Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

As More Info is Revealed About Obama’s “Weaponized” FBI, It Becomes Clear Why Bill Clinton and AG Lynch Met on the Tarmac

January 22, 2018

 

lynch-998x699

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

TheHill.com reports that

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey’s 2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
 
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch’s earlier commitment to accept Comey’s recommendation — a commitment she made under the pretense that the two were not coordinating with each other.
 
And it gets worse. Corey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
 
On July 1, 2016, as the Lynch announcement became public, Page texted Strzok:

Page: And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.

There are other revelations within the text messages. But in the cover letter accompanying them, the FBI notified Congress that many additional text messages are missing. According to the FBI, its “technical system for retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page from December 14, 2016 to approximately to [sic] May 17, 2017.”
 
The reason?

(M)any FBI-provided Samsung 5 mobile devices did not capture or store text messages due to misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities. The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected.

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray sent yesterday, the head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, called the loss of records “concerning.”
 
Strzok and Page communicated in a voluminous fashion via text message while allegedly having an illicit affair. Strzok was a key figure in the Hillary Clinton exoneration and reportedly interviewed President Trump’s former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (which resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI). Until last summer, Strzok and Page were both members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating the allegations of collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Neither has been accused of wrongdoing.
 
The text messages seem to indicate that some within the FBI were making investigatory decisions based on Trump’s ascendancy among the Republican field of presidential candidates. On May 4, 2016 Strzok and Page had the following text message exchange:

Page: And holy shit Cruz just dropped out of the race. It’s going to be a Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable.
 
Strzok: What?!?!??
 
Page: You heard it right my friend.
 
Strzok: I saw trump won, figured it would be a bit…Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE…
 
Page: It sure does. We need to talk about follow up call tomorrow.

“MYE” stands for “midyear exam” and was the FBI case name for the Clinton email investigation.
 
The text exchanges also indicate the FBI substituted, and then omitted, damaging language in FBI Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement that recommended Clinton not be charged. The original draft noted that Clinton had improperly used personal email to contact President Obama while abroad in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. According to the text exchange, an FBI official then removed President Obama’s name and stated that Clinton had simply emailed “another senior government official.” In the final statement as delivered by Comey on July 5, both references were omitted entirely.
 
Other texts suggest Strzok and Page intended to subvert rules governing preservation of their discussions about FBI matters. In April of 2016, Page texted:

Page: so look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced…

In previous text messages produced to the House of Representatives, Strzok and Page discussed needing an “insurance policy” in the event Trump were to become president. The newest batch of text messages turned over on Friday show that in February of 2016, Page texted Strzok that then-candidate Trump “simply can not [sic] be president.”
 
Any neutral observer would have to be concerned about supposed missing evidence from a premier law enforcement and intel collection agency as well as the types of discussions and conflicts of interest apparently at issue with key officials within the FBI. It’s one more piece of a developing story that unfortunately points to alleged misconduct by some at top levels in our intelligence community. If the allegations bear out, it could have huge implications for a number of investigations handled by the officials in question over the past decade — not just cases related to the 2016 campaign.
 
The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

You’d better believe that Lynch knew ahead of time that Clinton would not be charged.

Remember a certain “Tarmac Meeting” between Former President Bill “Bubba” Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch which happened on June 27, 2016?

That meeting occurred just hours before Department of Justice Officials filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.

The next morning I wrote,

“Now, why would someone as smart as Bill Clinton, the former president of United States of America comma and attorney general Loretta Lynch, have a meeting that has such an appearance of impropriety?”

At the time, I thought that there were several possibilities.

After the revelations from the new documents released last Friday, I believe that it is patently clear why Bubba met with AG Lynch in that jet idling on the tarmac.

FoxNews.com reported some additional information about that clandestine meeting in an article posted on December 1, 2017…

The revelation last year of an unorthodox tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch set off a frenzied scramble at the FBI to track down the source, newly released documents show. 

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which on Thursday released 29 pages of FBI emails related to the 2016 meeting, said the messages show officials were more concerned about the leak than the substance of the report. 

“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. 

The FBI initially claimed it had no documents pertaining to the meeting, until uncovering the files later turned over to Judicial Watch. 

The watchdog group, in releasing the files, said FBI officials sent a flurry of emails after the meeting was reported in New York’s Observer.

One email sent from an unidentified FBI account on July 3, 2016 said, “We need to find that guy” and bring him or her before a supervisor. Another said the source should be banned from working security details. 

Officials speculated that the source of the leak was a Phoenix police officer. One official said they contacted the Phoenix office and would try to “stem any further damage.” 

One official, in a July 2 email, said the article represented a “breach in security protocol” and the Phoenix division would be pressured to “identify the source of the breach.” 

Judicial Watch said all names on the emails were redacted and there is no documentation showing concern over the meeting itself.

The tarmac meeting fueled Republican complaints at the time that Lynch had improperly met with the husband of an investigation subject, just before the probe into Hillary Clinton’s personal email use was completed with no charges filed.

Fired FBI Director James Comey, in Senate testimony, described the tarmac meeting as problematic. The tarmac meeting came days before Comey held a news conference informing the media that Hillary Clinton would not be charged.

Comey in July 2016 said Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling classified and other emails on the servers but recommend no criminal charges — a conclusion Lynch accepted.

Lynch later expressed regret that she sat down with Bill Clinton while his wife was under federal criminal investigation, a chance encounter she acknowledged “cast a shadow” on the public’s perception of a case bound to influence the presidential campaign.

“I certainly wouldn’t do it again,” Lynch said of the meeting.

Well, gosh, gentle readers. I wonder why the FBI was more worried about the source of the leak than they were about the impropriety of the meeting, itself?

Well, duuuuh.

It’s because the FBI had orchestrated it with the Clintons.

It was a strategy session.

With these new revelations contained in the documents released last Friday Night, the probability of the existence of a weaponized FBI being used to keep Donald J. Trump from becoming President while protecting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton has solidified into a certainty.

I mean just look at how the dominoes are lining up in place, ready to all be toppled over.

While this Russian Collusion Probe has been traveling around throwing up a smoke screen like a clown car in a circus, Former President Barack Hussein Obama has been traveling overseas, meeting with foreign leaders as if he never left office. And, on top of that, he has been denigrating President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, undermining their Foreign Affairs Strategy.

Obama is desperately trying to ensure that his mission to turn the Greatest Country on the Face of the Earth into a Third World Socialist Paradise is not derailed by the unexpected loss of his hand-picked predecessor to a “Citizen Statesman”.

Additionally, you have a Former Nazi Sympathizer, now a Billionaire “Philanthropist”, funding Far Left Causes.

Faced with the reality of a splintered Democratic Party, which has alienated its base by moving to the Extreme Far Left of the Political Spectrum, this Former President , while still in office, decided to spy on the one candidate who might actually have a chance to beat his own party’s lousy candidate in a fair Presidential Election, through the means of “weaponizing” the FBI and turning it into a “Political Hit Squad”, making the days of J. Edgar Hoover’s political shenanigans seem mild in comparison.

After all that political chicanery failed and the Citizen Statesman became the President, the Former Petulant President Pantywaist encouraged “rebellion”, as if the reality of a nation being torn asunder was some sort of “Star Wars” Movie, through the use of his “benefactor’s”(the Former Nazi Sympathizer) money in the funding of manufactured protests and a Media-Driven, Community -Organizing Assault, which includes the Former President’s own “Organizing For America” Website, which has taken the cheesy name of “The Resistance”.

Not unlike the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution, this “Resistance”, with their willing accomplices in the Main Stream Media and within OUR Federal Government, launched a massive assault, through the dissemination of propaganda, manufactured protests, and Fake News, in order to somehow diminish the sitting President, in the hopes of regaining their lost power and continuing their mission, inspired by Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky.

Unfortunately for them, they underestimated the power of the New Media and the resiliency of the average American, here in the Heartland, who stopped believing their lies some time ago.

Meanwhile, Mueller and his cadre of Liberal SS Troops continued to undermine Trump through the continuance of their Dog and Pony Show, which they euphemistically called “an investigation”.

The more that Mueller and his troops insisted that they were non-biased, the more information came forth that they have been and still are holdovers from the Clinton Administration, working as Deep State Operatives to do unto Trump as Brutus did unto Caesar.

They have proved themselves to be nothing but Trump Haters with no actual evidence of any kind that President Trump “colluded” with the Russians.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress have yet to present any sort of bill which is beneficial to average Americans.

And now, they have foolishly shut down the government in a phony “defense of The Dreamers”, weakening the momentum of their “Resistance” and strengthening the resolve of both the sitting President and the average Americans who voted him into office, against all odds.

It is time to release the “Kraken”…otherwise known as “The Memo”, a 4-page document which is supposed to illuminate the activities of the Obama Administration and their Deep State Operatives in a manner which will leave no doubt as to corrupt and treasonous activities which were carried out by the Obama Administration and their Deep State Operatives in the FBI in an effort to circumvent the will of the American People.

It is not just time to “drain” The Swamp.

