | 84Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 8:22:55 PM | 91
The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq. The war record of Clinton, followed by Bush, followed by Obama lends credence to this assumption. Note that the attack on Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, less than a month after September 11. I'm not a military expert, but that seems incredibly quick. Bush hadn't even been president for a year.The Clinton Family Foundation seems so slushy ... the funds are totally at the family's "discretion" and it's hard to imagine a genuine "scandal" The Foundation/CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) really only needs a credible "dissatified customer" with records saying they didn't get the quid-pro-quo what they paid for ... however, two credible above-reproach dissatisified customers each other would be better. I've figured someone like that exists (or even that one could have been created/manufactured for this purpose) ... however, it's the bridgeburning involved in going public ....
\PhobosMoon | Oct 30, 2016 9:14:12 PM | 94(!) According to a NYPD source, the emails on Weiner's laptop are NOT about state secrets, but are in fact pointing to a pedophilia ring with the Clintons at the center.beq | Oct 30, 2016 9:15:31 PM | 95
Looks like Bill wasn't alone on Epsteins Lolita Express. Hillary has a well documented preference for underage girls.
-the 'Hillary Clinton Tapes'
-Tim Kaine (WikiLeaks, VP choice since 07.2015(!))
Her Majesty has a solutionblues | Oct 30, 2016 9:30:37 PM | 97
And... Hillary's "running mate":
DEVELOPING New headaches for VP nominee Tim Kaine as alleged mistress comes forward with tape of thr
Don't you want somebody to love.
(Maybe NOT Tim Kaine.)blues | Oct 30, 2016 9:56:08 PM | 100
virgile | Oct 30, 2016 9:57:27 PM | 101
... DEVELOPING New headaches for VP nominee Tim Kaine as alleged mistress comes forward with tape of thr
DIs Comey trying to back the expected winner?likklemore | Oct 30, 2016 10:03:12 PM | 103
Paul Craig Roberts • October 29, 2016
The problem for the FBI, which once was a trusted American institution, but no longer is, is that there is no longer any doubt that Donald Trump will win the popular vote for president of the United States. His appearances are so heavily attended that thousands are turned away by local fire/occupancy regulations. In contrast, Hillary has curtailed her appearances, because she doesn't draw more than 30 or 40 people.
Americans are sick to death of the corrupt Clintons and the corrupt American media. The Clintons are so completely bought-and-paid-for by the Oligarchy that they were able to outspend Hollywood on their daughter's wedding, dropping $3,000,000 on the event.
http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-director-of-the-fbi-reopens-the-hillary-case/@ Susan Sunflower 86Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 10:25:49 PM | 106
It's hard to imagine what "bombshell" could involve the Family Foundation unless they's paying for the upkeep of Bill's baby-mamas and kiddy-farm ... would anyone care?
Soon, more facts will be revealed - there is the probe of the Clinton Foundation that the DOJ tried blocking but there is the mutiny.
One of the 7 appetizers before the main course:
Doug Band To John Podesta: "If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed"
Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent corporate clients using Teneo as a passthru vehicle for purchasing influence.
In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below (the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Do read the article and embedded links within.
Influence – peddling. I do recall some congress critters being charged and sent to the other big house. This is more than pay-for-play
Added to what has already been exposed about the Clinton Foundation, here also ZH via WSJ:
[650,000 emails found…..] DOJ blocked the Foundation probe
~ ~ ~ ~
Oh wait, there was this meeting on the tarmac. It is said the discussion was about the grand kids.
A charitable entity for the Clintons and their cronies.I had heard (sorry no memory of where and no cite) that the meeting on the tarmac was actually about the Foundation probe ... it was ridiculous. That video is certainly "partisan" but I had wondered who initiated the meeting and whose plane they met on ... (as I recall those details somehow never made it into any article I read). So, if accurate, Bill Clinton is an overbearing intimidating azzhole -- to his loyal long-term "protégé" ... so what else is new. She can commiserate with the ex-Clinton-friend clubJack Smith | Oct 30, 2016 10:28:33 PM | 107
FWIW, I read today Huma was also getting paid by Tedeo ... she is always described as "like a daughter", working for clinton since SHE was a 19 year old intern ... she's now 40 ... shudder ... meaning 21 years or 1996 ...
wiki:The Lewinsky scandal was an American political sex scandal that came to light in 1998, referring to a sexual relationship between 1995 and 1996 with then 49-year-old President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
I've always wondered how Chelsea feels about the oh-so-elegant like-a-daughter Abedin. I saw a picture of her on the phone "on the tarmac" in 4-5 inch stilettos ... Even when slender and glammed up, Chelsea looks just like her "rather dumpy" mother ... blech... forgive me. Weiner, by reports, is whip smart and very funny, very well read and delightful company ... he's just a compulsive wanker -- apparently in need of constant re-assurance and praise and attention ... blech.
Still, while Bill was destroying long-term Clinton family relationships via Lewinsky (and demands that people lie for him), Hillary had "Huma" to lean" on and "mentor" ... It sounds so co-dependent. (and I suggest zero other impropriety) I've witnessed some very dysfunctional boss/assistant relationships ... shudder.This is what I like about Donald Trump... (not exactly the same words) If I'm elected you will go to jail and to Ford's executives in Detroit. If you move productions to Mexico, I'll impost a 35% on all vehicles from Mexico and no one will buy Ford!Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 10:34:50 PM | 108The #1 meme about Donald Trump is his racism ... and the racism of his supporters ... this has been the drumbeat since last Spring ... daily, constant, unrelenting and without exception ... and unfair and ridiculous, without nuance, rejecting all other explanations and flatly rejecting any number of contradicting Trump rally witness reports ...Susan Sunflower | Oct 30, 2016 10:44:35 PM | 109
The meme has been: Support Trump and you are a racist ... full stop. That all Trump supporters want to go back to pre-Civil Rights, pre-Women's liberation, and support for Trump is a rage-induced quest regain lost "white privilege" ...
It's not true ... but that's the drill... utter ostracism, forever, long past the election ... it's very destructive and dangerous ... it's a red-line, unforegivable ...
