The Nightmare The Opponents Of The Patriot Act Saw Coming

It would be nice to believe that we are a nation led by honorable men. In the past that has occasionally been true and I am sure that it will occasionally be true in the future. I am hoping it is true in the present. However, our Founding Fathers understood that we would not always be led by honorable men and set up the U.S. Constitution accordingly. The power was supposed to rest with the people–not with the government. The government was supposed to be responsive to the wishes of the people and accountable to the people. The framework was beautiful. Had we paid closer attention to following it, we would be in a very different place. I am particularly concerned about recent violations of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act allowed for the collection of electronic data unprecedented in American history. The idea behind it was to prevent terrorist attacks. Some Congressmen warned that the act could be used to violate the rights of average Americans. Evidently they were right.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted a story about electronic surveillance under the Obama Administration. Evidently that surveillance went far beyond what was necessary or legitimate.

The article reports:

Barack Obama‘s CIA Director John O. Brennan targeted Trump supporters for enhanced surveillance, intelligence sources confirm to GotNews’ Charles C. Johnson.

The surveillance took place between Trump’s election on November 8 and the inauguration in January, according to White House and House intelligence sources.

The focus was on General Mike Flynn, billionaire Erik Prince, and Fox News host Sean Hannity — all of whom had close ties to Trump before and after the November election and had helped the future president with managing his new diplomatic responsibilities.

Hannity was targeted because of his perceived ties to Julian Assange, say our intelligence sources. Hannity was reportedly unmasked by Susan Rice at Brennan’s behest thanks to his close relationship with Trump and Julian Assange.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince, a former CIA covert asset, has long criticized the CIA’s bloat and incompetence, including the Brennan-run CIA drone program’s failure to properly target terrorists rather than Afghan civilians. Prince has repeatedly called for restructuring the CIA and argued against Brennan’s tenure.

This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of these citizens. At the very least, lawsuits are in order. More appropriately, people who authorized or participated in this need to lose their jobs and possible go to prison. In the Watergate Scandal, which is peanuts compared to this, people went to prison. That would also be appropriate here.

 

 

Some Thoughts On The Recent CIA Leaks

Sometimes the best perspective comes from someone who has been there. There are a lot of diverse opinions on the information recently leaked by Wikileaks about CIA techniques. Some media have focused on the invasion into the privacy of Americans, and other media has focused on the damage the leaks do to American national security.

On Thursday, Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, posted an article with his observations about the leaks. The article is posted at the Center for Security Policy website.

These are the points he makes in the article:

  • Why did CIA have a cyber warfare office at all?   I noted in this December 2016 NRO article that there are cyber warfare offices in four separate intelligence agencies.  I suspect this is because different intelligence agencies all wanted to cash in on funding opportunities on a high profile topic.   Such overlap is getting worse and make U.S. intelligence more bureaucratic and less efficient.
  • The new leaker was probably hired as a result of CIA Director Brennan’s decision to lower standards for CIA hiring because he wanted to create a more diverse CIA workforce and Brennan rushed to staff his new cyber office.  I wrote about this in Investor’s Business Daily in 2015.   It also reportedly has been difficult for the U.S. government to find personnel to staff cyber offices who can meet the Agency’s usual security requirements.   This probably is why Edward Snowden was hired despite his lack of a college degree and how he was able to increase his access to classified material and move between intelligence agencies despite his poor performance.
  • Did CIA learn nothing from the Snowden leaks on the urgency to compartment information on sensitive intelligence sources and methods?  How could another disgruntled intelligence officer have been able to access and leak such a huge number of such documents?

This is another area where President Trump needs to drain the swamp and create a more efficient and secure place to keep America‘s secret operations. We will always have a need for the CIA, but we definitely need to be more careful in hiring practices and access to information.

 

Why Americans Don’t Trust The Media

This showed up on my Twitter feed this morning:

Julian Assange has flatly stated that Russia was not his source, but that has not stopped CNN from reporting that Russia was his source. (To read the entire story on Julian Assange’s comments, you have to go to the British newspapers.) This is totally aggravating. Has it occurred to anyone that people inside the Democratic Party or people inside the national intelligence community might have been concerned about the way Hillary Clinton handled classified information? Having your maid collect classified documents off of your printer is a violation of common sense as well as a violation of pretty much any law regarding the handling of classified information. This might have concerned some of the patriotic professionals.