It’s time to FLUSH it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Advertisements

Sh-thole, Indeed: A Look Back at The Clinton Foundation Haitian Relief Scam – A KJ Sunday Special Report

January 14, 2018

042415_an_baier2_640

In a private meeting with members of Congress earlier this week, President Donald J. Trump used harsh language in questioning the existing policy of allowing chain migration from devastated third-world countries, such as Haiti, whose population often do not have the skills, nor the ambition, to be productive citizens when they are allowed into our Sovereign Nation.

Needless to say, once his comments were leaked out by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, the Democrats all had a nationwide screaming hissy fit.

The problem with that is, at least part of the reason for the wretched condition that Haiti is in, can be directly linked to two of the Democrats’ idols whom they have put on a pedestal for years.

This fact has not gone unnoticed by those who pay attention to such things.

Err…like myself…

And, one of these “idols” has lashed back against the criticism.

On July 18, 2016, Townhall.com posted the following…

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article is excerpted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party”.

In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Drood Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.”

Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute.

The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States.

Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation.

The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.”

I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way.

Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world. Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.

The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.

For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for.

Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable.

The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons.

Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.”

InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks.

The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan.

Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality, no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have been taken over by squatters.

THE SCHOOLS THEY NEVER BUILT

USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S. trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation. For example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-building activity.” The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, ‘built’ is a term with a very loose interpretation.

USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative. A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding.

Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion.

The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy — and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti.

In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian market. The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S. taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians.

Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile program. By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the cell-phone market in Haiti.

Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011.

Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams.

In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton — 100,000 new jobs in Haiti. The project was funded by the U.S. government and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single allocation of U.S. relief aid.

Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property. Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated. Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built. Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work, but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers around 40 percent.

The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged. But former Haitian prime minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still, Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the benefits.

Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22 million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him.

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times. “I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million personally on the deal. Unfortunately, his application didn’t go through.

Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and prison guard.

The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value. They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50 years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to the company that had hired Hillary’s brother. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority.

The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to exploit the Haitian people.”

Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as these projects match their own private economic interests. They have steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit to themselves.

No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters. Each time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen. They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR.

For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party.

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, I would probably be underestimating its impact if I said that it was the Biggest Pay-For-Play scheme ever cooked up by a husband and wife Political Team in American History.

Per discoverthenetworks.org,

By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley…CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland’s Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.” [Reuters, 3/19/15]

However, it was not just governments who sent money to the Clintons through their Foundation, as was noted by Dinesh D’Souza, in the excerpt from his book seen above.

Again, according to discoverthenetworks.org…

* “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows. Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]

* During Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, “More than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation… collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million…. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]

With the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians or the formation of an Iranian Connection, as a result of money given to the Clinton Foundation,  as was previously reported in 2015, or the later revelation involving “dual-staffer” Cheryl Mills, “FoundationGate” caught the attention of the American Public as a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors”, the actions of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of a Conflict of Interest involving possible Treason.

Time and time again, from Watergate to Travelgate to Benghazigate, and most recently with E-mailgate and the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton has proven to be a ruthless, untrustworthy, Machiavellian professional politician, who only cared about herself and her planned ascension to the Presidency of the United States of America.

And what about her philandering husband, Former President of the United States of America, Bill “Bubba” Clinton?

Do you believe him when he claimed in his tweet yesterday that none of the money used for daughter Chelsea’s Weeding came from the Clinton Foundation?

Just remember…

After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term.

So, Dinesh D’Souza’s detailing of the Clinton Foundation Haitian Relief Scam and the Clinton’s role in it should surprise no one.

The Democrats’ had better wise up and move on past President Trump’s comments about Haiti’s wretched condition.

They are, at least in part, responsible for it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

America’s Pharisees: Liberals and the Main Street Media Judge Christians Who Support Moore to be “Immoral” – A KJ Sunday Morning Reflection

November 19, 2017

untitled (191)

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” – Matthew 23: 1-3

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t.” – Senator Al Franken (D- Minn.)

Newsbusters.org reports that

They began the week-in-review segment on Friday’s PBS NewsHour with the Al Franken groping scandal, and both liberal Mark Shields and pseudoconservative David Brooks felt that Franken’s offense was minor compared to the Roy Moores and Bill Clintons…and Donald Trumps.

Brooks repeated his recent Charlie Rose line that Clinton’s impunity in these matters in the 1990s created a hostile environment for all women – and then added a new spin for “balance.” Christian defenders of Roy Moore at this point are practicing “idolatry” and are simply “heretics,” he proclaimed.

“DAVID BROOKS: If I could add one thing on the — first on the Clinton thing, I think it’s — we just have to look back and say the people who ignored the testimony of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick helped set the stage for this. And the Democrats who defended Clinton in those cases, they helped set the atmosphere for what we’re seeing and for the behavior that Harvey Weinstein and the rest can get away with.

The second thing to be said is, there is a word for what defenders of Roy Moore are doing, the people who said they were vote for him nonetheless, and — well, two words. One word is idolatry, and the other word is heresy, because the people who are putting — who are going to sacrifice morality for politics are making an idol out of politics.

They’re saying politics is higher than morality. And no honest person can possibly believe that. And if you’re putting politics above personal morality, above the way we treat each other, above the nature of your own soul, you’re just — you’re making an idol out of it. And that is the ultimate in heresy. And to see — I saw a tweet from Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, defending Moore, you know, sort of, oh, they’re all a bunch of hypocrites up there. It’s just appalling. It’s just — it’s almost mind-boggling that people who — especially people who have been steeped in any faith could make this kind of fundamental error, which is warned against again and again in the Bible, and to be heretics. They’re heretics.”

One can understand the “making an idol out of politics” part, but “heresy” means something different to religious folks than it does to David Brooks. It means a false teaching against the core teachings of Christianity, a rejection of orthodoxy. He’s not exactly separating church and state on the special election. Personally, I think the charges against Moore are serious enough that I would withhold my vote from him. But a Christian could look at the two choices left on the ballot and say if I need a Senator to vote against abortion, against the LGBT agenda, and for religious liberty, one cannot vote for the Democrat. That would be closer to a heretical vote, if we’re buying the Brooks definition. 

Franklin Graham spoke to Roy Moore on the phone, and is accepting Moore’s denials of wrongdoing. He tweeted “The hypocrisy of Washington has no bounds. So many denouncing Roy Moore when they are guilty of doing much worse than what he has been accused of supposedly doing. Shame on those hypocrites.” This drew angry tweets from CNN’s Jake Tapper and Andrew Kaczynski. But on its face, if Rev. Graham is talking about the Clintons and their defenders, then he has a point. The Broaddrick rape charge is a very serious charge that a vast majority of liberal journalists have dismissed as fake news for decades — which makes them look hypocritical on Moore. 

(No one at PBS is going to bring up how Brooks dumped his wife of 28 years to marry his researcher, Anne Snyder, 23 years his junior. So he’s nobody’s moral teacher.) 

On Franken, Shields admitted that “for a party that has based an awful lot of its appeal on identity politics, that we are the women’s party, that we believe in women’s rights, that we respect women, and that Republicans don’t, this is a body blow. And Al Franken has been a major fund-raiser for Democrats, and he has been an aggressive inquisitor on committees and — representing the Democrats. So, I think it is serious.”

But then substitute anchor Hari Sreenivasan noted Trump had tweeted against Franken, so “Does this at this point open him up to a line of criticism, saying, well, if this is what you’re going to say about this person that was accused of misconduct, what about the 15 or so women who have publicly come out against you?” Shields unloaded on the president as a draft dodger and shameless smear artist:

“MARK SHIELDS: Well, I guess I should not be surprised that somebody who found a friendly family podiatrist in 1968 to avoid the military draft and to not serve his country in Vietnam, and then went on to attack and disparage the heroic service of John McCain, who spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, and saw no inconsistency in that hypocrisy, indefensibility, morality — morally about what he did, I shouldn’t be surprised that he, facing charges — having pledged that he was going to sue these women who had accused him of sexual harassment, sexual molestation and worse, and never having initiated any kind of action, never having responded to them, would go after Al Franken and duck the Roy Moore matter.

I mean, why he’d want to — it just invites the replaying of the “Access Hollywood” tape and his own how-to manual on how to molest women and how, if you’re rich and powerful, women are irresistible or indefensible to what you do. I mean, so, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. But, still, he does surprise me from time to time on his shamelessness. He’s a shameless man.”
 
Nowhere in this PBS discussion is there any questioning the timing or the liberal tilt of The Washington Post, who for whatever reason couldn’t locate these charges until the very convenient (for Democrats) time that Alabama could not change the ballot. There was no reflection by Brooks that the Post sat on its Juanita Broaddrick story in 1999 — as did NBC News — until Bill Clinton was safely spared in a Senate impeachment trial. So are they hypocrites, or heretics? Once again, the press doesn’t discuss its own political manuevering. 

Have you ever heard the old expression “One lies and the other swears to it.”?

Whoever came up with it must have had today’s Democratic Party and Main Stream Media in mind.

