Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

POLITICS Comments turned off

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath

By on October 15th, 2016

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released received responses under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Judicial Watch submitted twenty-five questions on August 30 to Clinton as ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

The new Clinton responses in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan was first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

Judicial Watch has already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.

Below is text from the document filed with the court today:

NON-PARTY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON’S RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to the Court’s August 19, 2016 order and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Non-Party Hillary Rodham Clinton hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories dated August 30, 2016. The General Objections and the Objections to the Definitions set forth below are incorporated into each of the specific responses that follow. Any specific objections are in addition to the General Objections and Objections to the Definitions, and failure to reiterate a General Objection or Objection to the Definitions does not constitute a waiver of that or any other objection.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that any discovery of Secretary Clinton is unwarranted in this case, for the reasons set forth in Secretary Clinton’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #102) and Surreply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #109), and as stated by Secretary Clinton’s counsel during the Court hearing on July 18, 2016. Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories notwithstanding this objection, subject to the other objections stated herein.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case. The Court permitted discovery of Secretary Clinton on the topics of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business,” as well as “the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s e-mails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.” Dkt. #124, at 14, 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories insofar as they seek non-privileged information related to those topics.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information relating to events that occurred, or actions taken by Secretary Clinton, after her tenure as Secretary of State. Such post-tenure actions or events are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about Secretary Clinton’s use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails that were personal in nature, as such use is not within the scope of the permitted topics set forth in General Objection No. 2. Secretary Clinton will construe the Interrogatories to ask only about her use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails related to State Department business.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records. This action arises under FOIA, which does not govern management, retention, or preservation of federal records. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980). Accordingly, management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.

Secretary Clinton objects to Instruction No. 1 insofar as it purports to require Secretary Clinton to provide information that is not within her personal knowledge. The purpose of the limited discovery permitted by the Court is to obtain Secretary Clinton’s “personal knowledge of her purpose in using the [clintonemail.com] system.” Dkt. #124, at 16; see also id. at (directing Plaintiff “to propound questions that are relevant to Secretary Clinton’s unique first-hand knowledge”). Secretary Clinton is answering these Interrogatories based on her direct personal knowledge. She is not undertaking to provide information known only to other persons, including but not limited to her attorneys, representatives, persons acting under, by, or through her, or subject to her control or supervision, or other persons acting on her behalf.

Secretary Clinton objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the production of information that is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. Secretary Clinton will respond only to the extent privileged or otherwise protected information is not required and to the extent that the Interrogatory is not otherwise objectionable.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Trump and the Emasculated Voter There’s only one way to protect the nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump. David Gelernter

By on October 15th, 2016

Some conservatives have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk. If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.

In his Mr. Nauseating video of last weekend, Mr. Trump showed us that he had all the class and cool of a misbegotten 12-year-old boy. Yet the video taught us nothing; no one had ever mistaken him for anything but an infantile vulgarian. This week’s allegations of actual abuse are different. If these stories are true (and I don’t know why they shouldn’t be), there is nothing to be said for Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, there is nothing to be said for Mrs. Clinton either. If we don’t take both facts into account, we are not morally serious.

Mrs. Clinton has nothing on Mr. Trump when it comes to character. She lies (“Wipe? Like with a cloth?”—cute and charming Mrs. C.) the way basketball stars shoot baskets—constantly, nonstop, because it’s the one thing she is best at and (naturally) it gives her pleasure to hear herself lie—swish!—right onto the evening news. And her specialist talent of all is the verbal kick in the groin of a Secret Service man or state trooper who has the nerve to talk to her as if she were merely human. She is no mere rock star; she is Hillary the Queen. She is so big, and you are so small, she can barely even see you from up there. What are you? A macromolecule?

I’ll vote for Mr. Trump—grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have chosen to toss through the window. The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.

Mr. Obama is arch, patronizing, so magnificently weary of having to explain it all, again and again, to the dummies surrounding him. Mrs. Clinton has told us proudly how thoroughly she prepared for the first debate and has prepared to be president. For her, it is all a matter of learning your lines. Her whole life has been memorized in advance. Mr. Obama is at least sincere. Mrs. Clinton is as phony as a three-dollar bill, as a Clinton Global Initiative.

Mr. Obama has governed like a third-rate tyrant. He’s been a stern baby sitter to an American public that is increasingly getting on his nerves. ObamaCare and the Iran treaty are his big achievements. That the public has always disliked them, and hates them worse as it knows them better, strikes him as so unspeakably irrelevant; he doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Do you ask 6-year-olds if they like going to school? Luckily, a few grown-ups have been set over the public to keep it in line. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

The Rigged Debates The Commission on Presidential Debates systematically screws over Republicans — but especially one named Donald Trump. Matthew Vadum

By on October 14th, 2016

After three decades of political atrocities perpetrated against Republicans it is clear that the allegedly neutral Commission on Presidential Debates is irredeemably corrupt.