This whole kerfuffle is dirty politics at its finest. Hopefully, most Americans recognize it for what it is.

Some Perspective On The Emails Leaked During The Election

Admittedly The Guardian is an unusual source for me, but on Saturday they posted an article that caught my attention.

This week we have been bombarded with claims that Russia gave the Presidential Election to Trump by hacking the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s emails. We are supposed to believe that the Russians would prefer a Trump presidency to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I don’t think so. Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of  President Barack Obama. We seem to have forgotten that on March 26, 2012, major news sources reported that President Obama had told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. The Russians have done what they wanted during Obama’s  Presidency, why wouldn’t they expect more of the same under Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump, however, is not for sale and has learned a few things in his years as a successful businessman. The basic premise that the Russians would support Trump as President is not logical.

The article in The Guardian reports:

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

On Friday the White House announced that Obama had ordered intelligence officials to conduct a broad review of election-season cyber-attacks, including the email hacks, to report before he leaves office on 20 January.

The review, led by intelligence agencies, will be a “deep dive” into a possible pattern of increased “malicious cyber activity” during the campaign season, the White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. It would look at the tactics, targets, key actors and the US government’s response to the recent email hacks, as well as incidents reported in past elections, he said.

You could fertilize your garden with the information coming out of the mainstream media and the White House right now. This is a bunch of people who still do not understand why they lost the election who are doing everything they can to try to dilute the power of the incoming administration. The people who have done well ‘in the swamp’ that is Washington do not want someone coming into office who will drain the swamp. That is what Donald Trump will do. The current kerfuffle is the perfect example of fake news. It is an attempt to mislead the public and diminish the effectiveness of the incoming administration. Unfortunately I think we can expect much more of the same.

Money For Access

The Daily Caller posted a story today that included more revelations from the Wikileaks memos. It seems that the Clinton Foundations was a clearing house for buying access to Bill Clinton as well as the State Department.

The article reports:

The Dec. 7, 2012 memo is included in a batch of documents prepared in advance for a Clinton Foundation board meeting held several days later in New York City.

It shows that Joe Kiani, the founder of medical device maker Masimo, and Alex Karp, the CEO of software company Palantir Technologies, paid $140,000 and $100,000, respectively, for a “Meeting with WJC.”

WJC is William Jefferson Clinton. Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state when the memo was written.

…”The Foundation’s long-term sustainability cannot be possible without a significant and well-managed endowment,” the memo reads. “Earlier this year, we began the critical first steps towards crafting a detailed and well-informed endowment campaign plan.”

The document lists dozens of donors. The individuals and organizations shaded in blue were new contributors, the memo states. It also lists “reason for gift” for each donor.

Please follow the link to the story to see the detailed list of donors.

Sometimes You Have To Go Across The Pond To Find Out What Is Going On Here

On Sunday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about the re-opening of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The article reports the following:

James Comey‘s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

‘The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary,’ said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

…According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice. 

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

There is also another theory as to why the investigation was re-opened–we are still awaiting more emails from Wikileaks. It would be embarrassing (to say the least) if the Wikileaks emails made the case for charging Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. It seems to me that based on Director Comey’s original statement, we already have that case, but having Wikileaks confirm it would further create the appearance of a compromised FBI.

The thing to remember here is that the person ultimately responsible for this mess is Hillary Clinton. The personal server was set up to avoid scrutiny of the symbiotic relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. It has become obvious that President Obama and other officials sent emails to addresses on that server and were aware of it. The fact that the issue of the personal server was never confronted during Mrs. Clinton’s term as Secretary of State raises the question of complicity. That might explain why the Executive Branch of our government is having so much trouble getting to the truth of this matter.

In Case You Were Wondering

As the leaked emails flow from Wikileaks, have you wondered if they are accurate and really from the source claimed? I have, but evidently that is partially due to my limited knowledge of electronics and how the Internet works.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article explaining how to verify the content (and, I assume, sender and recipient of an email).

The article explains:

A digital key buried in the emails sent by Hillary Clinton’s staff shows that many of the most important emails released via Wikileaks have not been modified or falsified, according to a series of tests conducted by security experts and by Breitbart News.

The tests are important because they undermine efforts by Democrats to deter media coverage of the Wikileaks emails with vague claims that the messages cannot be verified, or could be faked, or modified. So far, those claims have been made by Donna Brazile, the interim head of the Democratic National Committee, and by Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s choice for her vice-president.

