Saturday, June 24, 2017

Hillary

by -
Wait, what does that spell?

On Wednesday, during a discussion at the Code Conference, Hillary Clinton, the former presidential candidate, dismissed the investigation of her private email server as being insignificant.

“The use of my email account was turned into, you know, the biggest scandal since Lord knows when,” Clinton said when the topic of “weaponizing” technology came up in the conversation. “And, you know … I’m just using everything that anybody else said about it besides me to basically say this was the biggest nothing-burger ever.”

Clinton continued, “It was a mistake. I’ve said it was a mistake. And obviously, if I could turn the clock back, I wouldn’t have done it in the first place. But the way that it was used was very damaging.”

The executive producer of the conference, Kara Swisher, from Recode, then asked Clinton, “And you didn’t handle it — that’s a mistake on your part, or the way it was used was a mistake on your — because we’re trying to get at what you think you misjudged?”

Clinton replied, reiterating her previous stance that she wasn’t careless and didn’t break any rules.

“Doing something that others had done before was no longer acceptable in the new environment in which we found ourselves,” Clinton explained to Swisher. “And there was no law against it; there was no rule — nothing of that sort. So, I didn’t break any rule. Nobody said, don’t do this — and I was very responsible and not at all careless.”

Later during the discussion, Clinton went on to compare the coverage her email scandal received to the US’ role in the World War 2 and how Pearl Harbor was covered by the media.

“And I think it was interesting — I know you had Dean Baquet here from The New York Times yesterday. And they covered it like it was Pearl Harbor,” Clinton said. “And then, in their endorsement of me, they said, this email thing — it’s like a help desk issue. So, it was always a hard issue to put to bed; but we put it to bed in July. And then, it rose up again.”

by -
Liberal women are STILL with her.

During Tuesday’s transmission of ABC’s famed daytime show, “The View,” two liberal co-hosts criticized the validity of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, claiming the topic was “fake news.”

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg decried that the dispute behind Clinton’s email server could be called “fake news” purposely cooked up by the Russians.

Talking about the Russian investigation probe as a whole, the women discussed the allegations stemming from anonymous sources that President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was known to be in constant communication with Moscow prior to the 2016 election.

Jedidiah Bila, the conservative hsot of the show, gave the story no credibility; however, the liberal panelists said that they believed the story about Kushner and his association with the Russians to be true.

Goldberg then accused Bila of supporting “fake news,” and brought up Clinton’s emails.

“You believed that there were … e-mails, you believed the e-mail thing,” Goldberg accused Bila.

Bila responded, “Only what was found.”

“I’m sorry?” Goldberg asked, defending Clinton. “No, not just what we found. You know, I never want to point fingers but I will say that a lot of people occasionally said it at this very table, you know, her e-mails, she’s been dishonest.”

Bila then reminded Goldberg that the investigation into Clinton’s email server was not fake news. “That was proven, Whoopi. That was proven.”

Goldberg then reiterated her theory that Clinton’s email scandal was fake, and Behar joined in agreement.

“It was fake,” the two added on separate occasions.

“Fake news,” Behar added.

Later during the show, Behar deliberated why James Comey, the former FBI Director, didn’t acknowledge that Clinton’s emails were “fake news” cooked by the Russians to try and sabotage the 2016 election.

“Let me ask you something,” Behar said. “According to what I’ve been reading, Comey finds out at that time that this is fake news that the Russians basically planted. And yet he doesn’t … when he announces there’s some issue with Hillary’s e-mail he doesn’t tell the American people what he knows which is this is fake news. Why doesn’t he say that at that time?”

Bila responded, “I don’t know but what that proves to me … I don’t know but isn’t that proof that anything can be fake? Any of this can be fake.”

by -
Look mother, I did something!

City Harvest presented the City Harvest Award for Commitment of Chelsea Clinton on her days’ worth of work at their campaign. The former first daughter, Chelsea Clinton was seem spending several hours during a single day at the City Harvest.  Her exceptional performance in putting grapefruits in bags was able to earn her an award on Tuesday, at the New York charity gala.

The charity work was performed under Clinton Foundation’s Day of Action program. This program was established by none other than the former first daughter.  The Clinton Foundation volunteers and she herself packed some 25,000 grapefruits that were set to be distributed to the poor in New York City.

It was due to work that Clinton performed during her very few hours at the charity that she received an award.

“We believe in City Harvest because no child should go hungry,” said Clinton during a speech at the gala, referring to The Clinton Foundation of which she is the vice chair.

Clinton’s action were indeed no less admirable, however, they may appear as slightly less admirable given that she had received an award for the minimal time that she had spent on the project, as compared to the that were far more dedicated towards the cause.

Heat Street was noted saying, “Of course, any action in service of the hungry is admirable. But of all the volunteers serving the impoverished in New York, it’s probably no secret that Chelsea hardly ranks among the most dedicated. Even her commitment to City Harvest comes because the Clinton Foundation is a financial sponsor of the organization and that’s likely what she was being rewarded for: the money.”

And that, “We shudder to think at all the people who would have gone grapefruit-less had Chelsea Clinton not so generously offered several hours of her time to pack grapefruit in boxes.”

This award came proceeding Clinton’s honorary award by Variety for working alongside Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a program founded by the very Clinton Foundation.

by -
Chelsea is ignoring all of the warning sides about the future of her political career.

Liberal magazine, Vanity Fair’s writer slammed Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, in a recent article plaintive over the mainstream media’s consistent efforts of keeping the former first daughter under the spotlight, after her mother’s second presidential defeat.

The column comes in the wake of countless Clinton stories being pushed by the mainstream media outlets. While others keep asking Clinton if she is ever going to run for political office, Variety magazine put her on the cover of a recent issue of their magazine.

The column, published Friday, is titled, “Please, God, Stop Chelsea Clinton From Whatever She Is Doing.”

“Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods,” Vanity Fair’s T.A. Franks wrote in the column.

“One wishes to calm these publications,” he added. “Nevertheless, they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats.”

Franks described Clinton as a lightweight intellectual, saying she’s as bland as oatmeal.

“What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping,” he wrote, noting this gem from Clinton’s 2015 children’s book “It’s Your World.”

“At first glance, of course, Chelsea seems to be boasting that at age five she was interpreting the news with the maturity of an adult. But we should consider whether it’s instead a confession that as an adult she still interprets the news with the maturity of—well, let’s just submit that perhaps she thinks what other people tell her to think. Which brings us to Chelsea’s Twitter feed,” Franks said, referring to Clinton’s supposed letter to Reagan.

Franks then continued slamming Clinton, turning to her “blue state opinion” tweets, which she regularly delves out to her Twitter followers, that now number 1.6 million. Franks also took a shot at them, saying her Twitter followers have a cult-like obsession with her.

He wrote:

“To find fault with the former First Daughter is to invite the wrath of thousands. Love of Chelsea correlates closely with love of Hillary, toward whom her fans have long felt an odd protectiveness, as if she were a stroke survivor regaining the power of speech rather than one of the most influential people in the world. That goes even more for Chelsea, who is often treated less like an independent 37-year-old multi-millionaire and more like the 12-year-old who still deserves to be left alone.”

“On the other hand, if you’re posing for magazine covers, granting interviews, doing book tours, placing your name on your parents’ multi-million-dollar foundation, and tweeting out daily to 1.6 million people, then—guess what—you’re a public figure. And if you’ve openly entertained the possibility of running for office if “it was something I felt called to do,” then assurances to the contrary aren’t quite good enough,” Franks added. “You’re a public hazard.”

by -
No, not again!

Judicial Watch today released 1,184 pages of State Department records, including previously unreleased Hillary Clinton email exchanges, revealing additional instances of Abedin and Hillary Clinton sending classified information through unsecured email accounts and contributors being given special access to the former secretary of state.

The emails, were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department after it failed to respond to a March 18 FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). The lawsuit seeks:

  • All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-“state.gov” email address.

The records contain 29 previously undisclosed Clinton emails – of a total of which is now at least 288 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. This further appears to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department. Two of these emails are now available on the State Department’s website.

In a February 2010 email exchange Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton, sent to Clinton’s and Abedin’s unsecure email accounts information that the State Department has classified as the material includes information “to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources.” The redacted information concerns “former GTMO [Guantanamo] detainee Binyam Mohamed” and Mohamed’s request for “various classified intelligence documents” that contained U.S. intelligence information related to his detention before he was taken to Guantanamo.