Moore's movie challenged that mindset and he was criticised for his "tolerance" of and reaching out to Trump voters... to the point that the "claim" more was supporting Trump has been widely repeated (sliming Moore) ... Sorry I was so emphatic, it's just I supported Moore's outreach (because it's humane and reality-based) ... and I hated seeing him slimed by the intolerant ... ghastly election.As you have heard, the 30% import tax is an absolute non-starter ... in that the president does not have that power and there is probably still too many automotive jobs and the auto lobby too strong for congress is spank them in that way ... Driving the auto industry into bankruptcy isn't good for "America's bottom line" either.
It's like the wall ... It's a when pigs fly "feel-good" nonstarter
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.comFBI investigators from across the country have been following leads into reports of bribery involving the Clinton Foundation. Multiple field offices have been involved in the investigation.
A report in Sunday's Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Devlin Barrett revealed that agents assigned to the New York field office have been carrying the bulk of the work in investigating the Clinton Foundations. They have received assistance from the FBI field office in Little Rock according to "people familiar with the matter, the WSJ reported. Other offices, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have been collecting evidence to regarding "financial crimes or influence-peddling."
As far back as February 2016, FBI agents made presentation to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the WSJ's sources stated. "The meeting didn't go well," they wrote. While some sources said the FBI's evidence was not strong enough, others believed the DOJ had no intention from the start of going any further. Barrett wrote that the DOJ officials were "stern, icy and dismissive of the case."
Barrett wrote, "'That was one of the weirdest meetings I've ever been to,' one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter."
It appears there was rift between the FBI and the DOJ with how to move forward with the investigation. Agents in the Washington office were directed to focus on a separate issue relating to the actions of former Virginia Governor and Clinton Foundation Board Member Terry McAuliffe. Agents inside the FBI believed they could build a stronger case if the investigation of McAuliffe and the foundation were combined.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe seemed to be caught in the middle of the fight between DOJ officials who appeared to want to slow down or shut down the investigation and FBI agents who were eager to pour more resources into the investigation.
Barrett wrote, "'Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?' Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, 'Of course not,' these people said."
Some of the WSJ sources told Barrett that a "stand down" order had been given to the FBI agents by McCabe. Others denied that no such order was given.
Preet Bharara, an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, appears to have taken in interest in moving forward from the DOJ side, the Daily Caller's Richard Pollock reported in August.
The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara's prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.
He said prosecutorial support could come from multiple U.S. Attorneys Offices and stated this was a major departure from other "centralized FBI investigations."
The story gets more complicated when you factor in that McCabe's wife, Dr. Jill McCabe had received a $467,500 campaign contribution in 2015 for a state senate race from McAuliffe .
CNN also reported that multiple field offices were "in agreement a public corruption investigation should be launched" with Clinton Foundation officials as a target. The cable news network reported the investigation would have looked at "conflicts of interest by foreign donors and official acts by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
Aug 15, 2016 | www.breitbart.comHillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, may have committed perjury in testimony before Congress, two separate U.S. House committee chairmen detailed late Monday.
In a letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips, the two top House Republicans made their case that Clinton committed perjury.
Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to Phillips:
On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees' request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will 'take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton's testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.
Before detailing at least four specific instances in which Clinton allegedly committed perjury, the House Republicans explained the matter a bit further:
During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton's sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI's findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.
The first of four main areas where Hillary Clinton allegedly perjured herself before the U.S. Congress was with her claim in sworn testimony that she never sent or received emails on her illicit home-brew email server-which was in violation of State Department guidelines, and according to FBI director James Comey "extremely careless."
"With respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time, Secretary Clinton testified under oath to the Select Committee that she did not," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. "Specifically, during questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, Secretary Clinton stated 'there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.'"
Chaffetz and Goodlatte further quoted from Clinton's testimony by including this quote:
[M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.
The two House Committee chairmen detail in the letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. that Clinton, according to the FBI Director, was not telling the truth in that testimony before Congress:
The FBI, however, found several of Secretary Clinton's emails did in fact contain markings that identified classified information therein. In Director Comey's public statement on July 5, 2016, he said, 'a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.' When Director Comey testified on July 7, 2016, he specifically addressed this issue. Rep. Trey Gowdy asked, 'Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received. Was it true?' He said it was not. Director Comey also stated, 'There was classified material emailed.' Specifically, he stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton's private server contained classified information clearly marked 'Confidential.' He further testified, 'In the one involving 'top secret' information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.'
The second claim on which Hillary Clinton appears to have been caught perjuring herself according to the two top House Republicans was with regard to her statements that her lawyers read all of her emails.
"With respect to whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system, Secretary Clinton testified that her attorneys used search terms and reviewed every single email to identify any that were work-related and should therefore be returned to the Department of State," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting directly from Clinton's transcript from when she testified under oath:
Rep. Jordan: But I'm asking how - I'm asking how it was done. Was
- did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.
Mrs. Clinton: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.
Rep. Jordan: Will you provide this committee - or can you answer today, what were the search terms?
Mrs. Clinton: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.
"The FBI found, however, that Secretary Clinton's lawyers did not in fact read all of her emails-they relied exclusively on a set of search terms to identify work-related messages," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting from Comey's July 5 testimony:
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
The third area where Hillary Clinton seems to have perjured herself according to the two House Committee chairmen is when she testified that she only used one server or device.
"With respect to whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified there was only one server," Goodlatte and Chaffetz wrote to the D.C. U.S. Attorney, before pulling another transcript of congressional testimony:
Rep. Jordan: In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I'm having a hard time figuring this out, because this story's been all over the place. But - there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in - housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?
Mrs. Clinton: No.
Rep. Jordan: OK.
Mrs. Clinton: There was a - there was a server…
Rep. Jordan: Just one?
Mrs. Clinton: . . . that was already being used by my husband's team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband's office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that's when they contracted with the company in Colorado.
Rep. Jordan: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has?
Mrs. Clinton: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.
Goodlatte and Chaffetz also wrote:
The FBI, however, found Secretary Clinton stored work-related emails on several servers. In Director Comey's public statement, he said, 'Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.' In Director Comey's testimony on July 7, 2016, he stated that Secretary Clinton used several devices to send and receive work-related emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. He testified, 'She used multiple devices during her four years as secretary of state.'
The fourth and final area where Clinton seems to have, according to Chaffetz and Goodlatte, perjured herself while under oath was during her claim that she provided all of her work-related emails to the Department of State.
"Finally, with respect to whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State, Secretary Clinton testified to the Select Committee that she had," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before again pulling a transcript of Clinton's testimony before Congress.
Mrs. Clinton: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I've said it was a mistake. I've said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice. When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else. E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I've described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending . . .
Rep. Jordan: I - I - I appreciate (inaudible).
Mrs. Clinton: . . . a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released.
Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote:
The FBI found, however, 'several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.' In the course of its investigation, the FBI recovered 'still others . . . from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.' When Director Comey appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, he confirmed that Secretary Clinton did not turn over all work-related emails to the FBI. He stated, 'We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.'
Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrapped their letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. by noting that the FBI's findings prove Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she testified under oath before Congress.
"The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI's findings," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote.
Oct 30, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.comDon Smith 4:38 PM EDTThe other day I was reading an article which was talking about two "charity donations" given to the wife of an F.B.I. Officer involved in the e-mail investigation by "friends of the Clinton's".CanardNoir 2:20 PM EDT [Edited]
The article was very low key it's author briefly wondered if the officer concerned should have excused himself from the investigation. I also thought it strange that the officers interest had not been declared. Some time later I was reading about details concerning the e-mails sent from Clinton's staff to members of the F.B.I. ,basically what was happening was that the security rating of the information contained in non deleted mails was being talked down, at which point for me at least alarm bells were ringing loud and clear but I did not expect there to be any reaction. O.K. So I'm that cynical.
Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place.
Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank!My Fellow Americans - Here is what the NYT is reporting in contrast to the WaPost's email count of more than 1,000, in terms of an actual number of emails to be reviewed:CanardNoir 2:41 PM EDT
"...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials."
Subsequently, that could change what the initial investigation by the Bureau had to look at this summer, and the understanding that all of the parties acknowledge that about 30k emails were deleted. So the "tens of thousands" may be duplicates or perhaps copies of the "thumb-drive" that one of HRC's lawyers was said to have been given?
At any rate, this must bring into play at least 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - and raise the question about whether conflicting DOJ internal "policy" has any affect on any of the Administration's current or former appointees, in terms of their "oath of office" or moving forward. And that would bring 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office - into play as well as the 5-year statute of limitations.
We're likely still "Doomed" - so don't get too happy just yet, because EPA could still disallow "draining" anything as a result of the Clean Water Act, as amended.And here's the Sec. 2071 reason "why":Rick B. 1:57 PM EDT
(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..."Time to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel9:57 AM EST
[Edited] Lynch had to recuse herself after meeting with Bill Clinton. Had there not been information showing intent to violate espionage laws, Comey would have never acted. The fact is she is a criminal and cannot be elected . Image an elected Hillary who is impeached. The USA deserves better than a this and must turn the Clintons out to pasture forever.
Avatar666 8:23 AM EST
The FBI used to be a respected agency. Now, not so much. Working for, and in collusion with Obama, Loretta Lynch, the Clinton's and the media makes their "investigation" suspect, to say the least.
Avatar666 8:07 AM EST
Hillary "will say anything and do anything" (Obama's words, not mine) to get elected. Trying to blame her malfeasance on the FBI is simply stupid. She is so obsessed with money and power that she openly states "I have spent my life helping children and women". Right. Like when she was an 8 year Senator who only introduced 3 bills naming a couple highways and a bank. Her followers are dupes and dunces and we can only hope they don't outnumber rationally thinking people.
Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EST
To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.
Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.
Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, wheresthechow 2:27 AM EST The Clinton's are just so amazing in their cavalier above-the-law attitude that they can't even renovate their house without breaking the law.
wwrfla 2:59 AM EST
[Edited] "The Case Against Hillary Clinton"...as written by Christopher Hitchens.
Truer words have never been written.
dcammer 10/29/2016 9:31 PM EST
Mr. Weiner has not aged well.....and it is not over....avoid park benches do not visit remote areas.....People you and I know may have a Boat moored in a slip at a Dock or a Yacht club that's Normal Americana....Yet A.G.Loretta Lynch was waiting on the Tarmac in her Jet Plane as Bill Clinton leaves His Jet Plane to chat with Loretta ....this is an area of privilege far above yacht club status....and this meeting broke several laws very quickly...so the A.G. has no authority to comment on what the head of F.B.I. has done regarding The Weiner Email discovery and whatever Bill had swindled for future favors or past I.O.U's has now become a waste of AA jet fuel for the,"IN", crowd.....Hillary is starting to look a little like Mr.Weiner; facial tension ,gaunt,hollow cheeks,terse lips,Bill was supposed to take care of all this....right?Now Mr. Comey had taken the J. Edgar Hoover pledge to Serve and protect and that would have been us under all other circumstances.....but he has to be loyal to his associates for they are the top 2% of the entire population and they deserve to be treated as the most important the bureau has....what transpired on the first pass left them in Mayberry P.D. limbo and will never happen could someone help Loretta Lynch to see the light or the exit sign ....Please
711810943 10/29/2016 10:56 PM EST
Yep, we're definitely talking about the battle of the twin dumpster fires here...
Celebrity gossip trumps policy, if you'll forgive the expression. But what can you expect in a country that can name three Kardashian sisters, but not one foreign head of state.
Hmmm... Those deck chairs need rearranging... See ya...
canaffordit 10/29/2016 9:09 PM EST
Laptop or PC is property of US once claissified info discovered. 18USC 798, right? Who says a warrant is needed to seize, protect? No so. And, for sure, they will read, use of which may or may not be impeded thereby. Still, there is allot to investigate, incl. numerous apparent violations of ethics in govt. act, etc, failures to disclose gifts / income, etc.
RTDP 10/29/2016 8:29 PM EST
The Clintons run a morally corrupt RICO that holds itself above the law. With Obama's support, the Justice Dept., IRS, FBI, State Dept. have aided and abetted the Clinton corruption of our government. This illustrates Hayek's point in The Road To Serfdom that when very powerful government institutions are created, "the worst rise to the top". Public power and money attract the least scrupulous, least honest, most power hungry, and most determined. Though Clinton's cabal publicly poses themselves as humanitarian progressives, the Doug Band statement of operations among Teneo, CGI, the Foundation, and the Clintons presents the underlying purpose of selling influence and the crony capital structure devised to split the proceeds. The Clinton Foundation operates outside the law. So where's the MSM, the IRS, the FBI, Justice...what justice?
Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EDT
To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.
Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.
Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.
"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."
tjonathan 10/29/2016 7:38 PM EDT
Watergate's Carl Bernstein: FBI Wouldn't Reopen A Probe Unless It Is "A Real Bombshell"
HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:09 PM EDT
[Edited] In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.
The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?) laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years.
Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails?
The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein (one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:
"We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..."
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin said she doesn't know how her emails wound up on a device she said was her husband's computer, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The person, who requested anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer and her lawyers did not search it for materials, thinking no messages would be there even after she agreed to turn over her messages to the State Department for record-keeping, the Washington Post reported.
On June 28, 2016, Abedin swore under oath that she looked for all devices containing work information so the records could be given to the State Department, the Daily Beast reported.
In the sworn oath, she said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."
Investigators found thousands of emails on Weiner's computer that they believe to be relevant to the Clinton investigation, according to federal law enforcement officials.
It is still unknown how the emails are relevant or whether or not they are significant.
Officials say it is possible that the messages could be duplicates of already investigated emails, but that will not be determined until a computer program goes through the emails to weed out the duplicates so officials can closely examine the emails for classified information.
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.comA former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.
"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."
Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.
"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."
"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.
Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.
"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.comSaturday on CNN while discussing the FBI reopening the investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private unsecured email server during her tenure as secretary of state, former Assistant Director of the FBI Thomas Fuentes said, "The FBI has an intensive investigation ongoing into the Clinton Foundation."
He added, "The FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive unified case and be coordinated, so that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin and her role and activities concerning secretary of state in the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play, that's still being looked at and now."
Oct 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs, Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 07:37 PM'Some prominent Democratic women, meanwhile, were angry that a murky announcement from the F.B.I. might impede the election of the first female president of the United States.
"It worries me because it gives the Republicans something to blow up and fan folks' anger with," said former Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, who considered a run for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988. "I was on the Judiciary Committee when I was in Congress, and I have never seen the F.B.I. handle any case the way they have handled hers."'
Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email
Decision 'Deeply Troubling' http://nyti.ms/2dYalYs
NYT - PATRICK HEALY and JONATHAN MARTIN - Oct 29
Hillary Clinton and her allies sprang onto a war footing on Saturday, opening a ferocious attack on the F.B.I.'s director, James B. Comey, a day after he disclosed that his agency was looking into a potential new batch of messages from her private email server.
Treating Mr. Comey as a threat to her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton took aim at the law enforcement officer who had recommended no criminal charges less than four months earlier for her handling of classified information as secretary of state.
"It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information right before an election," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in Daytona Beach, Fla. "In fact, it's not just strange; it's unprecedented and it is deeply troubling."
For Democrats, it was also deeply worrying. Mrs. Clinton's advisers expressed concern that the F.B.I.'s renewed attention to emails relating to the nominee would turn some voters against her, hurt party candidates in competitive House and Senate races, and complicate efforts to win over undecided Americans in the final days of the election.
So after stepping gingerly around the issue on Friday, calling on Mr. Comey to release more specific information but not overtly criticizing him, her campaign made it personal on Saturday, accusing the director of smearing Mrs. Clinton with innuendo late in the race and of violating Justice Department rules.
The decision to target Mr. Comey for his unusual decision to publicly disclose the inquiry came during an 8 a.m. internal conference call, after aides saw reports that Justice Department officials were furious, believing he had violated longstanding guidelines advising against such actions so close to an election.
Even before Mrs. Clinton spoke in Florida, her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, and campaign manager, Robby Mook, criticized Mr. Comey for putting out incomplete information and breaking with Justice Department protocol.
"By providing selective information, he has allowed partisans to distort and exaggerate to inflict maximum political damage," Mr. Podesta said during a conference call with reporters. "Comey has not been forthcoming with the facts," he added, describing the director's letter to Congress on Friday as "long on innuendo."
Whatever shortcomings Mrs. Clinton may have as a candidate, Saturday's coordinated effort showed that the political organization that she, her husband and her allies had built over decades remained potent and would not let what seemed like victory erode easily. By midday, Mr. Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama and confirmed nearly unanimously by the Senate, found himself in its cross hairs.
Encouraged by Mrs. Clinton's senior aides to reframe the story and make it about Mr. Comey's actions, liberal groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus demanded that he release more information. Other surrogates were emailed talking points prodding them to deem it "extraordinary that 11 days before the election a letter like this - with so few details - would be sent to 8 Republican committee chairmen." (Ranking Democrats on the committees also received copies.)
Mr. Comey has not publicly commented on the investigation, other than with the letter saying that more emails were being examined. He also wrote an email to F.B.I. employees explaining that he felt he had to inform Congress even though the agency did not yet know "the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails."
With Mrs. Clinton leading Donald J. Trump in nearly every battleground state, Clinton advisers were emphatic that they would not be thrown off stride. They said they would not change any political strategy, television advertising or campaign travel plans.
For months, the F.B.I. had investigated whether Mrs. Clinton had broken any laws by using a private email server while she was secretary of state. This past summer, Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had been "extremely careless" by allowing sensitive information to be discussed outside secure government servers, but that the agency had concluded that Mrs. Clinton had not committed a crime. The investigation was closed.
But on Friday, Mr. Comey notified Congress that the agency had discovered emails, possibly relevant to the investigation, that belonged to Mrs. Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin. The emails were discovered on the computer of Ms. Abedin's estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner, during a separate investigation into allegations that he had exchanged sexually explicit messages with a teenager.
According to several Clinton advisers, Mrs. Clinton told them overnight and on Saturday that she wanted the campaign to operate normally, not rashly, while pressuring Mr. Comey to dispel any possibility that her candidacy was under legal threat.
But the Clinton team also had to deal with a newly emboldened Mr. Trump, who urged voters at a rally on Saturday in Golden, Colo., to oppose Mrs. Clinton because of her "criminal action" that was "willful, deliberate, intentional and purposeful."