In the case of Judge Roy Moore, as I have archived in a previous post, he almost lost his judgeship because he refused to remove a plaque of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom.

Does that sound like an individual who would have the morals of an alley cat?

The Judge has been well-known to be a Christian Conservative for a long time.

So far that has been no evidence produced that he has ever been anything but what he claims to have been all of his life.

On the other hand, the Modern American Liberals and the political party which they control, the Democrats, appear to be imploding like vampires exposed to sunlight with new accusations of sexual harassment coming forth every day from coast to coast.

Still, they seen to be pretty much oblivious to these accusations, as the above article references.

Just as the vainglorious Pharisees in Christ’s time, these new Pharisees have their noses so far up into the air that they fail to recognize their own sin while accusing others of sinful behavior.

And, now that Americans are reminding them of their political party’s own “discretions”, like President Clinton and Monica, they have doubled down on cluelessness in their attempt to sabotage Judge Moore’s campaign.

The Democrats have lost all their credibility by launching witch hunt after fruitless witch hunt against Republican Candidates.

Given their Liberal belief system, which includes approval of ripping babies out of their mother’s womb and turning the sacred ceremony of marriage into a justification ritual for the same behavior that got Sodom and Gomorrah wiped off the map, that’s one heck of a Glass House that they’re throwing stones from.

I am glad for their sakes that the Libs in the Democratic Party and the Main Stream Media can reach back and “snatch a little purity” as Paul Simon wrote and sang in his song “Loves Me Like a Rock”.

However, they are fooling no one with their claims to possess the Moral High Ground.

For as Christ said in James 2:19…

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.

And, as regards their Liberal Hypocrisy, Matthew 7:5 gives the Democratic Party and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, some great advice…

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Liberal Hypocrisy and the Alinsky Playbook: Defend “Boudoir Bubba” Clinton. Savagely Attack Judge Roy Moore.

November 16, 2017

US-VOTE-DEBATE

12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. – from “Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals”

As the good name of Judge Roy Moore continues to be besmirched every day by the Liberal Main Stream Media, some Liberals have finally figured out that perhaps they did not respond properly in the case of the sexual misconduct of Former President Bill “Bubba” Clinton, a guy who has been around more times than the turnstiles at Disney World.

Gee, DiNozzo. Ya think?

The Ultra-Liberal New York Times reports that

Another woman went on national television this week to press her case of sexual assault by a powerful figure. But the accused was not Roy S. Moore or Harvey Weinstein or Donald J. Trump. It was Bill Clinton. “I feel like people are starting to believe and realize that I was truly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton,” Juanita Broaddrick said on Fox News nearly two decades after first going public with her story. “All victims matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. Who cares if you’re straight or you’re gay, or if you believe in God or not. We all have a right to be believed.”

The cultural conversation about women, power and sexual misconduct that has consumed the United States in recent weeks has now raised a question that is eagerly promoted by those on the political right just as it discomfits those on the political left: What about Bill? While Fox News and other conservative outlets revive years-old charges against Mr. Clinton to accuse Mr. Moore’s critics of hypocrisy, some liberals say it may be time to rethink their defense of the 42nd president.

Matthew Yglesias, a liberal blogger who once worked at the Center for American Progress, a pillar of the Clinton political world, wrote on Vox.com on Wednesday that “I think we got it wrong” by defending Mr. Clinton in the 1990s and that he should have resigned. Chris Hayes, the liberal MSNBC host, said on Twitter that “Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”

Caitlin Flanagan, a social critic who calls herself a “lifelong Democrat, an enemy of machine feminism and a sexual assault survivor,” wrote on The Atlantic’s website that “the Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton.” Michelle Goldberg wrote a New York Times column headlined, “I Believe Juanita.” David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official, said Monica S. Lewinsky “deserves an apology from many of us she has never received.”The emerging revisionism may influence a historical legacy that Mr. Clinton and his allies have spent the past 17 years scrubbing of scandal. Despite his impeachment on perjury and obstruction for covering up sexual liaisons with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Clinton until lately had made progress in framing the national memory of his presidency as a time of peace and prosperity.

But the arrival of President Trump on the political stage has chipped away at that. To counter damage from the “Access Hollywood” tape recording him boasting about groping women as well as allegations by a number of women that it was more than just “locker room talk,” Mr. Trump recruited Ms. Broaddrick and other women who had accused Mr. Clinton to join him on the campaign trail last year.

The spate of sexual misconduct stories in recent weeks has brought those cases back into the public spotlight.

“It’s about time,” Kathleen Willey, another woman who accused Mr. Clinton of sexual harassment, said Wednesday in a telephone interview from her home in Richmond, Va. “We’ve waited for years for vindication.”

She expressed bitterness that liberals and feminists did not believe her or the other accusers at the time. “They’re hypocrites,” she said. “They worship at the altar of all things Clinton. They’re all over Roy Moore, but they had nothing to say about Bill Clinton when he was accused of doing what he was accused of doing.”

Some Democratic leaders rejected the comparison. “I don’t think there’s any double standard here,” Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said last weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” “You were also talking in this case, as you know, about allegations of child sexual abuse.”

Mr. Clinton’s behavior, proved or otherwise, has long been an uncomfortable subject for Democrats. Many chose to defend him for his White House trysts with Ms. Lewinsky because, despite the power differential between a president and a former intern, she was a willing partner. To this day, Ms. Lewinsky rejects the idea that she was a victim because of the affair; “any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath” when the political system took over, as she wrote in 2014.

Ms. Willey, Ms. Broaddrick and Paula Jones, however, described unwilling encounters. Ms. Jones asserted that Mr. Clinton, while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee, summoned her to a hotel room, dropped his pants and requested oral sex. Ms. Willey, a former White House volunteer, accused him of kissing and groping her in the Oval Office. Ms. Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home owner, alleged that Mr. Clinton forced her to have sex during a meeting on the campaign trail in 1978.

Mr. Clinton’s lawyers have disputed all three charges, although he eventually paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Ms. Jones without admitting wrongdoing, citing the political costs of continuing to fight it. None of those cases was part of the impeachment articles against Mr. Clinton, which rested on whether he lied under oath about his interactions with Ms. Lewinsky and coaxed her to lie, too. The House impeached him along party lines in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him two months later.

Many Democrats condemned Mr. Clinton at the time, but they opposed his removal from office, citing what they considered the partisan nature of the attempt. The fact that some of his accusers willingly collaborated with Mr. Clinton’s conservative opponents troubled some. Others seized on inconsistencies in the women’s accounts. Ms. Broaddrick, for instance, initially denied that anything happened, saying later that she did so because she did not want to be dragged into the political arena. Ms. Willey later said she suspected the Clintons were somehow involved in the death of her husband, which was called a suicide.

Gloria Steinem, who at the time wrote a column generally defending Mr. Clinton, remains unmoved by time. “Most important is to listen to the women themselves,” she said in an email forwarded by her office on Wednesday. “Please watch Monica Lewinsky’s TED talk. It is important, moving and tells you who the abusers are.” She did not respond to questions about Ms. Broaddrick or the others.

Of course, many liberals and Democrats stood by Mr. Clinton despite the allegations because they agreed with his policy stances and did not want to reward those on the other side. Nina Burleigh, a journalist, wrote a column at the time joking that she would give Mr. Clinton oral sex for protecting abortion rights.

In an email on Wednesday, she said she did not mean to imply she supported sexual harassment. “As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, not a victim,” she said. As for the other accusations against Mr. Clinton, she said, “Was he a Harvey Weinstein? I doubt it, but I have no evidence either way.”

Still, some on the other side in the 1990s have noticed a change. “Some of the same people who dismissed the women who came forward” then, “it seems like they’re evaluating these issues differently now than they did during that time,” said Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican who was one of the House impeachment managers.

Mr. Clinton has kept publicly quiet amid the flurry of sexual misconduct stories lately, and his office had no comment on Wednesday. But other Democrats were not as willing to come to his defense this week. Of a dozen prominent political activists contacted on Wednesday, none went on the record on Mr. Clinton’s behalf.

Liberals always point the finger at others while ignoring their own hypocrisy.

Let’s look a little deeper at Bubba’s “excursions into exploring his sexuality”, shall we?

Back in the Bill Clinton era, White House advisor Betsey Wright coined the term “bimbo eruptions” to describe a long list of presidential gal pals. BIll “Bubba” Clinton’s Bimbo List” included, but is not limited to (I’m sure) Jennifer Flowers, Former Miss America Elizabeth Ward, Paul Corbin Jones, and, of course, Monica Lewinsky.

The Lewinsky scandal was a sensation that enveloped the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1998–99, leading to his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and acquittal by the Senate.

Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who claimed that Bill Clinton had accosted her sexually in 1991 when he was governor of Arkansas, had brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. In order to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton’s part, Jones’s lawyers questioned several women believed to have been engaging in sex  with him. On Jan. 17, 1998, Bubba took the stand, becoming the first sitting president to testify as a civil defendant.