On Tuesday, for example, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday that “I can’t verify the integrity of these emails,” when he was asked about an email which showed Clinton’s staff knew that President Barack Obama was communicating with Clinton via her secret home-made email system. The email contradicts Obama’s March 2015 claim that he learned about Clinton’s server at “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

But Breitbart News used commercial software and a basic e-mail verification system to confirm that the Clinton staff email — “he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov” — is valid, true and unmodified.

The article includes pictures of some of the emails and explains the method of verifying that they are real and have not been altered. As I previously explained, electronics is not my strong point, so I won’t try to explain the process.

The bottom line here is that the negative information that is coming out about Hillary Clinton is real. It is also now proven that President Obama emailed Hillary Clinton at her private server. That means that he lied to America when he said that he found out about Hillary Clinton’s private server when he read it in the newspaper.

So why is the Obama Administration aiding in the coverup of the Hillary Clinton scandals? What we are watching is the Washington establishment (both parties) trying desperately to cling to power. If Donald Trump is elected, he may keep his promise to ‘drain the swamp’ that Washington has become. That is a serious threat to the financial and physical well being of a lot of very powerful people. It is also something that is desperately needed. The best thing all of us can do at this point is ignore anything reported by the mainstream media or said by an establishment politician for the next ten days. I think the next week or so is going to contain an awful lot of mud aimed at Donald Trump. I doubt that any of what is reported will be accurate.

How Does This Accurately Inform The American People?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article based on Wikileaks information about the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the media.

The article reports:

Thanks to Wikileaks we now know that at least 65 mainstream reporters were working closely with the Clinton campaign this election year. They were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta or Chief Campaign strategist Joel Benenson.

NO FOX NEWS REPORTERS MADE THE LIST!

…We also know that Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush was sending the Hillary campaign articles for their review before publishing.

We know CNBC and New York Times reporter John Harwood was working with the Clinton campaign to help Hillary.

At least 65 mainstream media reporters were chummy with the Hillary campaign from the beginning.\

How are Americans supposed to make intelligent decisions about voting when a large portion of the media is working with one of the candidates? Please follow the link above to read the entire article and see the list of media people included.

How To Undermine An Investigation

Wikileaks is giving us tremendous insight into the corruption that seems to encompass Washington politics, but there are still some people who are doing investigative reporting and posting the information on the internet for everyone to see. This article is a combination of an article citing information from Wikileaks and an article that is the result of some good investigative reporting.

Yesterday Lifezette posted an article about some emails released by Wikileaks relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The article reports:

The email in question is a list of recent voicemail messages left for Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta around Oct. 6, 2015, including one from McCaskill. “Give me a call back at your convenient [sic] on my cell or at home. Got some info about the state department IG,” she said. “You guys should digest and figure out what if anything we can do.”

…Adam Jentleson, a top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, planted a story in The New York Times alleging a past connection between a single staffer in the IG’s office and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was evidence of “fishy” activity.

Jentleson noted the deputy inspector general at the State Department was Emilia DiSanto, who had previously been a top aide to Grassley and alleged DiSanto could be improperly feeding information on the State Department inquiry to her former boss.

“There does seem to be a fishy pattern here, and a fishy connection,” Jentleson told The New York Times.

A separate email released by WikiLeaks last week seems to confirm the Clinton camp had put Reid’s office up to the attack on the IG’s credibility.

Let’s get something straight. Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a threat to national security. There is little doubt that the server was hacked by any foreign intelligence service worth its salt. This is a national security matter–not a political matter. It speaks volumes that the Democratic party and The New York Times were willing to turn it into a political matter.

Now to go to the investigative reporting part of the story. Twitchy posted an article yesterday about another aspect of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The article reports:

The quick and dirty summary is that Gov. McAuliffe’s super PAC donated the $467,500 in a failed attempt to elect Dr. Jill McCabe to the state senate in 2015. She lost the race to the incumbent Republican, but shortly after the election her husband — Andrew McCabe — was promoted to Deputy Director of the FBI and one of his jobs was an “oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

It is long past time to clean house in Washington. Americans have become the victims of political incest!

If You Repeat A Lie Often Enough, People Accept It As Truth

On Thursday, Fred Fleitz posted an article at National Review about Hillary Clinton‘s claim that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for the wikileaks release of damaging DNC emails and damaging Hillary Clinton emails. That statement does not line up with the facts.

The article reports:

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

The author of the article explains the problem he has with that statement:

My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.

This is another example of the fact that the Obama Administration has totally politicized every aspect of our government. Government agencies that need to operate independently of partisan politics has not operated that way under President Obama. It is a safe bet that they will be equally political under a President Hillary Clinton.

The article at National Review concludes:

Maybe the Russians are behind the WikiLeak hacks of Democrat e-mails, possibly to influence the 2016 presidential election. I’m not convinced of this. I’m more concerned that these constant leaks of Democratic e-mails demonstrate that Democratic officials appear to have no understanding of the need for Internet security. This makes me wonder if John Podesta’s e-mail password is “password.” These are the people Clinton will be giving senior jobs with high-level security clearances. That is the real security scandal that no one is talking about.

Fred Fleitz is a senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee.

 

 

Today’s Shiny Object

One of the main weapons the press uses to manipulate the American public is the choice of which news stories to spend time on and which news stories to ignore. When you look at some of the coverage in this election campaign, it becomes very obvious that the media has taken sides.

Last Friday, The Federalist Papers website reported the following:

Between ABC News, NBC News, and CBS, they covered the Trump tape for 23 minutes during one night of coverage. The Clinton WikiLeaks revelations got just 56 seconds of coverage — with NBC News omitting it altogether.

There are two major differences between the Trump tape (and subsequent spurious allegations) and the Clinton revelations.

First, what Clinton has done has enormous implications for the country and our lives individually. She was First Lady, a senator, and secretary of state. What she’s done as a public servant affects us greatly. What she has said she will do as president if she’s elected has massive implications for the future of this country and the western world.

What Trump said 11 years ago, lewd as it was, has little effect on any of us personally or the future of this country. It’s not terribly likely to have much of an effect on any of our lives — not in the way Clinton’s scandals and policies will.

Today the focus is on an answer to a question Chris Wallace addressed to Donald Trump, but never to Hillary Clinton.

Today The Wall Street Journal reported:

Charges that election results might be rigged have moved from the fringes of U.S. politics to a central issue in the closing days of the 2016 campaign as Republican Donald Trump has repeatedly and without corroborating evidence suggested a fair outcome may be impossible.

You will find some form of this story in all of the major news sources. There is no mention of the times in recent history that Democrats claimed fraud.

From an October 2002 issue of Newsweek (posted at prnewswire)::

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue. “You know, I’m a fan of Clintonomics,” she told the crowd while standing from a perch on the staircase of movie producer Alan Horn’s art-filled Bel Air home, “and this administration is destroying in months our eight years of economic progress.”

This was two years after the election, and Hillary Clinton was still complaining that the election has been rigged. John Kerry is on the record as saying similar things. There was a definite effort by the Democrats to delegitimize both elections of George W. Bush. The media needs to remember this in their criticism of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Project Veritas has released videos showing illegal activity on the part of the Clinton campaign and wikileaks has released emails showing corruption within the campaign and the media has provided very little information on the subject. It is a safe bet that many voters have little or no idea of any of the information contained in those videos or documents. How are voters going supposed to make an informed decision when the media chooses not to inform them?

This Is Unbelievable

There are a number of sources on this story. I chose Twitchy, a site that posted the story last night. During the debate last night, Hillary Clinton revealed our response time to a nuclear attack. That is classified information, and she revealed it on national television during the debate.

The article reminds us:

She also repeated on #DebateNight the established Democrat talking point that the contents of the documents posted by WikiLeaks aren’t nearly as important as the fact that Russia is hacking our servers — a threat so severe that she decided to set up her own private email server in her house.

It’s fine, though: she assured the public that just because she didn’t know what the (C) on her emails indicated, it didn’t matter as she treated everything as if it were at the highest level of classification … well, just about everything.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The article includes tweets from people who realized what she had said as soon as she said it. This is a degree of carelessness that would be a genuine danger were Hillary Clinton to occupy the White House.

The Future In America?

Yesterday Lifezette reported that Julian Assange’s internet connection at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London was severed Sunday, according to WikiLeaks.

The article includes the following:

“Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans,” the organization tweeted around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday evening.

WikiLeaks has not pointed a finger directly at any specific government, nor has it provided any evidence that a state actor is indeed responsible for the attack on Assange’s internet link.

Wikileaks has been a major player in the American presidential campaign. One can only speculate as to who actually cut the cord.