Handed a new opening against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump used the moment to baselessly claim there had been an internal F.B.I. "revolt" and made a sexually suggestive joke about Mr. Weiner.
"As Podesta said, she's got bad instincts," Mr. Trump said, distorting a comment in one of the thousands of Mr. Podesta's hacked emails recently released by WikiLeaks. "Well, she's got bad instincts when her emails are on Anthony Weiner's wherever."
The paramount fear among Clinton advisers and Democratic officials was that an election that had become a referendum on Mr. Trump's fitness for office, and that had increasingly seemed to be Mrs. Clinton's to lose, would now become just as much about her conduct.
In phone calls, email chains and text messages on Saturday, Clinton aides and allies were by turns confident that the F.B.I. would find nothing to hurt Mrs. Clinton and concerned that the inquiry would nudge demoralized Republicans to show up to vote for down-ballot candidates - and perhaps even cast ballots, however reluctantly, for the battered Mr. Trump.
"This is like an 18-wheeler smacking into us, and it just becomes a huge distraction at the worst possible time," said Donna Brazile, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a close Clinton ally. "We don't want it to knock us off our game. But on the second-to-last weekend of the race, we find ourselves having to tell voters, 'Keep your focus; keep your eyes on the prize.'"
As much as Clinton advisers stressed that they were not panicking, some of them radiated anger at Mr. Comey, Mr. Weiner and even Mrs. Clinton - a reflection of 18 months of frustration that her personal decisions about her email practices and privacy were still generating unhelpful political drama. Two Clinton aides, for example, pointedly noted in interviews that it was difficult to press a counterattack without fully knowing what was in Ms. Abedin's emails.
Some prominent Democratic women, meanwhile, were angry that a murky announcement from the F.B.I. might impede the election of the first female president of the United States.
"It worries me because it gives the Republicans something to blow up and fan folks' anger with," said former Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, who considered a run for the Democratic nomination for president in 1988. "I was on the Judiciary Committee when I was in Congress, and I have never seen the F.B.I. handle any case the way they have handled hers."
While some voters are undecided, about 20 million Americans have already cast ballots in early voting, and millions more long ago concluded which candidate they would support.
In a polarized country where many are unwaveringly contemptuous of either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, the latest development in the email story prompted a mix of shrugs and renewed determination from the left and told-you-so claims of Clinton perfidy from the right.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 29, 2016 at 09:12 PM'Hopefully, it will infuriate & motivatelikbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
Dem voters more than it will please
& energize GOPsters.'"Encouraged by Mrs. Clinton's senior aides to reframe the story and make it about Mr. Comey's actions", October 29, 2016 at 09:58 PM
Reminds me a reaction of a cornered rat...
It was she who created private "Shadow IT" within the State Department.
It was she who hired Huma Abedin who proved to be completely clueless in computer security (and not only in computer security) and, as such, represented probably even higher level of security risks then Mrs Clinton herself. Forwarding email to her private Web mail account for printing because direct printing from the State Department email account was convoluted is an interesting solution for a high level State Department official, who signed various non-disclosure documents.
It was she who was eliminated incriminating emails by claiming the they are private after investigation was already opened and she was asked to provide them. Elimination was done using special software to prevent recovery.
It was she who lied about her actions.
Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.comFred C. Dobbs : October 29, 2016 at 02:08 PM(You would suppose that the FBI director is under the control of the Justice Department, but evidently not.)im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 29, 2016 at 02:13 PM
Officials warned FBI head about decision on e-mails
Sari Horwitz - Washington Post - October 29, 2016
WASHINGTON - Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey's decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.
... ... ...Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that.likbez -> im1dc... October 29, 2016 at 05:29 PM
BTW, imo this will not impact the outcome of the Election November 8th."Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that."
IMHO that's extremely naïve. Such a "career limiting move"(CLM) in Washington-speak almost never done "on his own". Exception are whistleblowers like William Binney, who already decided for themselves that "this is the last stand" and are ready to face consequences.
Few Washington bureaucrats want to became outcasts within the administration, even the lame duck administration. Bureaucracy, at the end, is just another flavor of a political coalition and they tend to cling to power by whatever means possible including criminal.
Moreover, Comey so far was viewed as an "Obama man" who abruptly squashed the "emailgate" investigation instead of expanding it investigating Bill Clinton for his "accidental" meeting with Loretta Lynch and possibly putting the old fogey on the bench for the obstruction of justice. And who at the end granted immunity to all key members of Clinton entourage including Huma Abedin who proved to be, security wise, not the sharpest tool in the shed.
So why such the abrupt reversal?
The only plausible explanation that I see is that Comey action reflects a deep split within the USA elite including internal cracks and pressure within FBI brass (possibly from rank-and-file investigators, who understand what's going on) as for viability Hillary as the next POTUS.
I would ask you a very simple question: do you really want a POTUS that has, say, 80% probability to be impeached by the House during the first year of his/her administration?
And any security specialist will tell you that Hillary creation of "shadow IT" within the State Department is a crime. The behavior that would never be tolerated not only in super-secretive State Department (which recently assumed some functions previously performed by CIA), but in any large corporation.
It also might well be that there are new highly compromising evidence (not necessary from Wiener case) which changed the "grand calculation".
Here is an interesting post that I recently come across:
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story.
Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway.
An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA.
Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not.
Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.
Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.comThe FBI announcement comes on the heels of a report yesterday by journalist Paul Sperry, who gave new details about Abedin's role in the email scandal.
Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.
The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI's investigation of Clinton's use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.
Abedin's influence in these matters, including the revelation in Sperry's article that "Abedin possessed much more power" over Clinton's staff, schedule, and security than other former chiefs of staffs, is especially concerning given the links that Abedin has to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to the Muslim World League, a group that Hillary Clinton herself said in 2009 was funding terrorism.
... ... ...Here is some of the exhaustive reporting Breitbart has done on Huma Abedin: Hillary Clinton's History: Muslim Connections Stem Back To 1990s Hillary Clinton's History: How Huma Abedin Went from Intern to Top Adviser After 9/11, Saudis Had Huma Abedin-Connected Group Removed from Terror List On September 11, Huma Abedin Worked For Hillary Clinton and Saudi Charity Suspected of Terror Funding Memo: Clinton State Department Thought Huma Abedin-Connected Saudi Group Funded Terror 28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism Hillary Clinton's Top Aide Huma Abedin Published Articles that Blamed USA for 911, Blamed Women For Violence
Media coverage of this story has been supporessed owing to pressure from the Democratic Party.