During this testimony, Clinton denied having had an affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, an unpaid intern and later a paid staffer at the White House who worked in the White House from 1995–96. Lewinsky had earlier, in a deposition in the same case, also denied having such a relationship. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel in the Whitewater case, had already received tape recordings made by Linda R. Tripp (a former coworker of Lewinsky’s) of telephone conversations in which Lewinsky described her involvement with the president. Asserting that there was a “pattern of deception,” Starr obtained from Attorney General Janet Reno permission to investigate the matter.

The president publicly denied having had a relationship with Lewinsky and charges of covering it up. His adviser, Vernon Jordan, denied having counseled Lewinsky to lie in the Jones case, or having arranged a job for her outside Washington, to help cover up the affair. Hillary Clinton claimed that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was trying to destroy her husband, while Republicans and conservatives portrayed him as immoral and a liar.

In March, Jordan and others testified before Starr’s grand jury, and lawyers for Paula Jones released papers revealing, among other things, that Clinton, in his January deposition, had admitted to a sexual relationship in the 1980s with Arkansas entertainer Gennifer Flowers, a charge he had long denied. In April, however, Arkansas federal judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Jones suit, ruling that Jones’s story, if true, showed that she had been exposed to “boorish” behavior but not sexual harassment; Jones appealed.

In July, Starr granted Lewinsky immunity from perjury charges, and Clinton agreed to testify before the grand jury. He did so on Aug. 17, then went on television to admit the affair with Lewinsky and ask for forgiveness. In September, Starr sent a 445-page report to the House of Representatives, recommending four possible grounds for impeachment: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of authority.

On Dec. 19, Clinton became the second president (after Andrew Johnson) to be impeached, on two charges: perjury—in his Aug., 1998, testimony—and obstruction of justice. The vote in the House was largely along party lines.

In Jan., 1999, the trial began in the Senate. On Feb. 12, after a trial in which testimony relating to the charges was limited, the Senate rejected both counts of impeachment. The perjury charge lost, 55–45, with 10 Republicans joining all 45 Democrats in voting against it; the obstruction charge drew a 50–50 vote. Subsequently, on Apr. 12, Judge Wright, who had dismissed the Jones case, found the president in contempt for lying in his Jan., 1998, testimony, when he denied the Lewinsky affair. In July, Judge Wright ordered the president to pay nearly $90,000 to Ms. Jones’s lawyers. On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, President Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Starr’s successor), to end the investigation and not prosecute him.

In a later interview, Hillary claimed that Bill suffered childhood abuse which may have caused him to philanderer and experience “bimbo eruptions” later in life. She described her philandering husband as “a hard dog to keep on the porch”.

In hindsight, it would have probably would have been a less unwanted image if Hillary would have called Bubba “a difficult dog to keep on the porch”, instead.

Just sayin’.

As we return to the present, we are witnessing the Trial By Media of Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate for Jeff Sessions’ vacated Senate Seat in Alabama.

As Judge Moore continues to experience a manufactured “Bimbo Eruption”, some striking differences between what is happening against him and the women who came forward against President Clinton are very clear.

There was not as long a period of time between Bubba’s actions and his accusers coming forth as there was in the case of Roy Moore.

And, the Democratic Establishment and the Main Stream Media did not take them seriously, as opposed to the sainthood status given to the accusers of Judge Moore.

And, as opposed to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Judge Roy Moore has not admitted to any inappropriate sexual behavior.

And finally, Judge Moore knows what the definition of what “is” is.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Senate Judicial Committee Launches Probe Over Lynch’s Possible Obstruction of Hillary Investigation

June 24, 2017

141108-loretta-lynch-mn-1235_808848110e47a65f68a0851a20700aea

When President Barack Hussein Obama announced his pick to succeed Eric Holder as Attorney General, the first reports profiled her as an “overqualified” Prosecutor from Brooklyn, NY. While Ms. Lynch may or many not actually have had the legal skills for the position, it is a certainty that she had the correct political ideology, racial animus, and situational ethics to work within the Obama Administration.

And, now, the Senate would like to speak with her.

The Washington Times reports that

The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta  Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.

Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.

The probe into Ms. Lynch comes as the Judiciary Committee is already looking at President Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.

Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far.”

At a Senate hearing earlier this month, Mr. Comey told lawmakers that Ms. Lynch had attempted to change the way the FBI described its probe of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server. The change appeared to dovetail with how Mrs. Clinton’s supporters were characterizing the probe.

“At one point, [Ms. Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey said during his June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

Acknowledging that he didn’t know whether it was intentional, Mr. Comey said Ms. Lynch’s request “gave the impression the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our investigation with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity.”

Mr. Comey said the language suggested by Ms. Lynch was troublesome because it closely mirrored what the Clinton campaign was using. Despite his discomfort, Mr. Comey said, he agreed to Ms. Lynch’s language.

On June 29th of last year, Former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in her private jet sitting on the tarmac on an airport runway.

That meeting occurred just hours before Department of Justice Officials filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.

The next morning I wrote,

“Now, why would someone as smart as Bill Clinton, the former president of United States of America comma and attorney general Loretta Lynch, have a meeting that has such an appearance of impropriety?

At the time, I thought that there were several possibilities.

The first possibility was obvious. Bubba met with the attorney general in order to plead with her to let Hillary off the hook and to not invite her for her treasonous behavior in her email scandal.

The Clintons have always thought they were above the law. Hillary has left a trail of bodies between Arkansas and Washington DC, and nothing has ever happened to her. But comma even for the Clintons, such a blatant move would be inherently stupid. And, it would not help her presidential campaign one bit.

Or, perhaps it was Loretta Lynch’s camp that leaked the information of the clandestine meeting to the local news station in order to recuse herself from the matter.

The last possible Theory as to why Bubba and Miss Loretta had the clandestine meeting on that jet is that he was trying to leverage her by offering her a possible position on the Supreme Court if Hillary got elected President the United States of America. Again, the Clintons have always considered themselves to be above the law and they’re not beyond political chicanery such as that.

The bottom line is, whatever the purpose of that meeting on the tarmac was, I believed that nothing would happen, at the time. Simply because, boys and girls, Democrat Politicians seemed to be above the rules that apply to you and me. It does not matter if there is an appearance of impropriety nor does it matter if actual political chicanery, including bribery, happened onboard that plane.

It appeared at the time that, as far as the Political Elite’s involvement up on Capitol Hill, nothing would happen.

Now, almost one year later, it appears that the meeting on the tarmac, to “talk about their grandchildren”, was just the top of the proverbial iceberg.

And, if the Senate follows through with its call for Former AG Lynch to appear before them, and if they ask the right questions, the Democrats and the MSM will get the “Obstruction Case” that they have been shouting to the heavens about.

And, there will be a President involved in it.

However, it will not be President Donald J. Trump.

It will be the 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama.

Because, boys and girls, if “Sweet” Loretta (from the song “Get Back” [Lennon/McCartney])starts singing, the fecal matter will hit the rotary oscillator…and travel uphill.

Start buying your popcorn now.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

MSM Not Appreciating Being Punked by Trump

November 26, 2016

not-mine-600-li

The Main Stream Media needs a bottle and a nap.

TheHill.com reports that

President-elect Donald Trump and the news media are settling into an uneasy relationship.

Distrust and ill feelings are held on both sides, and no one is predicting the acrimony that characterized the final months of the presidential campaign will disappear.

At the same time, Trump in his Tuesday meeting with reporters and editors at The New York Times offered an olive branch, acknowledging that he’s a longtime reader and pledging a willingness to develop a professional working relationship.

“I would like to turn it around,” Trump said. “I think it would make the job I am doing much easier.”

Trump’s words may do little to assuage the press’s fears.

White House reporters are worried about access to Trump, who didn’t allow reporters on his campaign plane and ditched media staking out Trump Tower last week to have dinner with family at New York’s 21 Club.

The president-elect’s frequent threats to the press have added to a sense that the rules for covering this White House might be different.

“Every incoming president has basic, generally agreed upon rules of the road,” said Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

“The Trump team has decided they’ll blow up and the road and build a new one. Where it goes from here will be a test of how far the new president and his team want to push things, and the strength and will of the press to push back.”

Trump’s transition team says it is committed to having a press pool, which allows for a small group of reporters to remain stationed near the president to document his movements. The pool was on hand for the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, and when George W. Bush was on the move on 9/11.

“In order to cover the president-elect, we need to have a pool of reporters present and there when the entire press corps can’t be there,” White House Correspondents’ Association president Jeff Mason said this week on MSNBC. “That’s the purpose of the White House pool, and that’s certainly something the correspondent’s association has pressed for.”

But there are no laws requiring that an administration maintain a press pool or even that news outlets have access to administration officials, the briefing room or White House grounds.

During his primary campaign, Trump blackballed some news outlets from covering his rallies, which were open to the public, because he was unhappy with their coverage of him.

He also singled-out individual reporters for ridicule and would whip up a frenzy against the media at his rallies, where Trump supporters would jeer at the press pen.

Trump has not held a formal press conference — where reporters from a range of media outlets can ask him with questions — since July.