The article states:

However, WikiLeaks has been a major inconvenience for the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration of late, releasing a hoard of hacked emails from Clinton’s campaign Chairman John Podesta. So far over 12,000 of the alleged 50,000 Podesta emails in WikiLeaks’ possession have been released.

Both the U.S. government and the Clinton campaign have blamed these leaks on Russia and have sought to paint WikiLeaks as some sort of satellite department of Russian intelligence. If a state actor is truly responsible for pulling the plug on Assange’s internet connection, current events strongly suggest the actor with the most motivation would be the United States.

You have to wonder if the American government cut the cord. The thing to remember when viewing this is the degree to which Donald Trump is a threat to the status quo and the establishment. There is little doubt that his presidency would involving cleaning house in Washington and removing a lot of dead wood. It is quite likely that some of that corruption and dead wood had something to do with cutting the WikiLeaks internet connection. Is this the direction freedom of speech will take if Hillary Clinton is elected?

You Might Want To Look At This List

The Gateway Pundit has posted a detailed list of the top Wikileaks Podesta Emails.

Here is a small sample:

Hillary Policies –

Hillary Clinton Dreams of ‘Open Trade and Open Borders’
Hillary Admits Saudi Arabia and Qatar Fund ISIS – But Took Their Money Anyway
Hillary sat on Board that funded ISIS
Hillary’s own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi
Hillary bragged about being invited to Russia’s Putin’s ‘Inner Sanctum’
Clinton Campaign Fudged Climate Change Data – Inflated Emission Numbers
Hillary team picked Tim Kaine as VP in July 2015
Clinton Camp worried as Chelsea hosts “fundraiser” aka Cash payment for Radical Islamic Group that wants to end Israel
Hillary concerned Obama’s over regulation of banks is killing the industry (but this is her position as well)
Obama’s rhetoric ruined the status of forces agreement with Iraq, thus creating ISIS
Trump is right – liberal Hispanic judge’s wife met with Podesta
Hillary’s team agrees that Hillary is running for Obama’s 3rd term
Clinton campaign discussing how to make Hillary more likable
Donald Trump tweets: Obama owes Hillary for illegally holding his emails
Hillary agrees Obamacare stinks in speech to Goldman Sachs (but promotes with public)
Democrats downplay Benghazi because only 4 people died
Smoking gun on Iran deal Nuclear War coming

Please follow the link above to read the complete list–it is chilling.

Using The Press To Try To Steal An Election

It has long been obvious that the press is biased toward the liberal end of the political spectrum, but that bias has really been extreme during the current presidential primary. On Thursday, Kim Strassel at The Wall Street Journal posted an article noting the difference in the press coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The media spent a lot of time covering allegations of inappropriate behavior by Donald Trump despite the fact that these allegations had not be made during the thirty years he has been in the public eye and despite the fact that some of the circumstances of the allegations are extremely questionable. Meanwhile, Wikileaks leaked many of the emails that Hillary Clinton had destroyed as ‘personal’ or simply not turned over in response to subpoenas for those emails and the press pretty much ignored the contents of those emails.

The article reports:

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

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

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

…The leaks show that the (Clinton) foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”

The article concludes:

Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”

Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.

That should concern all of us.

 

A New Low In Presidential Campaigning

Below is an excerpt from an article posted at Hot Air today. Draw your own conclusions. I suspect this has been done before, but it is disgusting:

TrumpLeaks is an effort to uncover unreported video or audio of Donald Trump so voters can have access to the Donald Trump who existed before running for president and before his recent affinity for teleprompters. TrumpLeaks can provide some compensation to those who have usable, undoctored video or audio that has been legally obtained or is legally accessible.

Translated that means that David Brock, Hillary’s media hatchet man, has put out the word that his Correct the Record super PAC is ready to pay for dirt on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

This story is revealing in a couple of ways. First, Brock is effectively an arm of the Clinton campaign. If she found this offensive she could shut it down with a phone call. So next time you hear Clinton or the media claim she is taking the high road in this campaign, e.g. ‘we care about the issues that are important to Americans’ keep in mind that her people are eager to pay for dirt on her opponent.

Second, it was a big story when Trump off-handedly said he hoped Russia would find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails. The Clinton campaign instantly ran with the claim that Trump was calling on a foreign government to conduct “espionage” against Hillary. That never made any sense given that Hillary’s long ago deleted emails would be on a defunct server now in the possession of the FBI. But the fact that it was nonsense didn’t stop the media from running with it for days. It will be interesting to see if the media even bothers to make the Clinton world effort to pay for dirt on Trump a story.