For example, Vanity Fair magazine published an article Jan. 6 of this year with the now eerily accurate title, " Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem? " The left-wing attack machine Media Matters for America wasted no time in posting an article with false information and smears in order to protect the Clinton campaign.
Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that she helped "start and support" the Media Matters group, and that organization has consistently come to her rescue with misinformation, half-truths, and smears that invariably get repeated by the established media.
The Vanity Fair article apparently sent shockwaves through the Clinton camp. Any mainstream press coverage of Huma Abedin is rare, and what coverage there is almost universally laudatory. Despite the fawning coverage she has received, there are many unanswered questions about Abedin, especially given Abedin's complete access to Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful people in the world, a former Secretary of State and possible future president.
As Vanity Fair's William Cohan writes in his piece:
Over the years Huma has served in several positions, with increasingly important-sounding titles. She has been Hillary's "body woman," her traveling chief of staff, a senior adviser, and a deputy chief of staff when Hillary was secretary of state. Now, based in Brooklyn, she is the vice-chair of Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign.
The Vanity Fair piece on the secretive Abedin confirmed a number of facts that have been reported by conservative media for a couple of years but have been twisted and convoluted by the mainstream media.
For example, the Vanity Fair article flatly lays out the information that Huma Abedin was an assistant editor at a publication called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1996 until 2008. He writes:
When (Huma) Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its mission as "shedding light" on minority Muslim communities around the world in the hope of "securing the legitimate rights of these communities."…
It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma's sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.
Breitbart News added information this year that shows that the "Abedin family business" is housed in the offices of the Muslim World League.
The webpage for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs site says how to reach the Journal : "Editorial Correspondence including submission of articles and books for review should be addressed to: Editor, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 46 Goodge Street, London WIP 1FJ, U.K."
The current official Journal website also lists the same 46 Goodge Street address, which is the same exact address listed on the Muslim World League's London office address.
The official website for the Muslim World League's London office lists its address as 46 Goodge Street.
The current day London Online website also lists the Muslim World League office in London and the Journal's parent organization, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs , as having the exact same 46 Goodge Street address.
A Yelp! listing for the Muslim World League shows the same 46 Goodge Address and a photo of the entrance.
Google Maps from 2008 -the earliest date available-shows the Muslim Word League London office entrance, which appears to have office space above a pizza restaurant .
This direct connection to the Muslim World League and a child organization called the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY)-also housed at Goodge Street offices-is significant due to a 2009 State Department memo which reveals that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and Huma Abedin was her top aide, and the Secretary of State's office was engaged in talks with Saudi Arabia about stopping the Muslim World League from funding terrorism at the same time the "Abedin family business" was operating out of the Muslim World League's London office.
This revelation shows that while Huma Abedin was serving at the highest level of government as Hillary Clinton's aide and had access to this information, Abedin had a direct connection to a group that was suspected of actively funding groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hamas, which had not only killed civilians around the world but also U.S. servicemen.
The memo, which was originally published by WikiLeaks , was sent on December 30, 2009 from the Secretary of State to the Department of Treasury and ambassadors in several Gulf region countries including Saudi Arabia. The stated goal of the memo is that "all action posts deliver the general talking points" to those countries.
The connection to terror funding is also listed in the infamous "missing 28 pages" from a report by the 9/11 commission that were kept hidden for years until their release on a Friday afternoon earlier this year. Page 24 of the 28-page report discusses Osama Bin Laden's half-brother and says in part:
According to the FBI, Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is "closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War." In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.
Although the 28 pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.
These connections become especially disturbing when you consider what Sperry reported yesterday:
Another guard assigned to Clinton's residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been "established by Abedin." The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.
In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she "did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge." The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.
However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system "at the recommendation of Huma Abedin," who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the "fall (of) 2008," ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.
With the FBI investigation reopened, it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media finally begins to do their job and ask tough questions about Huma Abedin.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
dcblogger October 28, 2016 at 4:45 pmArizona Slim October 28, 2016 at 5:17 pm
James Comey was on the Board of Directors of HSBC while they were money laundering for drug runners and terrorists, he has done squat to stop GamerGate, he has a horrible record as director of the FBI and should have never been nominated, never been confirmed, and is a completely horrible person.Andrew Watts October 28, 2016 at 9:57 pm
Mark Felt was of the same mind when it came to being passed over after J. Edgar Hoover died. And recall that he gained notoriety as Deep Throat.MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 28, 2016 at 5:32 pm
Mark Felt had already gained notoriety before Watergate because he was one of the FBI's special agents who was charged for conducting illegal surveillance on American leftists. It's one of those things all those conspiracy theorists don't emphasis about COINTELPRO and other programs. The only people actually charged and convicted in the matter were FBI agents.allan October 28, 2016 at 5:44 pm
Here is a chance to redeem himself and stop Hillary. The race is Trump's to lose now.polecat October 28, 2016 at 6:05 pm
He was also general counsel of the largest defense contractor in the world (Lockheed Martin) and general counsel of the largest hedge fund / personality cult in the world (Bridgewater). Just a small town lawyer. If the town is Davos.fajensen October 29, 2016 at 6:07 am
Perhaps that's part and parcel to our current heroin epidemic …….
Perfectly Qualified –
In a situation where one has an truly abysmal leader, that leader will need sidekicks who are obviously worse. The abysmal leader can position herself to the reasonable / competent side of the "bad cop" sidekicks, thus being not exactly the "good cop" but the "better cop" while still going in the desired direction of crazy and misery for all.
If things get a bit out of hand, the blame can be pinned on the sidekick "going overboard" and the sidekick publicly sacrificed to "restore confidence" and "look forward".
Why Obama needed Biden around, George Bush had Cheney … The European Left has the Islamists and the Social Democrats has the neo-liberals to bisect against.