But Trump has little incentive to go through traditional media channels, some experts say.

Facebook and Twitter combine to give him one of the most powerful social media presences in the world.

He has former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon at his side in the White House, giving him a powerful ally in the massively influential world of right-wing news.

And when Trump releases a straight-to-camera video to announce his 100-day agenda — as he did this week, in lieu of a press conference — it elicits the same volume of coverage as a press conference would.

Trump was lavished with billions of dollars worth of free airtime and exposure during the campaign, irrespective of how he chose to engage.

Press advocates are worried that the president-elect appears to be holding all the cards.

“Over the last 20 to 30 years, each White House has thrown up more obstacles and become more obsessed with controlling their own message,” said Craig Aaron, president of the advocacy group Free Press. “But this is a new apex, and it’s really dangerous. There used to be basic norms. You have to assume anything is possible now.”

Of course, the media will get little sympathy from the public, with a favorable rating sitting at an all-time low in the latest Gallup survey. Only 32 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the press.

And Trump’s allies believe all of their moves to beat back at what they view as a hopelessly biased liberal media are justified.

They’re fuming over what they see as a press corps that has dropped any pretense of objectivity in covering Trump, and they’re sick of what they view as breathless coverage of frivolous stories, like the “Hamilton” actor who chided Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

Trump allies are apoplectic over the media’s obsession with the alt-right and the neo-Nazis that gathered in Washington, D.C., over the weekend to pledge fealty to Trump, arguing that Trump has condemned racism repeatedly and has no ties to either group.

By several accounts, there were as many reporters and protesters at the event as there were white nationalists, raising questions about why the event has attracted so much attention.

In an interview on Tuesday, Republican National Committee strategist Sean Spicer exploded at anchor Wolf Blitzer for badgering him on the issue.

“You’ve asked me eight times the same question,” Spicer shouted.

“It’s the news media over and over again,” Spicer said. “But I don’t know how many times he has to answer that question and you figuring out the way and fashion he should do it next. If he gives a speech, should he then write it in the sky in an airplane? At what point is it enough?”

Unfortunately, President-elect Trump will never be able to please the Main Stream Media.

Nor should he have to.

The Presidency of the United States of America is the most important leadership position on the Face of God’s Green Earth.

The Main Stream Media knows that.

The problem is, the Main Stream Media is still having a conniption fit (Southern colloquialism for being upset over something to the point insanity) over the election of Donald J. Trump as the next President by us rubes here in Flyover Country.

In fact, they are so upset that they have retaliated by publishing all of that “Fake News” that Barack Hussein Obama, the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, keeps referring to, in that same Main Stream Media.

Ironic, eh?

The Main Stream Media not only has lost their meal ticket with the defeat of the Queen of Mean, Hillary Clinton, but they also have the reality of being “punked” for at least four years by Donald J. Trump, who treats them like a school of Largemouth Bass, baiting the hook with the promise of a big announcement or story, causing them to pack the room wherever Trump is speaking, only to find out that they have been used to gain free publicity for Mr. Trump and whatever cause he is trying to forward that day.

In fact, Trump has made the Media look tremendously naïve and stupid on several occasions, in scenes reminiscent of Lucy Van Pelt promising to hold the football for Charlie Brown to kick, only to pull it away at the last minute leaving a helpless Charlie Brown to wipe out, tumbling head over heels.

The Main Stream Media are no longer in control of the dissemination of the news…and they know it.

Between Trump’s playing them like Charlie Daniels playing a fiddle and average Americans becoming their own reporters through the use of Social Media, “professional journalists” have watched their influence over the daily lives of Americans dwindle and diminish right before their very eyes.

And, quite frankly, they don’t like it one bit.

That is why they continue to try to bring down Trump.

They are behaving like spoiled little brats who need a timeout.

And, judging from the TV Ratings of their newscasts, Americans are giving them one.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

#SpiritCooking,E-mailgate, Foundationgate, and WikiLeaks: The Devil is in the Details?

November 4, 2016

041116sick

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. – Ephesians 6:12

For a while now, Alex Jones, owner and operator of the political website, InfoWars, who has been the subject of ridicule from both Conservatives and Liberals, has accused members of our government of being engaged in occult practices.

Danged if he wasn’t right.

In what is undoubtedly the most bizarre Wikileaks revelation to date, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was invited to a “spirit cooking dinner” by performance artist Marina Abramovic, to take part in an occult ritual founded by Satanist Aleister Crowley.

In an email dated June 28, 2015, Abramovic wrote, “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining? All my love, Marina.”

Tony Podesta then forwarded the email to his brother John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman), asking him, “Are you in NYC Thursday July 9 Marina wants you to come to dinner.”

What is “spirit cooking”?

Spirit cooking refers to “a sacrament in the religion of Thelema which was founded by Aleister Crowley” and involves an occult performance during which menstrual blood, breast milk, urine and sperm are used to create a “painting”.

According to Marina Abramovic, if the ritual is performed in an art gallery, it is merely art, but if the ritual is performed privately, then it represents an intimate spiritual ceremony.

The video embedded above depicts the bizarre nature of the ceremony. Abramovic mixes together thickly congealed blood as the “recipe” for the “painting,” which is comprised of the words, “With a sharp knife cut deeply into the middle finger of your left hand eat the pain.”

The ceremony is, “meant to symbolize the union between the microcosm, Man, and the macrocosm, the Divine, which is a representation of one of the prime maxims in Hermeticism “As Above, So Below.”

“Abramovic is known for her often-gory art that confronts pain and ritual. Her first performance involved repeatedly, stabbing herself in her hands. The next performance featured her throwing her nails, toenails, and hair into a flaming five-point star — which she eventually jumped inside of, causing her to lose consciousness,” writes Cassandra Fairbanks.

Another image shows Abramovic posing with a bloody goat’s head – a representation of the occult symbol Baphomet.

Some are even linking the spirit cooking revelation to claims that the Podesta emails contain “code for child sex trafficking” that is hidden behind mentions of types of food.

Others are connecting it to Laura Silsby, the missionary who was jailed for six months after her organization, New Life Children’s Refuge, attempted to smuggle 33 children out of Haiti into the Dominican Republic after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

Wikileaks emails reveal that Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin forwarded numerous articles about New Life Children’s Refuge to Clinton.

“Julian Assange claimed that the Wikileaks would send Hillary Clinton to prison,” writes Cernovich. “The releases initially disappointed many people, this reporter included, as the evidence of corruption was slim. Assange was right. The real story was hidden in view.”

While the child trafficking and pedophile connections to Clinton remain unproven, the fact that her campaign chairman is apparently into spooky occult rituals involving menstrual blood and semen is easily one of the most disturbing Wikileaks revelations to date.

Is all this upheaval our nation is currently facing, which is sending our nation in an out-of-control downhill spiral, due to some sort of Satanic Influence attempting to tip the scales in the fight between Good and Evil, across our land?

Noah Webster (REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA”), wrote

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.129

The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought toform the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.

All the… evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.131

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society – the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men.

[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.

A man, who would be considered a cornball by the standards of today’s Socially-Liberal Fiscally Conservative Liberals, Moderates, and “Libertarians”, wrote a prophetic analysis that ties in perfectly to the situation in which we, as Americans, find ourselves.

This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965:

If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

The reason that our nation is facing the difficulties we are is the belief by those who proclaim themselves to be the “smartest people in the room”, that they are above the old-fashioned, passe notions of morality and ethics, good and evil, and the Sovereignty of God.

They have made a grave mistake.

Evil exists and these fools opened the door to Satan in our society a long time ago.

Now that the “best laid plans of mice and men” have gone awry, and it appears that Donald J. Trump is on the threshold of becoming the next President of the United States of America, and their dream of making America a “Socialist Utopia” is in the process of crashing down around them,

What are Hillary and all of those who have been involved in this out-of-control corruption in America’s Halls of Power going to say?

Who are they going to blame?

The Devil made me do it?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Clinton Vs. the FBI: Comey Defies the DOJ. Clinton Defies the Law.

November 3, 2016

tarmac-nrd-600

I’ll tell you from my heart, looking at their party further and further to the left, to paraphrase the director of the FBI: I think it would be extremely careless to elect Hillary Clinton.  – Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Mike Pence

The Washington Post is running the following story on Page One this morning…

Deep divisions inside the FBI and the Justice Department over how to handle investigations dealing with Hillary Clinton will probably fester even after Tuesday’s presidential election and pose a significant test for James B. Comey’s leadership of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency.

The internal dissension has exploded into public view recently with leaks to reporters about a feud over the Clinton Foundation, an extraordinary airing of the agency’s infighting that comes as the bureau deals with an ongoing threat of terror at home and a newly aggressive posture from Russia.

Comey, meanwhile, has come under direct fire for his decision to tell Congress that agents were resuming their investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server — a revelation that put him at odds with his Justice Department bosses and influenced the presidential campaign.

“He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.”

