Tag Archives: 2016

A Tale Of Two Investigations

Posted on by

When the FBI is not interfered with, it conducts a thorough, complete investigation. The investigation of Anthony Weiner for sexting an underage girl was well done; the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a sham. That is the reason FBI Director James Comey was forced to reopen the investigation into Hillary’s private email server and the security risks created by Hillary Clinton and her staff’s careless handling of classified information.

On Friday, The New York Post posted an article about the impact the Weiner case has had on the email scandal.

The article stated the following:

It appears the FBI agents investigating Anthony Weiner for sexting an underaged girl have done the job that the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information didn’t or weren’t allowed to do.

Agents reportedly found thousands of State Department-related emails ostensibly containing classified information on the electronic devices belonging to Weiner and his wife and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The discovery has prompted FBI Director James Comey to, on the eve of the election, reopen the Clinton case he prematurely closed last July.

How did agents examine the devices? By seizing them. It’s a common practice in criminal investigations, but one that clearly was not applied in the case of Clinton or her top aide — even though agents assigned to that case knew Abedin hoarded classified emails on her electronic devices.

Contrast the seizure of the devices in the Weiner case with the way electronic devices were handled in the Clinton case (as reported here on October 12):

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

I can’t help but think that if Hillary Clinton had cooperated with the investigation from the beginning, it might have all blown over by now. On the other hand, she might be sitting in a jail cell pondering her future and waiting for a pardon from President Obama.

 

How Does This Accurately Inform The American People?

Posted on by

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.

Using The Press To Try To Steal An Election

Posted on by

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.

 

This Is The Game Being Played

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Washington Free Beacon posted a story that provides a bit of insight into the barrage of recent attacks on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

NBC executives planned to release the tape of Donald Trump’s sexually explicit remarks on an Access Hollywood hot mic to have maximum impact on the election and the second presidential debate, TMZ reported Wednesday.

NBC sources told TMZ that executives knew about the bombshell 2005 tape long before they say they did, but they elected to hold off leaking it because they did not want it to come too early in the race. The tape was reported first by the Washington Post on Oct. 7, two days before Hillary Clinton and Trump’s town hall debate, and it dominated the news cycle through the weekend.

The article quotes a TMZ article from Monday:

TMZ has confirmed … Billy was telling NBC staffers in Rio about the tape back in early August, when he was still working for “Access Hollywood.” We’re told word circulated because Billy made it clear Trump was trash-talking Nancy O’Dell.

NBC News says it didn’t know about the outtakes until a week ago Monday, but the word around the network is people knew, including executives at ‘Access,’ which is an NBC property. We’re told those executives had full knowledge of Billy’s comments on the tape … which creates a potential problem if NBC is serious about firing him.

We are being played. There is also a source that indicates that NBC edited the tape to make it sound worse than it actually was (how much worse could it get?).

It’s time to look past the garbage that is being thrown at us. Some of the stories from the women making charges against Donald Trump have already been disproved. There are also direct connections between some of these women and the Clinton Foundation and Democratic organizations. There is also the fact that Donald Trump has been in the public eye for at least thirty years, and this is the first time we have heard any of this. That in itself is a little unbelievable.

Why None Of The Normal Rules Apply To The Current Election Cycle

Posted on by

Yesterday Nigel Farage posted an article at the U.K. Telegraph containing his observations on the current American election.

Mr. Farage shares his story and observations:

When I arrived at the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, Ohio, back in July, I was amazed at the reaction to me over the Brexit result. Normally we follow trends in America, not the other way round, but it was clear that many of the delegates saw Brexit as an aspiration for what they see as the Trump “revolution” against the Establishment. I met many others who were not delegates or political anoraks, who were also keen to talk about Brexit. A group of retired US Navy veterans told me we should have done it years ago. Others were less impressed and shouted at me in the streets. Indeed, this weekend while I was in St Louis, I received some proper abuse on the Washington University campus. 

…Like him or loathe him, Trump is not a part of the political elite and he most certainly is not constrained by political correctness. When I spoke at one of his rallies in Jackson, Mississippi, I saw a fanatical gathering of his fans who want to give the Establishment a good hiding. “We want our country back” works as a slogan here, too. The first signs of a political rebellion took the form of the Tea Party. The satirist Ian Hislop once described it as rather like Ukip – but with God and guns. They not only railed against the Washington elites, but made the link between big business, Wall Street banks and Washington politics. The same story is behind the growth of new parties across the whole of the European Union and was an important feature in voters’ minds in the UK this June.

Not only did JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs help to fund the Remain campaign but they increasingly give the appearance of owning a whole section of our political class. When Berlusconi was forced to resign as the Italian prime minister, he was replaced by the unelected Mario Monti, a Goldman Sachs man. 

…I met many people at the rally in Jackson, Mississippi, who had never voted in their lives. They may produce an upset similar to Brexit. It does not matter what the opinion polls, bookmakers or markets say, because these new voters are hard to measure. 

I do not see the Brexit result in isolation. Instead, I believe we are witnessing a popular uprising against failed politics on a global scale. People want to vote for candidates with personality, faults and all. It is the same in the UK, America and much of the rest of Europe. The little people have had enough. They want change.

This is going to be an interesting election. If voter fraud is kept under control, Donald Trump will be our next President. If not, I can’t even imaging the darkness this country will go through–we will no longer be equal under the law–some will permanently be more equal than others. It is not a pretty picture.

 

Stealing From The Poor To Enrich The Rich

Posted on by

This is a screenshot taken from the Observer:

bankstatementThe article reports:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

…“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The repeated charges to Mrs. Mahre are not an isolated incident. It is totally amazing to me that with the amount of money the Clintons have amassed through questionable dealings involving the Clinton Foundation they would feel the need to obtain campaign funds dishonestly. There seems to be a pattern in the actions of the Clinton family.

Friday Night At The Movies

Posted on by

Tonight my husband and I went to see 2016: Obama’s America at the Regal Theater in Swansea (MA). This is a movie that the liberal press has not loved. Variety’s Joe Leydon dubbed it a “a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling.” He must not have seen the same movie I saw.

The theater was relatively full–it was a 6:40 showing. My husband and I had a chance to talk to a few of the people who were there. I don’t know what their political affiliations were–this is Massachusetts–sometimes it’s better not to ask–but the feeling I got was one of concern for America and worry about the direction the country is currently heading.

The information in the movie was not new–anyone who has paid attention to anything other than the mainstream media during the past three and a half years knew the basics of the movie. What was different about the movie was the organization of the information we have about President Obama and the insights of the writer, who is from a country that was for many years a British colony.

As Americans, we sometimes forget what it is like to grow up in other countries. President Obama spent some of his younger years in Indonesia, where his stepfather’s leaning toward democracy created problems in his parents’ marriage. Through President Obama’s mother, the President developed an image of his biological father that was not necessarily accurate. There were a number of influences described in the movie that explained President Obama’s policy positions on various issues. In the movie, the President is described as an anti-colonialist. This explains, among other things, his attitude toward the bust of Winston Churchill (see rightwinggranny.com), and his support of Argentina in the debate over ownership of the Falkland Islands.

The movie was not anti-Obama. It was a compilation of biographical facts that should have come out four years ago. There was nothing startling in the movie. It was pointed out that four more years of an Obama Administration would probably change this nation fundamentally, but the audience was given the option of deciding how it would feel about those changes.

I would strongly recommend seeing this movie. It is a basic summary of the biography of President Obama. The information in the movie should be a part of every voter’s decision process before deciding on their Presidential vote in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta