Sunday, April 29, 2018


THE OBAMA-CLINTON SWAMP…. How close they came to destroying American democracy…. It’ what happens when two psychopath lawyers are permitted to run for office!

The Clintons and 'the Jews'

In its never-ending pursuit of revelatory records meant to expose corruption, fraud, waste – and evil generally – in the Deep State, Judicial Watch published an interesting set of records today received from the government in its glacial response to demands for Hillary Clinton's emails.  The records reflect another disturbing email exchange among Hillary's top staffers regarding Jewish Americans, this time with the subject line "Jews."
Judicial Watch published an interesting analysis of this most recent batch of records, rightly focusing again on Hillary Clinton's dangerous abuse of national security information by trafficking it on her unsecure "home-brew" server.  We also discuss yet more evidence of pay-for-play corruption revealed by the latest records, again illustrating the virtual melding of the State Department with the Clinton Foundation "philanthropy."  Its beneficiaries were the Clintons and their vast political machine, with only six percent of their donations actually going to charitable causes in 2014, and the bulk going to "overhead expenses," like travel for the Clintons. 
But one particular email exchange in this latest round caught my attention because it illustrates what I believe is an anti-Semitic current running through the top echelon of the Clinton political machine, consistent with a growing global trend toward anti-Semitism that should alarm everyone in the West.
On August 1, 2010, then-deputy assistant secretary of state for strategic communications and senior adviser to Hillary Clinton Philippe Reines sent an email to other Hillary confidantes, including Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Lona Valmoro, with a copy to "AJS" (probably Andrew J. Shapiro, then-assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs).  In his email, which had the subject line "Jews," Reines wrote: "We spend so much time talking about meetings with Jewish members, Andrew giving speeches, her [Hillary] at AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee].  But nothing to date is better than the photo of Marc with the yalkmukah [sic] and talis."
"Marc" in that exchange may be a reference to Chelsea Clinton's husband (Hillary's son-in-law), Marc Mezvinsky.  "Talis" is a reference to a Jewish prayer shawl, and a yarmulke (correct spelling) is a skullcap, both typically worn by Orthodox Jewish men during prayer.  
The flip comment seems to be expressing a sentiment by Reines that the State Department was spending an inordinate amount of attention catering to Jewish Americans.  And he's even mocking Chelsea's husband (apparently) for wearing traditional Jewish garb.  The subject line itself – "Jews" – should be disconcerting to all Americans, not least of all Jewish Americans, whom Reines is singling out here as a bloc.  History is replete with examples of Jews being singled out as a bloc, often and obviously with horrendous consequences.  Moreover, Reines apparently felt comfortable enough in relaying it to his colleagues that one assumes they shared his derogatory sentiment, evidence of which we have seen before among the Clinton coterie.
As the Daily Caller uncovered in 2016, then-deputy chief of staff and top personal confidante of Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin had an email exchange with Doug Band on September 10, 2009.  At the time, Band was the top aide to former President Bill Clinton and a senior official of the Clinton Foundation.  As Judicial Watch has exposed on numerous occasions (see, for example, herehere, andhere), Band and Abedin, thick as thieves, served as the bridge between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department in the Clintons' scheme to turn the State Department into a cash cow for the Clinton Foundation coffers.
In that exchange, Band told Abedin and Hillary's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, that AIPAC wished for Bill Clinton to speak at the AIPAC conference.  Abedin responded, "U really want to consider sending him in to that crowd?"  Abedin concludes the email thread by saying to Band, "no go to aipac," apparently after consulting with Hillary.
While I detest identity politics and the ethnic grievance industry generally (two areas in which Democrats particularly enjoy trafficking), we see with these emails, and with Huma Abedin's disturbing professional and personal background, a troubling fact pattern.  Abedin's involvement in both these electronic conversations, as the speaker in one and recipient in the other, should bring renewed attention to her past work and associations, and the considerable power she wielded as secretary of state Hillary Clinton's "right arm" for four years.
Huma Abedin hails from a family strongly associated with Islamist groups.  Her father, Zyed Abedin, wrote a book, Muslim Minority Affairs, that Islamic expertWalid Shoebat describes as "an Arab Mein Kampf."  Zyed also founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs that, per former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy, was operated "under the management of" the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which published a pamphlet on Islamist supremacy called "Islamic Views."  McCarthy notes that that publication says it aims to "teach our children to love taking revenge on the Jews and the oppressors."
As the Center for Security Policy has documented extensively, Huma and her family are closely associated with what "can reasonably be considered [Muslim] Brotherhood fronts, or, at minimum, heavily populated by Muslim Brothers or ideological Islamist fellow travelers."  Huma was an assistant editor of IMMA's publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which was funded by top al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was also an assistant editor of the Journal and chairman of IMMA.  Huma's brother, Hassan Abedin, was an associate editor of that journal as well.  Hassan was also a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, a group that, according to CSP, includes Naseef as a board member.  Huma's mother, Saleha Abedin, editor-in-chief for JMMA, founded the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), whose charter, according to CSP, was written by "the infamous Hitler-praising cleric" Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Ms. Abedin's and her family's associations with radical Islamists was so concerning that it prompted five Republican congressmen to request in 2012 that the State Department's inspector general conduct an investigation into Ms. Abedin's history and security clearance.  That sensible request was met with derision and ridicule, even among politicians on the right.  Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, writing in defense of the legislators' request, agreed that a person in such a powerful and sensitive position, with her known associations, should be re-examined, noting that the former head of Russian counterintelligence for the FBI, Robert Hanssen, turned out to have been a Russian spy for 22 years. 
Anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world.  Recently, multiple Orthodox Jewswere assaulted in Brooklyn, apparently due to their Jewish ethnicity, based on their assailants' statements.  Jews in Europe are reportedly facing the highest incidence of anti-Semitic assaults since World War II.  Discussions like those of the Clintons' associates should be taken seriously if the world is to avoid a repetition of the darkness of an earlier era.
William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently, he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author's alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)
Image: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