Comey has been under fire since Friday from lawmakers in both parties and even President Obama for his decision to inform Congress of the new developments in the email probe just 11 days before Election Day. On Thursday, people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that Comey had learned three weeks earlier of the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the case, but did not take action to resume the email probe until he was formally briefed last week on what investigators had found.

Clinton, who seemed to have momentum in battleground state polls before Comey’s Friday bombshell, notably declined on Thursday to say whether, if elected, she would ask the FBI director to resign.

“I’m not going to, you know, either get ahead of myself by assuming I’ll be fortunate enough to be elected,” Clinton said, responding to a question from SiriusXM’s Joe Madison. “That’s really up to you and your listeners. People have to turn out, or nothing that I’m going to be proposing will come into reality, but I also would never comment on any kind of, you know, personnel issue.”

Comey was confirmed to a 10-year term in September 2013. While the law allows a president to remove an FBI director, the step is rarely taken out of respect for the independence of the position. President Bill Clinton removed Director William S. Sessions in 1993 amid allegations of ethical improprieties.

The pent-up frustration inside the FBI seemed to burst when Comey revealed in a brief letter to legislators that agents in an unrelated case had found emails potentially relevant to the Clinton email investigation.

The details, then and now, were scant. Officials familiar with the matter said the messages came from a computer seized in the investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Agents said the messages were associated with Abedin and Clinton. Abedin has told people she has no idea how the messages got on the device.

Although investigators had discovered the emails in early October, software glitches prevented them from separating Abedin-related emails from the hundreds of thousands of messages recovered until Oct. 19 or 20, according to people familiar with the case.

While Comey had been quickly alerted by his deputy to the original find, he took no further action, allowing agents in the field to get a better idea of the scope of the material. Agents could use digital clues to decipher where emails had originated and been sent but were legally barred from reading the emails without a search warrant because they had been obtained in a separate investigation.

When agents formally recommended on Oct. 27 that the warrant be sought, Comey agreed and then felt obligated to inform Congress — which he did with his letter the following day. Comey’s only reference in the letter to the timing of his involvement was that he had been briefed the previous day.

FBI spokesmen declined to comment on the timeline of Comey’s knowledge or on internal tensions.

The FBI obtained a warrant Sunday to analyze the messages for the Clinton investigation. It remains unclear if any of the newly discovered emails contain classified or other relevant information.

Comey had previously said he recommended that the Clinton email case be closed without charges.

Not long after Comey’s new letter to Congress was made public last week, multiple media outlets reported that he had sent the missive against the advice of top Justice Department officials, who felt that commenting publicly on the inquiry would violate a long-standing policy not to take overt steps in investigations that could have an impact so close to an election. Before the weekend was over, the Wall Street Journal revealed there was a different, ongoing feud between FBI agents in New York and career public integrity prosecutors at the Justice Department over whether there was cause to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

Addressing the controversy in an interview posted Wednesday by NowThis News, Obama hinted that he was unhappy about the amount of information being revealed.

“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo, and we don’t operate on incomplete information, and we don’t operate on leaks,” he said.

Tensions had been thick between New York and Washington for months, dating to disagreements over how to handle the case of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old black man who died after being put in an apparent chokehold by a police officer. Officials in the Justice Department’s civil rights division wanted to move forward with a case against the police officer, but New York-based agents and prosecutors vehemently disagreed, according to people familiar with the case. The attorney general has yet to resolve the dispute.

In the case of the Clinton Foundation inquiry, it was the FBI agents pushing for stronger action.

In February, people familiar with the case said, agents made their case to public integrity prosecutors about why they should proceed with a probe looking broadly at whether donors to the Clinton family charity were given improper benefits by the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

Justice Department attorneys and FBI officials in Washington viewed the agents’ presentation as lacking substantive evidence. The attorneys felt it relied too heavily on public reports and the book “Clinton Cash,” and denied the agents authority to move forward, according to people familiar with the discussions. The 2015 book, by conservative author Peter Schweizer, relied heavily on public records and presented a largely circumstantial case that State Department actions were driven by donations to the Clinton Foundation and payments to Bill Clinton.

The move frustrated some agents in New York. They felt they were being stymied by Justice Department higher-ups in Washington and pressed forward in ways they felt were permissible, according to people familiar with the case. In August, a Justice Department official got wind of those efforts and called a counterpart in the FBI to inquire about it, one of the people said. The agents thought they had reason to believe they should press forward, although their leaders were warned that they should not take any steps close to the election, the person said.

The people familiar with the matters declined to discuss the precise evidence that agents had obtained. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that their work involved informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations.

Officials speaking with reporters on the condition of anonymity is common, and several did so for this report. But the level of specificity that has emerged in recent days about a politically sensitive investigation on the eve of an election is unusual — a sign of the deep tensions inside the Justice Department.

A spokeswoman for the FBI’s New York field office and spokesmen for the Justice Department and FBI headquarters declined to comment for this report. FBI Agents Association President Thomas F. O’Connor said in a statement: “Agents undertake all investigations with an unwavering focus on complying with the law and the Constitution, and perform their mission with integrity and professionalism. Any implication that Agents are unwilling or incapable of performing effective investigations — or implications that Agents do not respect the confidentiality of those investigations — is simply false.”

If Clinton is elected, Comey might have to contend with one or more investigations involving a sitting president. If she is not, he might face criticism for upending her bid.

Anderson, the former FBI official, said Comey will have to work quickly to finish the restarted email review, then talk to leaders and visit field offices to ease the tensions in the bureau and help mend public perceptions of the FBI. Comey has repeatedly said in the past that is important to him.

“I don’t know what your parents taught you, but mine always taught me you can’t care what people think about you. I do,” he said at a recent conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Justice’s Department’s National Security Division. “I do because the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent.”

Comey’s right.

As an average American, living in the Northwest Corner of the Magnolia State, I believe the FBI to be trustworthy.

The overwhelming majority of their agents have devoted their lives to the service of our nation.

These are the individuals that the Liberal Writer of this article in the Liberal Newspaper that is The Washington Post, referred to as the “Rank and File”…Law Enforcement Professionals performing a thankless job, encumbered by the political machinations of a Federal Government top-heavy with endless bureaucracy, originating from an Executive Branch being led  by a Community Organizer who is more concerned with righting perceived “historical wrongs” than he is about keeping our nation safe and upholding our nation’s laws.

On June 29th of this year, Former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in her private jet sitting on the tarmac on an airport tunway.

The next morning I wrote,

“Now, why would someone as smart as Bill Clinton, the former president of United States of America comma and attorney general Loretta Lynch, have a meeting that has such an appearance of impropriety?

There are several possibilities.

The first possibility it’s obvious. But I met with the attorney general in order to plead with her to let Hillary off the hook and to not invite her for her treasonous behavior in her email scandal.

The Clintons have always thought they were above the law. Hillary has left a trail of bodies between Arkansas and Washington DC, and nothing has ever happened to her. But comma even for the Clintons, such a blatant move would be inherently stupid. And, it would not help her presidential campaign one bit.

Or, perhaps it was Loretta Lynch’s camp that leaked the information of the clandestine meeting to the local news station in order to recuse herself from the matter. This could be possible because it is well-known that the FBI Director is a very honest man and a straight-up guy who will indict Hillary Clinton if the evidence is there to do so.

And, it is.

The last possible Theory as to why Bubba and Miss Loretta had the clandestine meeting on that jet is that he was trying to leverage her by offering her a possible position on the Supreme Court if Hillary gets elected President the United States of America. Again, the clintons have always considered themselves to be above the law and they’re not beyond political chicanery such as that.

The bottom line is, whatever the purpose of that meeting on the tarmac was, nothing will happen. Simply because, boys and girls, Democrat Politicians are above the rules that apply to you and me. It does not matter if there is an appearance of impropriety comma nor does it matter if actual political chicanery, including bribery, happened onboard that plane.

Up on Capitol Hill, nothing will happen.

However, out here in Flyover Country, things are already happening as Rasmussen Reports posted a national poll yesterday showing that Donald J. Trump has taken a four-point lead and popularity over Hillary Clinton.

In my opinion, this is a lead that will continue to grow as low-information voters wake up to the fact that Hillary Clinton is in this race for herself, and not for them.

Between the information that Donald Trump and his Campaign Staff are sharing about her and the revelations being made about her reprehensible Behavior as First Lady and the information being shared by a Former Secret Service Agent who witnessed it firsthand, the American people are watching Hillary Clinton’s mask drop.

And, it is not a very pretty sight to behold.

Because, as the old saying goes,

Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the Bone.”

Now, four days before the biggest election in decades, the only question remains, when will Hillary Clinton be indicted?

…I hate it when I’m right.

Because, despite what the Liberal Reporter writing for the Washington Post might believe, the fault for Hillary Clinton’s outing as a sleaze ball criminal, which has been the cause of her demise as a viable Presidential Candidate, does not lie with FBI Director Comey, nor the “rank and File” agents who pressured Comey into finally doing the right thing and re-opening the investigation.

The fault, boys and girls, hangs squarely on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton. herself and it is she who must face the consequences for selling her Public Office to the highest bidder.