In April 2010, Sid Blumenthal sent two email memos to Clinton containing information now classified.  Clinton forwarded this material to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The classified information, which Clinton asks Abedin to print off for her, concerns the change of government in the Kyrgyz Republic.

In other emails, Clinton’s “final” schedules with specific details concerning her whereabouts were transmitted by Lona Valmoro to the unsecure emails accounts of Clinton Foundation officials Doug Band, Terry Krivnic Margaret Steenberg and others, and forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account.

In a March 15, 2010, exchange, Band forwarded to Abedin a request for help from Philip Levine, who is presumably the mayor of Miami Beach.  Reports said Levine had been a fundraiser for the Clintons since the 1990s.

The newly obtained emails also reveal some unsuccessful efforts to set up phone meetings for Clinton with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

In a February 23, 2010, email, ambassador and Clinton friend Capricia Marshall asked Band and Abedin to work with her to plan Bill and Hillary Clinton’s funeral arrangements and notes: “once affirmed it will be very hard for someone to deny the type of ceremony she [Hillary] wanted – as well I understand that the President can request certain arrangements for her that she/her rep cannot (ie if you want the motorcade to go through DC – stop somewhere).”

A March 9, 2010, email exchange between Abedin and Band reveals some tension between Clinton’s top personal aide and the former secretary of state’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. The apparent rift was revealed when Chelsea Clinton asked Band if he could arrange a White House tour for a female Haitian-American sailor from the USS Comfort.  Band passed the request to Abedin, who replied to Band: “I don’t want to get cross wise with cdm [Cheryl Mills] on anything Haiti related” and “HAVE YOU MET CHERYL MILLS? [Emphasis in original] you have no idea.”

“These emails are yet more evidence of Hillary Clinton’s casual and repeated violations of laws relating to the handling of classified information,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “The Justice Department should finally begin an independent investigation into the Clinton email matter.”

by -
Ruuuunnnn! Wait, no don't, just more fake news.

In 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a red button that was meant to read, in Russian, “Reset.” Secretary Clinton stated that it was President Obama’s desire to “reset” the U. S. relationship with Russia. Mrs. Clinton said that they had worked very hard to use the correct Russian word on this button. “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Of course, we all know now that they got it wrong. Instead of “Reset” the red button read, “Overcharged!”

Overcharged! Considering today’s political climate, “overcharged” was perhaps the correct word after all. Overcharged with personal accusations, political allegations and people with overcharged emotions and hysteria.

Overcharged accusations of Russia hacking the presidential election. Overcharged allegations of a Trump Administration’s relationship with Russia. Overcharged so that Michael Flynn was forced resign for having phone conversations with the Russian Ambassador. So overcharged, that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, felt it necessary to recuse himself from any investigation into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The reason for his self-imposed recusal—meeting with the Russian ambassador while a U. S. Senator. “Overcharged” seems the right word to cover it all.

Now, a Putin spokesman has stated publicly, that people associated with Hillary Clinton met with the Russian Ambassador. Dmitry Peskov told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with, “people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.” Peskov also stated, “Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he [Kislyak] had lots of meetings of that kind.”

A former Clinton campaign spokesman denied that any such meeting took place.

Peskov went on to say it was simply part of Ambassador Kislyak’s job to meet with both sides of the campaign in order increase Moscow’s understanding of things going on in America. He denied that Russia was in anyway trying to interfere with the 2016 election. “There were no meetings about elections” Peskov said. He went on to say that these meetings should not be seen as interfering with the electoral process.

Many would agree with Peskov. Russian interference played no role in the last presidential election. They are more inclined to think that the charges of interference are made to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Others are convinced that Russian involvement made all the difference.

Did the Russians, in some way or the other hack or influence the last presidential election? Or like the button Secretary of State Clinton presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is it all “OVERCHARGED?”

by -
Will T-Rex Tillerson turn over Hillary's emails?

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch, went to court this morning in Washington, D.C. to ask Rex Tillerson’s Department of State to “recover emails of former Secretary of State Hilllary Clinton” and other Department of State employees.

The group had this to say about the hearing:

The hearing will focus on the next steps in light of the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that required Secretary of State John Kerry (now Secretary Rex Tillerson) to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails.