Second, the fact that this is being called TrumpLeaks suggests just how much WikiLeaks has Democratic insiders spooked. The DNC has already lost a party chairwoman, a CEO, a CFO and several other high ranking figures because of embarrassing leaks. Julian Assange promises there will be more to come.

Donald Trump may be smarter about what he writes down than Hillary.

If We Had An Honest Media, This Video Would Be Unnecessary

The following video was posted on YouTube yesterday. The video is an interview of Julian Assange. Regardless of how you feel about this man, it is a very interesting interview.

PJ Media posted an article that included the video yesterday.

The article includes the following:

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for —  because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Here is the video:

 

Draw your own conclusions.

Where Is The Mainstream Media?

Somehow the mainstream media missed the following story. I almost did. The story is from August 19th and was posted at Investor’s Business Daily.

The article reports:

Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations‘ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

The article goes on to list some of Mr. Soros’ activities:

As we noted in this space on Monday, the leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections. The “List of European Elections 2014 Projects” details over 90 Soros efforts he had under way that year.

The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups, with a goal of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists.

More recently, an October 2015 document came to light showing that Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” Since then, several BLM protests have turned violent.

That same document details how this group successfully used its “extensive networks” to pressure the Obama administration into increasing the number of refugees it would take to 100,000, despite concerns that Islamic terrorists could use the refugee program to infiltrate the U.S.

A separate memo details how Soros tried to use his clout to sway Supreme Court justices into approving President Obama’s unilateral effort to rewrite immigration law. “Grantees are seeking to influence the Justices (primarily via a sophisticated amicus briefs and media strategy) in hopes of securing a favorable ruling in U.S. v Texas,” the memo, dug up by the Daily Caller, states.

The article reports on an email leaked by Wikileaks showing that George Soros was giving then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton very specific instructions on how to handle unrest in Albania in early 2011.

Referring to the instructions given regarding Albania, the article states:

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

I guess the mainstream media has been dying for a while, but ignoring this story is amazing. I am waiting for the day that the mainstream media realizes that if we lose our freedom and security in America they will also be impacted. I am not holding my breath.

The Media Loves To Follow The Money In Politics (Sometimes)

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted a story about some recent revelations regarding money in politics. Oddly enough, they were one of the few news organizations reporting the information.

The article reports:

Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations‘ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.

Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.

Some of the information revealed by the documents:

As we noted in this space on Monday, the leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections. The “List of European Elections 2014 Projects” details over 90 Soros efforts he had under way that year.

The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups, with a goal of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists.

More recently, an October 2015 document came to light showing that Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” Since then, several BLM protests have turned violent.

Not only is a non-American influencing American foreign policy and trying to influence American elections, he is directly funding a group that is fomenting violence in America.

The article further reports:

This year alone, Soros has given $7 million to the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA super-PAC, and a total of $25 million to support Democrats and their causes, according to Politico.

And when Soros speaks, Clinton listens. A separate email released by WikiLeaks shows Soros giving what read like step-by-step instructions to then-Secretary of State Clinton on how to deal with unrest in Albania in early 2011, including a list of people who should be considered as candidates to become an official mediator sent to that country. Days later, the EU dispatched one of the people on Soros’ list.

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

Most American voters will never be aware of this story. They will calmly go to the polls in November unaware that George Soros is pulling Hillary Clinton’s strings. George Soros will be calling the shots in the White House if Hillary Clinton is elected. Is that good for America?

There Are More Questions Than Answers In This Story

Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that Julian Assange of Wikileaks suggested that Seth Rich, who was murdered in Washington, D.C., on July 10, was responsible for the leak of the DNC emails to wikileaks. Those emails resulted in the firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I honestly do not know what to think of this claim.

The article reports:

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

…On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.

Now this…
Julian Assange suggested on Tuesday that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.

There are a few things here that are interesting. Why did Wikileaks offer a reward? If it was a robbery, the thief was definitely inept. If Seth Rich leaked the emails, what was all the fuss about the Russians and their relationship with Donald Trump? Is it possible that Seth Rich leaked the emails because he was an honest man trying to reveal the truth?