No one knows this better than GOP candidate Donald Trump who has been abused and undermined by the commission’s corrupt practices and unfair policies in both debates so far. It is no coincidence that the commission itself is filled with Hillary Clinton supporters and anti-Trump Republicans.

First there was moderator Lester Holt’s prosecutor-style approach to interacting with Trump at the first debate, asking ideologically loaded questions that conformed to the Left’s agenda, cutting him off repeatedly, and arguing with him, while treating Democrat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves. In the second debate moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper tag-teamed Trump with some success.

Trump attacked the commission during a Wednesday campaign rally in Ocala, Florida. His speech served as a desperately needed reminder that it is well past time to drive a stake through the heart of this powerful tool of the nation’s political establishment whose Washington, D.C. headquarters, quite appropriately, is mere blocks from K Street, the public thoroughfare synonymous with lobbying and the corruption that so often accompanies it.

Conservatives hardly need to be reminded how roughly and unfairly the commission-selected debate moderators have treated Republican candidates over the years.

The most infamous incident at the debates in decades took place at the debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney in 2012 that was moderated by Candy Crowley. Republicans looked on in stunned disbelief and horror when Crowley fact-checked a claim Romney made about Obama and got it wrong, thus unfairly negating Romney’s attack.

Many people including this writer believe Romney was set up by the Obama campaign and Crowley, perhaps with the connivance of the commission.

Romney said, “I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Gropers and Rapists for Hillary Champions of abusing women. Daniel Greenfield

By on October 14th, 2016

“I am asking you to join me in supporting Bob Filner for Mayor,” the sleazy voice of Bill Clinton on the answering machine greeted San Diego residents. “As President, I worked with Bob.” During her first run for the White House, Hillary Clinton said that she looked forward to working with Filner.

Filner had impeccable credentials. His father was a Communist and he had been a Freedom Rider and a member of the Progressive Caucus. His ties to the Clintons went back a long way and he had passionately spoken out in defense of President Clinton during the impeachment debate.

He even had all the right left-wing “street” connections from J Street to Occupy Wall Street.

Planned Parenthood accused his Republican opponent of being part of the “War on Women” and claimed that, “For twenty years, Bob Filner has defended women… our right to choice, our right to healthcare, our right to equal pay.”

Bob Filner, like Bill Clinton, was also a serial sexual predator. His victims included a 67-year old grandmother and sexual assault victims who had come to him seeking help. He locked his executive assistant in the kitchen and demanded that they “make love.” His favorite move involved putting the women he targeted in a headlock.

Bill Clinton’s nickname was “Slick Willie.” Bob Filner’s was “Filthy Filner.” It wasn’t hard to see why Bill had backed Bob. Bill’s own idea of romance looked a lot like Bob’s. The stories told by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, Bill’s accusers, bear a striking similarity to those of Bob’s accusers.

While Bill’s history of sexual assault is widely known, the Clintons have always been comfortable with sexual predators. Hillary Clinton described Senator Ted Kennedy, who had murdered one woman and assaulted many more, as a “champion for women.” One woman recalls being “championed” by Ted Kennedy as he threw her onto a table, breaking glass and crystal, before molesting her. The other member of that party, Senator Chris Dodd, recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s website boasts that she “collaborated closely with Senator Chris Dodd.” Probably not as closely as his victims.

Hillary’s champions for women are more likely to be champions of abusing women.

But Hillary has always been cold-blooded when it comes to her political allies abusing women. When Senator Bob Packwood, a pro-abortion Republican who won the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, got in trouble for groping women, Hillary complained about his accusers. “HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” a friend of Hillary’s wrote.

A few years ago, Joe Biden praised Packwood at the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum as the good kind of Republican. Considering Biden’s creepy history of touching women, that’s not surprising. But, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of Packwood’s left-wing allies, “The feminists tried to protect him at first… even though he had the hilarious gall to jump on an abortion lobbyist.”

Just as they had tried to protect Bill Clinton, Bob Filner, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and so many others. Joe Biden’s own creepy habits have been fondly joked about in the media. Just Joe being Joe.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

The Clinton Record A devastating exposé of the most unfit and undeserving individual ever to seek the American presidency. John Perazzo

By on October 14th, 2016

“In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is a woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect. To make matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed criminal without a shred of personal virtue. Truly it can be said that never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving, run for president. Never.”

Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.