The Federal Records Act states that an agency head “shall” initiate an action through the Attorney General when he becomes aware of any unlawful removal of agency records. The Obama State Department refused to do this. The Trump State Department apparently intends to do the same. This despite the recent D.C. Circuit ruling that the State Department had not proved it had done enough to recover missing emails and that an enforcement action must be sought unless “no imaginable enforcement action by the Attorney General could lead to recovery of the missing emails.” Neither the State Department nor anyone else has ever contended that all the emails have been returned.

This will be the first hearing since Judge James E. Boasberg granted Kerry’s lawyers motion to dismiss. Judicial Watch then won on appeal and Judge Boasberg reversed the decision on December 27, 2016.

Despite the president’s campaign criticism of Hillary Clinton’s email practices and the protection of her illegal behavior by the Obama administration, the Trump State Department told Judicial Watch this week that it would continue to object to asking the Attorney General to take steps to recover Clinton’s emails.

Judicial Watch has been the top organization pursuing Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and, during the Clinton Administration, filed suit against Bill and Hillary Clinton over numerous others issues including Filegate, Chinagate, Travelgate, etc.

The Clinton Administration was sued over 100 times by Judicial Watch.

Please comment below.

by -

Former presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders is stepping up as the only liberal to take on President Trump on the issues, rather then rhetoric.

While congressional leaders of the left continue to ride many false narratives from racism to Russia, Bernie Sanders responded to Trump’s first official speech with an address of his own.

Published on YouTube, the 14 minute talk has already garnered 1.6 million views.

Sanders was known as the outsider candidate for the nomination of the Democrat Party, however, he was thwarted by what many say as corruption of the nomination process by DNC insiders and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Sanders, a self-professed “democratic socialist” still maintains a strong following of (wrong-headed) supporters and as Hillary hides in the woods of Chappaqua, New York, Bernie continues the fight for socialist.

Watch his address above (if you have 14 minutes of your life to waste).

by -

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails:

The courts seem to be fed up with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce the rule of law on the Clinton emails. Today’s appeals court ruling rejects the Obama State Department’s excuses justifying its failure to ask the attorney general, as the law requires, to pursue the recovery of the Clinton emails. This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.

The appellate ruling reverses a decision in which the District Court declared “moot” a Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenging the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry to comply with the Federal Records Act (FRA) in seeking to recover the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high level State Department officials who used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. John F. Kerry (No. 16-5015)). According to the FRA, if an agency head becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal . . . or destruction of [agency] records,” he or she “shall notify the Archivist . . . and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of [those] records.”

An appellate panel found:

Appellants sought the only relief provided by the Federal Records Act—an enforcement action through the Attorney General. But nothing the Department did (either before or after those complaints were filed) gave appellants what they wanted. Instead of proceeding through the Attorney General, the Department asked the former Secretary to return her emails voluntarily and similarly requested that the FBI share any records it obtained. Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder—e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General—might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not “been given everything [they] asked for.” Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.

In May 2015 Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the State Department failed to take action following a letter to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the FRA,” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit subsequently was consolidated with a later lawsuit by Cause of Action Institute. This ruling reverses a January 2016 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the case and remands it.

by -

Hillary Clinton made her first public speech since her concession speech following the election. She spoke at a ceremony for the retiring Nevada Senator Harry Reid.

She spoke on some of Reid’s qualities, but then decided to attack “fake news”.

The Democrats have been focused on what they are calling “Fake news” since Hillary lost the election. Now Hillary is on board.

During her speech, she is referencing a shooting at Comet Pizza in Washington DC, fueled by false information found online.

It seems she is also referencing her election where many of her supporters say she lost the election because of fake news stories that were spread on social media.

Apparently she is forgetting the fact that she has been marred in scandals and FBI investigations during her entire campaign. Hillary lost the election because of Hillary, not due of “fake news”. Hillary lost because of the facts.

She mentions a bill that is moving through Congress with bipartisanship support to limit and stop “fake news” websites. Ironically many of the targeted websites are mostly right leaning sites.

Democrats are hoping to push through the legislation and have it signed into law by president Obama before Trump takes office on January 20th.

Do you think “fake news” is a problem? What do you consider fake news? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

TRENDING STORIES

Comey Deleted

Judicial Watch today announced it sent Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe a warning letter concerning the FBI’s legal responsibility under the Federal Records...