The article also includes this statement:

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

This is very strange, and I don’t know if we will ever know the actual truth or find the culprit. It does seem odd that a number of people associated with the Clintons seem to meet untimely deaths.

 

 

Never Write Anything In An Email That You Wouldn’t Want To See On The Front Page Of The New York Times

The Internet is not a safe place. It is very easy to be hacked. It is also very easy to have something foolish posted ten years ago follow you into a job interview.  Travel the information highway at your own risk.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the leaked DNC email scandal. The pointed out some things that may be overlooked in the uproar.

The article reports:

It’s a general rule of thumb that when a leak hurts Republicans, the media focus on the leak. But when the leak hurts a Democrat, the media focus on the nefarious motives of the leaker. This bias has on bold display in the wake of the release of hacked DNC emails last Friday.

As everyone now knows, the nearly 20,000 e-mails so far released contain revelations about how the party — which was publicly claiming to be neutral in the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — was actively trying to torpedo Sanders’ bid.

Almost immediately, the Clinton campaign tried to suggest that this was somehow part of a conspiracy on the part of Vladimir Putin to help Donald Trump get elected.

The article also reminds us that much of the hacking took place before Donald Trump was the Republican candidate. Somehow that is being left out in the news coverage.

The article includes a wonderful quote:

The story went on to quote Rook Security CEO J.J. Thompson, who said that “just because you find an AK-47 at a crime scene doesn’t mean a Russian pulled the trigger.”

A few more random facts from the article:

For one thing, the hackers broke into the DNC servers long before anyone, including the Russians, had any reason to think Trump would be the nominee. For another, the emails themselves are an embarrassment for the Democratic Party, not Clinton herself, and have managed mainly to aggravate an existing wound between the party establishment and Bernie Sanders supporters.

For another, the decision to release the emails on the eve of the Democratic Convention was the decision of WikiLeaksJulian Assange, who up until now has been a hero of the left.

There’s also the rather unbelievable supposition underlying this conspiracy — namely that Clinton would be some sort of superhawk when it comes to Russia.

…What’s more, it was Clinton who signed off on a deal that gave Russia control of a fifth of all the uranium production capacity in the U.S., while Uranium One was making fat donations to the Clinton Foundation.

When the deal was finished, Pravda boasted that “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

So what, exactly, is the basis of the claim that Putin has any reason to be fearful of a Clinton presidency? None. So why are reporters pushing this story? To give Clinton a helping hand.

If nothing else, the slant of the reporting on the leaked emails illustrates exactly what the emails stated–the collusion between the Democratic Party and the news media. It is my hope that the American people are paying attention.

When Wikileaks Leaks…

This story is based on an article that appeared in The Washington Post yesterday and an article that appeared in The Conservative Treehouse yesterday.

The Washington Post reported:

Wikileaks posted a massive trove of internal Democratic National Committee emails online Friday, in what the organization dubbed the first of a new “Hillary Leaks” series.

The cache includes nearly 20,000 emails and more than 8,000 file attachments from the inboxes of seven key staffers of the DNC, including communications director Luis Miranda and national finance director Jordan Kaplan, according to the Wikileaks website. The emails span from January 2015 through late May and are presented in a searchable database. 

…A hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for handing the documents over to Wikileaks on Twitter. However, some experts have expressed skepticism about his involvement, citing differences between the data Wikileaks released and Guccifer 2.0’s previous leaks of hacked data.

The Democratic Party has had its share of cybersecurity woes recently. Last month, the DNC acknowledged that its systems had been breached.

The Conservative Treehouse reports:

Another rather Jaw-Dropping release within the latest WikiLeaks document dump of DNC emails outlines the planning for a joint fundraiser in September 2015.

Apparently, The Washington Post was hosting a party.  The DNC saw the opportunity to make a fundraiser out of it and sell tickets to the party to donors.   However, the email chain shows the lawyers for the DNC said they can’t publish the price for the tickets because the joint event would be illegal.

The Washington Post and DNC still held the joint event, they just never left a traceable paper trail (to outsiders) showing their combined efforts.

The Conservative Treehouse article includes a copy of an email explaining what they were doing (obtained through the hacking of the DNC).

I don’t agree with hacking into other people’s computers, but there are laws broken here on the part of the DNC. There are also some serious questions brought out by other hacked emails about how the DNC handled funds during their primary campaign. When I read that The Washington Post participated in a DNC fundraising event, any idea that I might have had about objective reporting on their part was totally destroyed. It gets worse.