I think there is some possibilities, The rusty old ship "The Foundation" has simply sprung yet another leak and there is more evidence for FBI to dismiss and immunities to be doled out to fix the situation
Enough mail-votes have come in to predict a crushing victory for Trump. Comey realizes that he is maybe on the wrong side of this whole thing and goes for "incompetence" being part of his legacy rather than "conspiracy"
Something so nasty has come up so that the oligarch factions forming the "inner party" decided that Something Must be Done About The Situation – or Else. Jeffrey Epstein did home movies, apparently.
However, I think that it is just FBI doing another fix for Hillary.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comCleanup October 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm
Don't worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comey's work. FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comJim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:04 pmabynormal October 28, 2016 at 8:14 pm
Hillary's 4-minute apologia pro vida sua in response to Comey's volte face :
Two word summary: CORNERED RAT
Can't get over the Nuremberg rally massed flags behind her.
The future's so bright, she shoulda wore shades. ;-)Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:20 pm
UHH @4:30…State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday that the department knows nothing about why the FBI reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server just hours earlier.
Toner began the State Department daily press briefing by telling Associated Press reporter Matt Lee that he already knew what the topic of the first question would be. Lee asked Toner what the State Department knew of the FBI's actions and what may be involved in the reopened investigation. http://freebeacon.com/politics/state-department-knows-nothing-about-fbi-reopening-clinton-email-probe/
"First, what do we know? Not much more than you know, in fact. About the same," Toner said. "We just learned about this when we saw news reports of the letter."
"What emails they may be looking at, what they're looking for, any more details at all, we just don't know anything about the scope of this new–I'm not even sure it's an investigation, but this effort to look at additional emails," Toner continued.aab October 28, 2016 at 11:28 pm
Just like 0bama finding out about HRC's private email from the press … after he'd been corresponding with her from his own private email address.
With daily practice, the faux naif act comes easy. :-)Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:25 am
I gather that Clintonland is honestly shocked, though. They're having to expose their talking points unmodified pushed directly by people like Krugman, instead of their normal process of using CTR trolls for cover.
I don't have an explanation for why Comey would start acting like a law enforcement official at this late date, but it does look like he didn't notify Clintonland ahead of time, and apparently the State Department has basically been a Clinton sleeper cell for the last four years, so that would include State.
It's also possible that the emails are more about Clinton Foundation corruption than they are State Department rule breaking, so there wouldn't be any reason to notify State. (Although how that would connect to the original case without being at least in part about transmitting classified information insecurely is beyond me.)
Maybe Comey needed to get out in front of ticked off FBI worker bees. Better Comey release it himself than have it leaked over the weekend.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
VietnamVet October 28, 2016 at 8:05 pmLambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:34 am
Cyberspace opened up the Clinton Foundation's Pay for Play scams for scrutiny despite the best efforts of corporate media and the connected elite to keep it closed; the endless wars at Saudi Arabia and Israel's bequest, the purposeful burdening of debt on anyone who needs housing, medical care or education, and the utter contempt for the little people. Corruption so inept that missing Hillary Clinton e-mails are in Carlos Danger's explicit underage passion filled smartphone in FBI's possession.TheCatSaid October 29, 2016 at 12:52 pm
The emails (are said to be) on Abedin's laptop (shared with Weiner), not on Weiner's phone.
Intriguing. Maybe these emails have survived so far is, because Abedin's laptop was shared, it wasn't on the list of agreed-to-be-destroyed laptops (so far, at least).
I wonder if there will be any public pressure on FBI to go after some of the numerous devices/servers you posted about on other threads about a week ago. If so, no one is talking about it yet.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 10:35 pmpretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm
DOJ Complaint Filed Against FBI Director James Comey For Interfering In Presidential Election
LOL he had no choice
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-514825UserFriendly October 28, 2016 at 11:39 pm
i wouldn't think the clinton campaign would welcome that complaint, unless they're more desperate than i think.pretzelattack October 28, 2016 at 11:45 pm
They probably got someone to file it. It just reeks of holier then thou temper tantrum. But Comey had no choice, he had to amend his testimony.UserFriendly October 29, 2016 at 12:39 am
maybe clinton made the decision unilaterally, which is quite possible. seems like the campaign would want to bury the email scandal instead of going on the offensive. i do so hope this means their internal polling is scaring them.Foppe October 29, 2016 at 2:54 am
This close? no way. she needs a full rebuttal.
Maybe it can be used to cut off the FBI's internet access until the elections are over?
Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.comTahoeBilly2012 Rubicon Oct 29, 2016 9:46 AM ,FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened!Tarjan TahoeBilly2012 Oct 29, 2016 10:18 AM ,I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.joego1 Tarjan Oct 29, 2016 1:15 PM ,Check this out;Wow72 lil dirtball Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
The FBI's hand was forced by Anonymous.I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right?Kidbuck Fester Oct 29, 2016 10:56 AM ,
It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real?
I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong.
I've been burned so many times by BIG GOV. both DEM & REP? I just cant trust anyone that is near it?
They take lots of ideas from ZH these days, and its not good..... ZH offers them the ideas, the power, and the creativity of the crowd. They use it against us, a very powerful tool.The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses.GUS100CORRINA Fester Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact
I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term.
AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected.
I encourage everyone who reads this message to send a note to the SPEAKER encouraging him to do four things:
- Get on board the TRUMP/PENCE train no matter what it takes which includes eating "HUMBLE PIE".
- Go after Hillary R. Clinton and press for swift and immediate justice.
- Enforce existing laws for TREASON that are on the books.
- Do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of the American POTUS Election process. MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT.
I plan to do this today and will be sending the speaker notes and comments from ZH.
If everyone contacts the SPEAKER, he will get the POINT.
GOD's SPEED in whatever you decide to do as a CITIZEN of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.comIt was 25 years ago that Martin Scorsese delighted audiences with his movie rendition of the Jim Thompson novel, "The Grifters."
The story is an ingenious tale of deception and betrayal. By definition a grifter is someone who has made money dishonestly, in a swindle or a confidence game.
After weeks of revealing information behind the Clinton Foundation and their self-motivated fundraising tactics, there is no other word to describe the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. She's engaged in behavior that is disqualifying to be a candidate for the highest office, and yet dozens of American legislators, leaders and even media outlets have endorsed her candidacy.