Clinton’s Private Email Server & the Espionage Act

Throughout her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton never acquired or used a government email account. Instead, she transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official correspondences via a private email address that traced back to a secret, private, unsecured server that was housed at her New York residence.1 And immediately after those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, Clinton instructed a team of her advisers to unilaterally delete, with no oversight, almost 32,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in question.2

Clinton claimed that her reason for having used only a personal email account, rather than both a personal and a government account, was that she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”3 It was eventually learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton in fact had used no fewer than 13 mobile devices to access emails on her private server, but the FBI was unable to obtain any of those devices in its investigation, in some cases because Clinton aides had been instructed to smash them with a hammer.4

Clinton originally assured Americans that not even one piece of classified material had ever been transmitted via her unsecured, secret, personal server. But now it is known that at least 2,079 emails that she sent or received via that server, contained classified material.5 As the eminent broadcaster and legal scholar Mark Levin has made plain, each of those 2,079 offenses constituted a felonious violation of Section 793 of the Espionage Act.6 And each violation was punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years.7

In January 2016, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “the odds are pretty high” that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised Clinton’s unsecured email server.8

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she of course respects women deeply. In fact, she respects all people, including the 315 million Americans whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs. Clinton willfully allowed top-secret information to wind up in the possession of our country’s most hostile enemies around the world.

The Clinton Foundation Scandals

In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”9

As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10 Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon;11 the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12 the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13 a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14 and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15

Even during Clinton’s tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.

Bill Clinton earned a total of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees during his wife’s term as secretary.16

In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton’s 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with Mrs. Clinton.17

In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.18

But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for needy people around the world, doesn’t it? Well, according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and “other expenses.”19 In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.

Clinton’s Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Free the FBI 100! By Roger L Simon

By on October 14th, 2016

For those concerned above all with what’s left of the rule of law in our republic, the most important dispatch of this nauseating campaign season has been Fox News’ “FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider.”

Many of you may have read the first few paragraphs of this article before, but they’re worth reading again for purposes of discussion:

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

The article continues:

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

So one anonymous insider said it was unanimous that Hillary should be prosecuted and a “high-ranking official” said the “vast majority” felt that way. Whichever is accurate, there were more than a hundred agents and analysts working with six lawyers on the case, but let’s round that off to an even 100.

What’re we to do about all those agents, analysts and lawyers who are not allowed to speak their minds and tell the American public they serve what they think about what happened?

It’s not the Chicago 7 who need to be freed this time. The situation has flipped. It’s the forces of law and order — the FBI 100.

Continue reading →
MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record. By Kimberley A. Strassel

By on October 14th, 2016

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”

A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she’d done wrong. “Everyone wants her to apologize,” wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. “And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles’ heel.”

Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.

A senior FBI official involved with the Clinton investigation told Fox News this week that the “vast majority” of career agents and prosecutors working the case “felt she should be prosecuted” and that giving her a pass was “a top-down decision.”

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

What Is Paul Ryan Thinking? The House speaker could have left Trump alone rather than stab him in the back. By Deroy Murdock

By on October 13th, 2016

Having suffered the political equivalent of a blown tire while driving along an icy mountain road on Friday night, GOP nominee Donald J. Trump stabilized a seemingly fatal situation by Sunday evening. Through his commanding, issue-driven performance against Hillary Clinton in the second presidential debate, Trump steered his vehicle into a turnout. He replaced the flat with a new steel-belted radial and readied himself to return to the challenging road ahead.

But on Monday morning, House speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) raced in, slashed Trump’s tire anew, and nudged him toward the closest cliff.

Ryan could have left things alone, with Trump’s Access Hollywood tape receding in the rear-view mirror. Instead, Ryan donned his peacock feathers for an especially flamboyant display of moral preening.

Ryan erased the gap that Trump had placed between his candidacy and this controversy. Rather than let it be, Ryan dragged this whole episode back into the middle of the road.

During a conference call with GOP House members on Monday, Ryan reportedly announced that he neither would defend Trump nor campaign with him between now and Election Day. Naturally, pro-Clinton journalists (forgive the redundancy) fanned this hot coal into a forest fire.

Ryan could maintain his perch atop the moral high ground and do so quietly. He simply could go about his business and avoid Trump’s events. He could respond to journalists’ questions about the GOP nominee with bromides such as “I wish Donald Trump well and look forward to winning a larger House Republican majority on the night he wins the White House.”

This would have maintained peace on the right.

Instead, the day after Trump’s solid debate effort became the new narrative, Ryan needlessly fathered the unprecedented phenomenon of a Republican standard-bearer and a Republican speaker in open warfare with each other — just four weeks before a general election.

More than merely foolish politics, this episode exposes the reputedly level-headed Ryan as truly, deeply morally warped.

Everyone agrees that Trump’s comments about women (including references to female genitalia) were disappointing and inappropriate. Trump apologized for them twice before the latest debate and did so again at Sunday’s face-off against Clinton.

