RUTHFULLY YOURS

WASHINGTON—The State Department said Tuesday it has found approximately 30 emails from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s account that could be related to the 2012 attacks on two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

The new documents were found among the roughly 15,000 emails forensically recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from Mrs. Clinton’s personal email server as part of its investigation into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information.

Those emails were turned over to the State Department in the wake of the FBI probe, which resulted in no charges against Mrs. Clinton earlier this year. The messages are expected to be made public in the coming months.

The State Department couldn’t say how many of the 30-odd emails previously have been made public, raising the possibility that some were among the 55,000 pages of emails already provided to the State Department by Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys and released to the public. The department also couldn’t say with any certainty that the identified messages were related to the Benghazi attacks.

“Using broad search terms, we have identified approximately 30 documents potentially responsive to a Benghazi-related request. At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby.

It’s anyone’s guess where Donald Trump really stands these days on illegal immigration. Even Donald Trump may not know for certain, which is why the Republican presidential nominee apparently feels compelled to clarify his stance in a speech scheduled for Wednesday.

Given the centrality of immigration to Mr. Trump’s presidential run, this ambiguity is noteworthy. No one puzzled over where Ronald Reagan stood on tax cuts or defense spending 10 weeks before Election Day in 1980. Barack Obama’s health-care ambitions were unwavering and clear to all in August 2008. If you knew nothing else about Mr. Trump’s candidacy this year, it was that he vowed to wall off the southern border and remove every cotton-pickin’ foreign national here illegally. Until the past week or so, that is.

To be accurate, skepticism about Mr. Trump’s sincerity on deportation isn’t new. In February, BuzzFeed reported that the candidate had told the New York Times in an off-the-record interview that his views on expelling illegal immigrants were more flexible than he had let on. Asked about the story, Mr. Trump allowed that “everything’s negotiable” but declined the Times’s offer to Since then, Mr. Trump’s immigration shift has became more overt. In November he was proposing a “deportation force” to hunt down the undocumented. Last week, however, he said that giving millions of people the boot is impractical and that enforcement should focus on “the bad ones”—which is the Obama administration’s policy. For those who obey the law and contribute to society, Mr. Trump says that no citizenship should be offered and opposes “amnesty as such.” But if they “pay back taxes” he would be willing to “work with them.” Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio ought to sue for plagiarism.

The weekend brought more confusion. Mr. Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, told CNN that “there’ll be no path to legalization, no path to citizenship unless people leave the country.” But when Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was asked by Fox News whether her candidate still supported mass deportation, she answered that his approach was “softening.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Editor’s note: Frontpage’s recent article by Matthew Vadum, The Alt-Right is Coming! Hillary Shrieks, exposed the dishonest nature of Hillary’s and the Left’s slanderous attacks on Trump, Breitbart and the “Alt-Right,” revealing that the situation is far more complicated than their smear campaign would suggest. For instance, Clinton and leftists blame individuals such Richard Spencer for the Alt-Right, but it was Dr. Paul Gottfried, Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, who actually invented the term for the movement. Below we are publishing Gottfried’s account of the narrative to help clarify matters for our readers.

Last week I was reminded by a call from Associated Press that I had invented the term “Alternative Right.” When I asked about how I had accomplished that, the woman on the other end of the phone referred to a speech I had given in November 2008 in which I urged the creation of an “Alternative Right.” The same caller said that I was considered the “godfather” of what had become Altright, something that the Democratic presidential candidate would be denouncing later in the week. Thereupon I tried to explain in what modest ways I may have inspired the movement that Hillary was about to go after (namely, in a quadrennial ritual in presidential races in which the Democratic candidate accuses her GOP rival of being the second coming of Adolf Hitler).

I pointed out that Altright authors, some of whom I knew, shared my revulsion for the neoconservatives and deplored their influence on the American Right. I also noted that Altright publicists believed that modern liberal democracies had become dangerously fixated on promoting equality; and I’ve made this observation repeatedly in my books. Finally, as someone who had published entire works on the European Right in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (and most recently a book on the career of fascism as a concept), I had provided the Altright with food for thought. This was the case, even if the writers in question didn’t bother to look at my qualifying phrases.

Except for being a very occasional contributor to vdare.com, I am not exactly part of the Altright stable of writers. Recently I expressed interest in an email in writing for Breitbart, which is rumored to have some connection to Altright. Alas, I may have to wait until Hell freezes over before hearing from this website. More importantly, I couldn’t recall until a few days ago that I had spoken to fifty attendants at the H.L. Mencken Club eight years ago on the subject of the “Alternative Right.” I am president of the Mencken Club, and in November 2008 gave an inaugural address, in which I called for an “Alternative Right” to combat the high degree of neoconservative control over the intellectual Right.

This speech may have been a rousing affair, but until someone in the national news service retrieved it a few weeks ago, I had forgotten about my oration. Although I still support the project mentioned in that speech, I’ve never had the means to bring it about. Indeed, I’ve been largely marginalized by both the entire Left and most of the Right since the late 1980s. My works (perhaps we should look at the bright side) do get read but mostly in translation in Poland, Russia, Romania and other Eastern European countries. To link me to the Altright may be more of a stretch than the person from AP was aware of.

If Never Trump Republicans succeed on Election Day, Donald J. Trump will return to real estate, his political dreams shattered.

Hence, the bigger headline on Wednesday, November 9, would read: hillary clinton elected 45th president. Neither independent Evan McMullin, nor the Green party’s Jill Stein, nor Libertarian Gary Johnson will leapfrog Clinton and Trump to win the White House. So, ipso facto, Never Trump = President Hillary Clinton. Full stop.

A President Hillary Clinton would be Obama with a work ethic. Rather than slacking off on putting greens, she will dedicate her impressive work ethic to turbocharging Obama’s policies, America be damned. Thus, here is some of what to expect if Never Trump triumphs:

Hillary Clinton would appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court. If she only replaces the late Antonin Scalia with a liberal, the 5–4 center-right high court will go 5–4 center-left. And if, among justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas, one or more departs, Clinton would shift the Court even farther left. On issue after issue, the Supremes consequently would order less liberty and more government. They would be eager to reverse the Heller and Citizens United cases and thus jeopardize gun rights and non-union political speech.

Also, scores of Clinton’s judicial appointees would use their federal trial and appeals courtrooms to apply her statist legal philosophy for life.

“We are going to start immediately on comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship,” Clinton recently promised. From illegal aliens to the lightly vetted Syrian refugees that America’s Angela Merkel would vacuum into the U.S., Clinton would convert these individuals as swiftly as possible into freshly minted Democratic voters. Republicans will find it even harder to win elections as Clinton builds a permanent Democratic majority.

To that end, Clinton’s Justice Department would double down on Obama’s war on voter ID and other ballot-integrity measures. This would expand opportunities for pro-Democrat vote fraud and rigged elections. Good luck, GOP candidates.

Clinton ignored the candidate questionnaire from the 335,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police. “I was disappointed and shocked,” the cops’-union president, Chuck Canterbury, told The Hill. This exposes Clinton’s cold shoulder towards blue lives, even as 2016’s shooting deaths of police officers have climbed 61 percent through August 25, compared to the same period in 2015, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Clinton likely would turn her back on cops, even as they increasingly endure bull’s-eyes on theirs.

“I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act,” Clinton declared. “That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic party, and of our country.” Rather than a temporary aberration, Obamacare would become permanent — unless Clinton transforms it into full-blown, single-payer, socialized medicine.