She's swindled countries out of donations, she's swindled corporate America with her lofty promises and she's swindled the American people – over and over and over again.
So why now, after the knowledge that top-tier corporations and other wealthy supporters paid to meet with both the former president and the now Democratic presidential nominee should we believe that she would change her behavior to act in the best interest of the country? In fact, one could argue that this information is a window into how Clinton would rule the land. She'd have an eye out for only herself and her family, while leaving the American people - who so desperately want a change - with the same old Clinton-first approach.
Beyond her blatant disregard for the American public, Clinton's cavalier approach to national security has come into question from a myriad of angles. From the secret server in her home basement that received hundreds of confidential email communications, to the lack of response she paid to the Congress when asked about the issue, to the suggestion that she made promises to the FBI that would cause them to "look the other way" when ruling on the secret email server. And then how about the millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation took from countries that are of disrepute, not to mention those that show little concern for women's rights.
The most recent set of Clinton emails that have come to light are of such great concern to national security that the FBI has announced they will conduct a new investigation of Clinton's emails. This is just ELEVEN days before the country goes to the polls and decides on our next president.
Where has the leadership gone in this country? Since when do reputable news outlets stand behind candidates who have proven themselves over and over to be out for themselves and dangerous, even? It used to be that newspapers and legislators and leaders who speak from a platform would find themselves offering wisdom. Wisdom about which candidate was best for the job – based on the facts. Instead we find ourselves sifting through the list of endorsements for Clinton with little or no mention of her disregard for the law, her lack of concern for those she serves, and the careless nature in which she has proven herself to lead.
Now that the newspapers know better and have written about the truth in their own words, how can the media and elected officials stand by their decision to endorse her? They need to rescind their endorsement. That includes President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
In a quote from his book Thompson describes one of the characters, "Anyone who deprived her of something she wanted, deserved what he got."
Sounds all too familiar to the Democratic nominee for grifter-in-chief. If she's not changed by now, who is to say she'd be any different when she was the most powerful elected official in the United States. Once a grifter, always a grifter.
Sharon Day is the Republican National Committee Co-Chair.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.reddit.com
Wow, they clearly state Bill Clinton uses golfing to establish communication with donors
beccairene 2 points 3 points 4 points 9 hours ago (1 child)Wait, isn't golfing what Loretta Lynch claimed to have discussed with WJC on the plane?
robaloie 2 points 3 points 4 points 8 hours ago * (0 children)He also said they were talking about golf when he called Donald trump last year before trump decided to run.
"People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before." - source
Not_a_Fake 8 points 9 points 10 points 18 hours ago (0 children)Question-Are we to assume that any OTHER speaking engagements that WJC did were not because of the foundation, but from when his wife was SOS?
In total, The Wall Street Journal reports, two dozen companies and groups, plus the Abu Dhabi government, gave Bill more than $8 million for speeches, even as they were hoping for favorable treatment from Hillary's bureaucracy. And 15 of them also gave at least $5 million total to the foundation.
soupy_scoopy 113 points 114 points 115 points 1 day ago (4 children)Has this been cleared by CNN for me to view?
BigLizardz 2 points 3 points 4 points 19 hours ago (0 children)Lol I'm actually too scared to click in wikileak/dikileak links. #1984?
OldDirtyPlastered 14 points 15 points 16 points 22 hours ago (0 children)Good question. I don't want to do anything illegal.
Uncle_Touchy_ 17 points 18 points 19 points 1 day ago (0 children)You'll have to ask Downy McDaterape or whatever that anchor's name is. You know the one.
moreoverhereafter 4 points 5 points 6 points 1 day ago * (5 children)Can someone help me see the shadiness, what am I missing? unless the "foundation donors require significant maintenance to keep them engaged and supportive of the foundation" means they are giving them political favors then it just looks like the clinton foundation is accepting donations and that is it.
5pointlight [ S ] 81 points 82 points 83 points 1 day ago * (4 children)so pro-clinton sources have been propping up the Clinton Foundation for years as the pinnacle of charity while not really being able to explain where all the money goes; because it sure doesn't seem to be going to Haiti or many other charities.
This shows that they require 20 million a year to operate with 8 employees. It shows they have to raid the Clinton Global Initiative for $6M to $11M every year to cover that budget hole... so this gives credence to the suspicion that the CF is hiding money somewhere (laundering money to Clintons and friends). Also this document shows how teneo made Bill Clinton " more than $50 million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date or the $66 million in future contracts" as of 2011.
This is useful information that is probably not reflected on tax returns. Most importantly it shows that when Bill was offered a shady $8 million dollar over 2 year deal that would appear to be a conflict of interest while Hillary was Sect of State, Podesta and Band suggested hiding the money as payment for speeches. This boosts the accusation that the speeches are payments for quid pro quo.
Fake_Unicron comment score below threshold -12 points -11 points -10 points 16 hours ago (0 children)Any sources on that, like the foundation spending?
How have you compared their spending reports to those from other charities?
In contrast to your unsourced allegations:
How would the charity donations allow the CF to launder money for the donors? Any evidence or is this just guesswork auditing?
Why do you think this is "probably not reflected on tax returns"?
driusan 10 points 11 points 12 points 23 hours ago (0 children)Does any of it contradict the MOU she signed when appointed Sec State? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34993
Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 28, 2016 at 03:32 PM(So, more sloppy handling of classified material going on, looks like. Not by Hillary Clinton however.)
Bombshell email shows Huma Abedin left classified material in her CAR http://dailym.ai/2bz34lU via @MailOnline - Aug 23
Hillary Clinton's most trusted State Department aide Huma Abedin once left classified papers in the pocket behind the front seat of a staff car she was assigned in India, according to an email released Monday.
Abedin wrote to Clinton's personal assistant Lauren Jiloty on July 20, 2009 to ask her to move the material to her trunk so an ambassador wouldn't see them when he rode with her in the back seat.
She told Jiloty that the papers consisted of 'burn stuff,' indicating that they were classified documents that belonged among materials that agency rules required employees to place in 'burn bags' for incineration. ...
FBI found Clinton-related emails on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner
http://aol.it/2ejHtuo via @AOL - Oct 28
New emails the FBI is examining related to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a priva