“This was locker-room talk,” Trump told a town hall in St. Louis. “I am not proud of it. I apologized to my family. I apologized to the American people. . . . I am very embarrassed by it, and I hate it, but it’s locker-room talk.”

(Remember: Trump’s words from 2005 are at issue here, not his actions. Conversely, Bill Clinton’s actual behavior somehow is no big deal. Journalists, feminists, and Democrats seem utterly uninterested in his sexual shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky, his widely acknowledged sexual harassment of Paula Jones, his alleged sexual assault of Kathleen Willey, and even a very credible accusation of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.)

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Saudi Arabia and Qatar Bankroll ISIS — and the Clinton Foundation How Hillary welcomed money from those she knew to be funding jihadist killers. Joseph Klein

By on October 13th, 2016

WikiLeaks released an August 2014 e-mail from Hillary Clinton to John Podesta, who currently serves as her campaign chairman, stating that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” Evidently President Obama has not heeded Hillary’s concern, or chose to ignore it. In December 2014, Obama praised Saudi Arabia’s significant role in helping to fight ISIL (also known as ISIS and the Islamic State) during a meeting in Washington with the Kingdom’s Minister of Interior Prince Mohammed Bin Naif Bin Abdulaziz. And at a meeting he hosted with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, at the White House in February 2015, Obama said, “Qatar is a strong partner in our coalition to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.”

Putting aside Obama’s state of denial, which has characterized his whole approach in dealing with the Middle East mess he helped to create, the information in Hillary’s e-mail is not particularly surprising. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been playing us for years, pretending to be allies in countering terrorism while actually helping to advance the terrorists’ jihadist agenda. For starters, Saudi Arabian government front groups and individuals linked to the government have been implicated in possible involvement with the al Qaeda 9/11 attacks on our homeland. A member of the Qatari royal family, Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani who headed Qatar’s ministry of Interior until 2013, is said by American intelligence services to have tipped off the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed back in 1996 when he was already under indictment on terrorist charges, as FBI agents were closing in on Mohammed while he was in Qatar. In addition, ABC reported, based on statements from U.S. intelligence officials, that “bin Laden himself visited Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani in Qatar between the years of 1996 and 2000.” Both countries’ funding of ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq are just a continuation of this long pattern.

What makes Hillary’s e-mail noteworthy is the irony that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and groups aligned with them, have not only been major funders of ISIS and other jihadist organizations, as she indicated, but they also have been big funders of the Clinton Foundation for years. Hillary has had no trouble taking money for her foundation from regimes that fund terrorists, oppress women, execute or imprison gays and apostates, and severely punish the exercise of free speech.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

For President, Vote for the Judiciary and for America By Dov Fischer

By on October 13th, 2016

So let me understand this

Bill Clinton sexually frolicked with Gennifer Flowers, apparently sexually abused Paula Corbin (paying her an $850,000 litigation settlement) and Kathleen Willey. Leveraged his workplace supervisory position over Monica Lewinsky to convert the Oval Office into a sexually hostile workplace environment, even as he gazed into her gullible eyes, inter alia, and promised that he would divorce Hillary and would marry Lewinsky after his presidency. If we are to believe the accuser — as Hillary tells us we must — he raped Juanita Broaddrick. Ultimately, the state bar of Arkansas disbarred Bill Clinton for perjury.

Bill Clinton is the modern-day hero of the Democrat Party. He appears as the star of the Democrat convention every four years. His words inspire Democrats. He is legend. The mainstream media cannot praise and glorify him enough. Hillary Clinton sends him on the campaign trail to stump for her, to speak for her. His word, his endorsement, is sacrosanct.

And yet he has been a serial sexual abuser for decades — “because [he] could.” Alongside him, always defending him and thereby assuring her own continued access to power, to serve her own voracious ambitions, Hillary Clinton actively helped destroy women victims who spoke out.

Suddenly now the same mainstream media, who have found no one more suited in character and temperament for the presidency than Bill Clinton, instruct us that Donald Trump contrarily is disqualified for the presidency because a “hot mic” eleven years ago caught him ogling and boasting disgustingly about sexual exploits?

It is impossible not to be disgusted with all of these characters. We are mired in a kakistocracy of epic proportions. Trump with his bizarre ego, the insults and calumny and falsifications and exaggerations that have allowed others to puncture the urgently important and pure message that he repeatedly has compromised as its leading messenger. Even more, Hillary Clinton with her congenital lying, to the point of lying about why she was named “Hillary.” She inspires no trust in its most absolute vacuum. Travelgate. Rose Law Firm billing records. Cattle Futures. Lincoln Bedroom. Missing White House furniture. Leaving the White House “broke” and emerging a Top One Percenter, worth hundreds of millions without building a thing but instead selling access and influence to government contracts and regulations, while delivering 15-minute backroom “speeches” at $225,000 a pop to Wall Street insiders.

Continue reading →