A website called Storyleak posted the following graphic in 2011:

MediaOwnershipIf America wants to remain a free country, America voters need to tune out the news put out by corporations and do their own research. It is sad that our fourth estate has been taken over by corporations and no longer reports the truth–we have to depend on groups like wikileaks to do the investigative reporting that the media used to do and report.

Sometimes The Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction

After the airport meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a lot of Americans have concluded that Hillary Clinton now has a ‘get out of jail free card.’ That may or may not have been the intention of the meeting, but at any rate, a wrench has been thrown into the works.

The Hill is reporting today that WikiLeaks has published more than 1,000 emails from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. These emails relate to the war in Iraq.

The Hill reports:

The website tweeted a link to 1,258 emails that Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee sent and received. They stem from a trove of emails released by State Department in February.

WikiLeaks combed through the emails to find all the messages that reference the Iraq War.

The development comes after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said last month the website had gathered “enough evidence” for the FBI to indict Clinton.

“We could proceed to an indictment, but if Loretta Lynch is the head of the [Department of Justice] in the United States, she’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton,” Assange told London-based ITV. “That’s not possible that could happen.”

First of all, the article does not make this clear, but according to another source, these emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request–the server was not hacked to obtain them. The server may have been hacked, but we don’t know that for sure. Second of all, the emails I would be looking at if I were going to build a criminal case would be the emails regarding the Clinton Foundation. There were many foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. These are the emails the government says they will not release until two and a half years. Much of the money was funneled through a charity in Canada so that the money would not be directly traceable. Recently, Charles Krauthammer explained this on Bill O’Reilly’s show:

1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case, the Clintons set it up in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did – contributing mega millions. I’m sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity)

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clintons , pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result – foreign money goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering. Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. Uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia . This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the
approval was granted.

Get out the popcorn, the show has begun.

Why We Still Need Guantanamo

Yesterday CNN reported that Belgium police had arrested two former Guantanamo detainees on terrorism charges.

The article reports:

One of the former Guantanamo Bay detainees was Moussa Zemmouri, 37, a Moroccan national born in Antwerp, Belgian federal prosecutors announced Friday. The other was an Algerian identified as Soufiane A., who prosecutors believe spent time in Syria.

Both have been charged with participating in the activities of a terrorist group and all five have been charged with attempted armed robbery.

Zemmouri was released from Guantanamo in 2005 and authored a book “Innocent at Guantanamo” after returning to Belgium. His case was featured prominently by the UK Muslim prisoner advocacy group CAGE, which has long maintained that he has no links to terrorism.

In the past it has been acceptable practice to hold prisoners of war until the war was over. Unfortunately, the war on terror may last a very long time, but that is no excuse for sending terrorists back into the world. The recidivism rate of former Guantanamo prisoners is high. Even if it were low, do we want to release people who are trained to kill innocent civilians?

Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego?

Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego?” was an educational computer game that we used to help our children learn geography. I don’t think he’s doing it to teach us all geography, but that is the gist of the Edward Snowden story right now.

I still have not figured out whether Mr. Snowden is a hero or a goat. I do have a few general comments on the entire episode, however. Mr. Snowden is a product of the American education system. He is a high school dropout. He is young–he is not necessarily mature enough to make the decisions he is currently facing, nor does he have enough knowledge to make those decisions.

Consider this. Mr. Snowden grew up in an education system that does not value America or American values. He has been taught on one hand not to trust the government and on the other hand that the government will take care of him and solve all of his problems. He finds himself working at a job that increases his suspicions of the government (and who knows how many “Matrix” movies he has watched), and he has no idea what to do. He starts exploring the InternetWikileaks websites–and decides Wikileaks has the right idea, so he gets in touch with them. At that point he has started a runaway train that cannot be stopped.

Mr. Snowden will never again enjoy the freedom that we have as Americans. He has been so miseducated in America that he has no idea what he has lost. Admittedly, the present Administration has a lot to answer for in terms of spying on Americans and friends and foes of America, but unfortunately, that is all too easy to do in today’s world. I think spying on innocent Americans is wrong–I don’t think it requires fleeing the country with four computers. I wonder exactly what was on those four computers.

As I have said, I have not yet concluded whether Mr. Snowden is a hero or a goat, but his choice of countries to align himself with has me leaning toward goat.

Enhanced by Zemanta