As Sammy Davis, Jr. (look him up, children) used to sing in the song, “Keep Your Eye on the Sparrow (the theme from “Baretta”)”,

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump Vs. the Activist Media: Newt Lays a Verbal Smackdown on Megyn Kelly

October 26, 2016

14731251_10205385959927806_8491863673114560831_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remember when the Fox News Channel first burst on the scene on October 7, 1996, setting the Liberal Establishment and the Main Stream Media on their heels, by offering “Fair and Balanced” News Reporting.

Nowadays, it appears that at least one of their Evening “Anchors” has joined the ranks of the Main Stream Media, and has gone from reporting the news, to attempting to shape it.

Breitbart.com reports that

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took on host Megyn Kelly for what Gingrich described to be a fascination with sex and that she didn’t care about policy.

Exchange as follows:

NEWT GINGRICH: Let me point out something to you: The three major networks spent 23 minutes attacking Donald Trump that night, and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches. You don’t think that is a scale of bias worthy of Pravda?

(CROSSTALK)

MEGYN KELLY: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is–

GINGRICH: He’s not a sexual predator. You can’t say that. You could not defend that statement.

 
KELLY: I have not taken a position on it.

GINGRICH: I’m sick and tired of people like you using inflammatory language that is not true.

KELLY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, you have no idea whether it is true or not. What we know–

GINGRICH: Neither do you.

KELLY: I’m not taking a position on it.

GINGRICH: Yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. It is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

KELLY: Incorrect.

GINGRICH: That is exactly the bias people are upset by.

KELLY: I think that your defensiveness on this speaks volumes, sir.

GINGRICH: Let me suggest to you —

KELLY: No let me make my point. What I said if if Trump is a sexual predator, than it is a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying he liked to grab women by the genitals, and kiss them against their will. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied it at a debate … He denies it all, which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say the 10 women are liars. We have to cover that story.

GINGRICH: Sure, so it took 23 minutes for the networks to cover that story. And Hillary Clinton had a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her $225,000 saying that her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America, that is not worth covering?

Do you want me to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

KELLY: Me, really?

GINGRICH: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

KELLY: You know what, Mr. Speaker? I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office.

GINGRICH: And therefore, we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because you are worried about a sexual predator. Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

KELLY: We on ‘The Kelly File’ have covered that story as well, sir.

GINGRICH: I want to hear you say the word. Say “Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.” I dare you. Say “Bill Clinton, sexual predator.”

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we have covered that. We on “The Kelly File” have covered the Bill Clinton story as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey. But he is not on the ticket.
Kelly ended the segment by telling Gingrich he needed to take his “anger issues” and “spend some time working on them.”

Ms. Kelly is not alone in her quest to bring down the Republican Candidate for President.

According to newsbusters.org,

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.

For this study, the MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). The networks devoted 1,191 minutes to the presidential campaign during this period, or nearly 29 percent of all news coverage.

Our measure of campaign spin was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of the campaign trail. Thus, our analysts ignored soundbites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump and bashing Clinton, and vice versa), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story. Such statements may have been presented as quotes from non-partisan talking heads such as experts or voters, quotes from partisans who broke ranks (Republicans attacking Trump or Democrats criticizing Clinton), or opinionated statements from the reporter themselves.

Additionally, we separated personal evaluations of each candidate from statements about their prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.). While such comments can have an effect on voters (creating a bandwagon effect for those seen as winning, or demoralizing the supports of those portrayed as losing), they are not “good press” or “bad press” as understood by media scholars as far back as Michael Robinson’s groundbreaking research on the 1980 presidential campaign.

The results show neither candidate was celebrated by the media (as Obama was in 2008), but network reporters went out of their way to hammer Trump day after day, while Clinton was largely out of their line of fire.

Our analysts found 184 opinionated statements about Hillary Clinton, split between 39 positive statements (21%) vs. 145 negative (79%). Those same broadcasts included more than three times as many opinionated statements about Trump, 91 percent of which (623) were negative vs. just nine percent positive (63).

Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate. Reporters also bluntly called out Trump for lying in his public remarks in a way they never did with Clinton, despite her own robust record of false statements.

As for those “horse race” assessments that we excluded from our “good press/bad press” measure, those were decidedly anti-Trump as well. Out of 569 such statements about the health or prospects of Trump’s campaign, 85% (486) were negative, vs. 15% (83) that were positive. For Clinton, the spin was reversed: out of 432 assessments of her status in the race, 62% (268) were positive, vs. just 38% (164) that were negative.

Thus, judging by their own coverage, network reporters have consistently painted Clinton as the most likely to win, but they have inexplicably spent most of their time trying to dismantle the underdog in the race while giving the frontrunner much lighter scrutiny.

Overall, the networks spent about 40 percent more airtime covering Trump (785 minutes) than they did on Clinton (478 minutes). Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received just over nine minutes of coverage, while Green candidate Jill Stein and independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin each received less than one minute of airtime.

As noted above, more than half of Trump’s coverage (440 minutes, or 56%) focused on the various controversies surrounding his candidacy, while only about 38 percent of Clinton’s airtime was spent on her controversies (185 minutes).By far, the top topic since the party conventions has been the issue of Donald Trump’s treatment of women, especially the 2005 Access Hollywood tape (which received nearly 50 minutes of evening news coverage) and the unproven allegations from several women that he engaged in inappropriate conduct in the past (26 minutes).

Add it all up, and Trump’s alleged sexist behavior or rhetoric has totaled 102 minutes of news coverage since the conventions. In contrast, references to Bill Clinton’s past treatment of women, and Hillary Clinton’s role in covering up her husband’s wrongdoing, amounted to less than seven minutes of coverage during this same period, a roughly 15-to-1 disparity.

Other Trump controversies were given robust coverage: the issue of his tax returns (33 minutes), his concern that the November election could be “rigged” (27 minutes), and suggestions that Trump and his aides are too close to Putin’s Russia (22 minutes).

In contrast, controversies involving Hillary Clinton received far less attention. Her “basket of deplorables” comment received just seven minutes of total coverage, while barely two minutes (134 seconds) was spent talking about her handling of the 2012 attack in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton’s crack that ObamaCare was a “crazy system” was limited to just 140 seconds of evening news coverage, even though it signaled the kind of intra-party split that would surely have received far more coverage if it had been a Republican vs. a Republican.

Just last week, a Quinnipiac poll found that more than half of all voters (55%) thought the media’s coverage had been biased against Trump. With coverage like this, the question is, what are the other 45 percent thinking?

Evidently, they’re not paying attention.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with corrupt politicians and those who walk roam the Halls of Power with impunity (Mr. Soros to the Courtesy Desk, please.)

While touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The advocacy of all things Liberal by every Cable News Channel, became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if left to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as President, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

The Fox News Channel filled a void that had been created by the Main Stream Media’s own biased hubris.

Later, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, this hubris gave the Main Stream Media an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the New Media…and, that has been their undoing.

As has been affirmed to me lately, during my surfing of the web, including Facebook Political Pages and websites, Modern American Liberals, including those in the Main Stream Media, constantly live in a state of denial.

They respond as if you have told them that you shot Ol’ Yeller, when you inform them that Liberalism is still the minority political belief in America, even (and especially) after the 7 1/2 year reign of King Barack The First.

This salient fact explains why CNN and MSNBC constantly trail Fox News in the television ratings polls.

It also explains their ongoing massive propping up through the use of blatant propaganda of the Presidential Campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Just like the cockamamie idea to allow biological men in women’s public restrooms, the idea of allowing a morally and ethically challenged congenital liar with obvious serious health issues, who is as far removed philosophically from the overwhelming majority of Americans, that she might as well be the President of China, XI Jinping’s Handmaiden, makes average Americas out here in America’s Heartland want to hurl.

Which, by the way, is quite evident when you compare actual images of the size of Donald J. Trump’s overflowing Campaign Rallies , numbering in the thousands, compared to the under-attended ones of Hillary Clinton, which are lucky to draw one hundred.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, now working for Conservative Review, turned up the heat on the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

Unfortunately for the MSM , as the last several months have shown, and as I have documented, Americans have become our own “reporters” thanks to the “New Media”. Americans are now living in a  time when the Main Stream Media’s blatant propaganda is no longer believed at face value, as the evidence which refutes it is appearing in the live videos and photographs being shared on Facebook and other Social Media.

And, like the little Dutch Boy, the MSM does not know which hole to plug, in the leaking dam, first.

In their frenzied desperate attempt to stop what now appears (judging from the size of his Campaign Rallies and the information gleaned from Early Voting across the country) to be the inevitability of a Trump Victory in November, the Main Stream Media has chosen to verify blatantly false Liberal Opinions as being “Facts”.

Megyn Kelly, since the Political Ascension of Donald J. Trump, has chosen to eschew the “Fair and Balanced” Reporting that vaulted Fox to the top of the Cable News Ratings, instead, opting to join the baying “newshounds” of the Main Stream Media in their quest to bring down the Republican Candidate by any means necessary.

Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, her strategy has backfired on her miserably, costing her rating points and allowing Sean Hannity to take over the lead among Fox News’ Evening Programs.

Just like the Internet Trolls, who invade Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, in order to disrupt conversation and call attention to themselves, the MSM, including Ms. Kelly as well, through the creation of their own facts, have permanently damaged their own credibility, quite probably beyond all repair.

Because, to put it quite simply, once you torque off the American Public, you never get them back.

Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

 

 

Scared of a Word: Trump Vs. the Pearl-Clutching GOP Establishment Surrender Monkeys

October 9, 2016

untitled-103

As the Democrats’ latest “Oh, look! Squirrel! attempt to distract American Voters nears the end of its 24-Hour News Cycle, those Vichy Republicans who have never liked Donald J. Trump to begin with are making a public demonstration of “withdrawing their support”.

Foxnews.com reports that

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and running mate Mike Pence indicated Saturday that they would fight their election campaign to its conclusion next month, despite calls by prominent Republicans for Trump to withdraw from the race after the emergence of a damaging audio tape.

In the morning, a defiant Trump told the Wall Street Journal that there was “zero chance” that he would drop out over lewd comments he made about women in a 2005 audio tape that surfaced Friday. 

“I never, ever give up,” Trump told the paper. “The support I’m getting is unbelievable, because Hillary Clinton is a horribly flawed candidate.”

In the afternoon, a smiling Trump briefly appeared outside his Trump Tower headquarters, high-fiving crowd members chanting “U-S-A!” and saying that he “will never let my supporters down.”

In the evening, Pence, who has described himself as a “Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,” told a Rhode Island fundraiser that he was committed to the real estate mogul.

“He looked me in the eye and he said, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to get through this, we’re going to be OK,'” Rhode Island GOP Chairman Brandon Bell told WPRI-TV of his meeting with Pence. 

“So he didn’t address it head on, but he wanted to reassure people, the folks that were here – and I think he’s going to do this publicly in the next coming days – that we shouldn’t worry, that they’re still on a path to victory,” Bell added.

Amid calls for Pence to replace Trump at the top of the Republican ticket, a senior Trump adviser told Fox News late Saturday that the Indiana governor was “solid” behind the nominee.

Earlier Saturday, however, Pence said in a statement that he was “offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the 11-year-old video. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them.”

“We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night,” Pence added, a reference to Trump’s second presidential debate against Democrat Hillary Clinton in St. Louis Sunday night.

The Indiana governor also cancelled a planned appearance Saturday with House Speaker Paul Ryan in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin. Pence was supposed to fill in for the embattled Trump, and sources said the circumstance surrounding the tape was the issue.

The audio and an accompanying video, released by The Washington Post and NBC News on Friday, recorded a conversation between Trump and “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in which Trump described an attempt to have sex with a married woman.

Trump brags in the tape about women letting him kiss and grab them because he is famous, and also uses a crude word for a part of a woman’s anatomy. 

The 70-year-old Trump apologized overnight for the comments, saying they “don’t reflect who I am.”

“I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize,” Trump said in videotaped remarks, after he originally apologized in a statement.

Throughout the day Saturday, several Republicans took the extraordinary step of revoking support for their party’s nominee one month from Election Day and with early voting already underway in some key states.

Among them: Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte — both are running for re-election — and the party’s 2008 nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who had stood by Trump even after the billionaire questioned whether the former POW should be considered a war hero because he got “captured.”

McCain, who is also facing a challenge in November, said Trump’s behavior made it “impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy.”

Many went further and called on Trump to quit the race altogether.

 “I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party,” Alabama Rep. Martha Roby said in a statement. “Now, it is abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible, respectable Republican to lead the ticket.”

Republican leaders have scheduled a Monday morning conference call for House GOP lawmakers, who are out of town for Congress’ election recess. The email obtained by The Associated Press doesn’t specify the topic for the 11 a.m. EDT call, but rank-and-file lawmakers believe it’s about Trump. Such calls are rare and usually held to discuss important matters.

While still publicly backing Trump, the Republican National Committee is considering how to move forward.

One possibility: re-directing its expansive political operation away from Trump and toward helping vulnerable Senate and House candidates. Such a move would leave Trump with virtually no political infrastructure in swing states to identify his supporters and ensure they vote.

“We are working to evaluate the appropriate messaging going forward,” said RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer.

Election law experts suggest it would be logistically impossible to replace Trump on the ballot altogether, with early voting underway in some states and overseas ballots already distributed to military servicemen and others.

Ryan fundraising chief Spencer Zwick, however, said he’s been fielding calls from donors who “want help putting money together to fund a new person to be the GOP nominee.”

Zwick told the AP that a write-in or “sticker campaign” relying on social media could “actually work.” While there has never been a winning write-in campaign in a U.S. presidential contest, such an effort could make it harder for Trump to win.

Oh, the humanity.

We all have to deal with “Drama Queens” in our lives.

People who love to act like the world is coming to an end when they get a hangnail.

In the case of the Vichy Republicans and the perpetually concerned Internet Trolls known as the “#NeverTrumpers”, an 11-year old video of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump engaging in “locker room talk” with Billy Bush, a member of “Dubya’s” GOP Elite Family and an employee of NBC, gave them the proverbial “knife in the back” that they have been passionately craving for since a rank outside named Donald Trump cleaned their  clocks in the Republican Presidential Primary.

What all of those who have expressed their deep faux “concern” over the last 24 hours still do not seem to understand, is that the meteoric rise of Donald J. Trump transcends Traditional Politics.

Trump is striking a resonant chord in the hearts of Average Americans, living here in the part of America, which the snobbish Political Elites refer to as “Flyover Country”, but which we refer to as “America’s Heartland”, or, quite simply, “HOME”.To put it in simple terms, Americans are angry.

Americans’ palpable anger is one which has been building since January of 2009, when a Lightweight, who seems to have as much in common with us as a Martian would, was inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

That anger, a result of Obama’s anti-American actions and resulting policies, which have affected Americans’ daily lives, has been exacerbated by the Republican Elite, who, in their desire to “reach across the aisle” and “go along to get along”, have distanced themselves from the Conservative Voting Base, who elected them to Congress in the first place.

Meanwhile, average Americans, like you and me, remain mired up to our necks in an abysmal swamp of bills and taxes, living paycheck-to-paycheck, afraid to make a move, for fearing of drowning in an ocean of debt.

Seemingly forgotten, in all of the forgotten promises, made by Barack Hussein Obama, are the almost 95 million Americans, who are no longer, largely through no fault of their own, participating in our Workforce.

You want to talk about anger and frustration?

Try looking for work, when you are over 55 years of age.

It makes you want to give up…daily.

But, I digress…

Anger has played an important part in the forging of this great country, which will be lucky to survive Obama’s final year in office.

It was anger that formed our country….an anger over being held captive to “Taxation Without Representation”…an anger which, as a prime example of history repeating itself, Americans are experiencing, even as I type this blog.

It is this anger, aimed at Professional Politicians, such as the ones who are “abandoning” Trump over his use of the “P-word” and the Washingtonian Status Quo which has propelled Donald J. Trump.

And, these Vichy Republican Surrender Monkeys and the Perpetually Concerned Internet Trolls know it.

The indisputable fact of the matter is that, in “Open” Primaries, Trump did even better than he did in those primaries in which only Republicans could vote.

Trump built a Coalition.

Americans are fed up with the Washingtonian Status Quo.

We are tired of professional politicians’ empty promises and their failure to properly address the issues facing America, in any way, except a self-serving one.

Paul Ryan and the Vichy Republicans, as I dubbed the Republican Establishment a while back, still seem to hang onto a slim hope that they can, perhaps, somehow derail “The Trump Train”, through the “power” of Republican Moderation and Establishment “Gentility”, a “power” which has turned out to be as big a gross overestimation as the one regarding the invincibility of the RMS Titanic.

Average Americans will no longer tolerate a Republican Party who would rather be enablers of those who wish to “radically change” America, than be seen as opposing them.

The meteoric political success of Trump’s is partially a matter of timing.

Also, Trump is not afraid of hard work, as shown by his successful business career.

Trump has demonstrated at the past, as Rush mentioned, that he has great instincts.

These instincts have served him well in his Presidential Campaign.

Trump was in the right place at the right time with the right message.

Donald J. Trump is unabashedly American and an advocate for American Exceptionalism.

Trump speaks of “possibilities” and is offering a view from outside of the Washington Beltway.

The reason Trump is winning so many votes, including those of Democrats?

He is offering the possibility of a brand new “Morning in America”.

And. voters are desperate to wake up from this Long National Nightmare.

Tonight’s debate should be interesting.

Considering the documents affairs of Former President Bill Clinton and the Rumored bisexual affairs of the Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton with Donna Shalala, Huma Abedin and pardon the image, Yoko Ono, tonight’s Liberal Debate Moderator, the Democratic Party Plants in the Townhall Audience, and the Democratic Candidate had best tread lightly about bringing up this 11-year old video.

Hillary has an awfully big Glass House.

Until He Comes,

KJ