Are you ready for more of...the Clintons?

The Clintons are back, demonstrating their bona fides again as The Things that Wouldn't Go Away.
Mike Allen at Axios has been keeping tabs on the family and notes that after a short period of lying low, there's a new spate of pan-Clinton activity slated for spring, and oh, it does make him weary.  He writes:
Why it matters: This family has been on the national stage for 26 years – all or most of the lifetime of anyone under 50.  Chelsea Clinton, now 38, was 11 when her father, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, announced his entry into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in October 1991.  He was 45 then; is 71 now.
(Don't miss the excellent graphic attached to this story, which sums up well what we're in for.)
Allen's sentiment echoes that of many Democrats who just want this bunch to exit stage left and let new faces come forward.  We already see this in the ultra-young blank slate left-wing candidates being put forth for the supposed "blue wave" slated to take over Congress, as well as Democrats' leadership manipulating and rigging who gets on the ballot.  The Democratic establishment has already let us know how it feels about the Clintons lingering around in politics, and it's not pretty.  As the Democrats try to retake their ground and reorganize, the Clintons come back to suck all the air from the room.  For them, this is complicated.
As for the rest of us, who've never liked their attention-seeking, their abuses of power, and their left-wing ideology, we just gross out.
We know what we are going to be in for.  We will get to hear all about them on our TV sets, on the internet, on radio, in the papers, as they loudly raise money for their foundation; Bill writes a novel and does a book tour; Chelsea tweets; and Hillary raises money for some left-wing action group that will indirectly drain campaign cash away from Democrats not aligned with Clinton, same as she did during the 2016 campaign.
Sounds like a treat for them, about the same as having to listen to Clintons and more Clintons is going to be.
Apparently, they just can't stand to be out of the spotlight.  Hillary Clinton seems to be actually going insane for lack of this attention.
And oh, gawd, they just won't go away.
Update: Special thanks to Axios for permission to use their illustration by Lazaro Gamio.




Why is the media ignoring the DNC’s new $84 million campaign finance scandal?

While it obsesses over an aging porn star, Russians, discredited ex-FBI officials, and pimple-faced gun-grabbers, the mainstream media has been ignoring an explosive federal lawsuit unearthing a huge illegal money-laundering conspiracy said to have been masterminded last election cycle by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is yet another facet of the plot by which Clinton, possibly in league with then-President Obama, broke the law in an attempt to rig the election. Throughout his agonizingly long presidency, Obama serially abused his powers as the nation's Chief Executive to undermine his political opponents.
Against this backdrop, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign “allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice,” according to a Fox News report that has been gathering dust since April 16.
The civil proceeding, filed against the FEC earlier this month in the nation’s capital, spells out a vast left-wing criminal conspiracy while providing detailed evidence from FEC filings to support the claim that Democrats orchestrated the scheme to do an end-run around federal campaign limits.
The Stop Hillary PAC, also now known as the Committee to Defend the President (CDP), filed a complaint in December with the FEC stating that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) sought funds from high-profile donors and then “sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.”
The complaint went nowhere and the political action committee got tired of waiting.
“The Clinton machine has escaped accountability for its illegal practices for far too long,” said CDP chairman Ted Harvey. “After months of review, the FEC has refused to address the Clintons’ $84 million money laundering scheme that violated several campaign finance laws.”
The federal lawsuit names the FEC as a defendant, claiming its failure to act was “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.”
Harvey’s group is asking the court to use its authority under the Federal Election Campaign Act “to step in and demand action from the FEC,” Harvey said. “The American people demand that our most corrupt political figures answer for their transgressions.”
The Fox report states:
“Based on publicly available FEC records, repeatedly throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, HVF would purportedly transfer funds to its constituent political committees, which included between 34 and 40 state parties,” reads a passage from a copy of the complaint. “On the very same day each of these transfers supposedly occurred, or occasionally the very next day, every single one of those state parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC.”
The complaint filed against the FEC said previous reports showed a series of transactions in which the HVF disbursed contributions to its state party committee members -- and they would receive the funds on the same day. The HVF would also allegedly disburse funds to up to 40 state parties at the same time, and those parties would send the money back within 24 hours.
Anyone who has followed the Clintons over the years from Whitewater to Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” to Uranium One is bound to be unsurprised by the money-laundering allegations. If you’re a Clinton, you raise huge sums of money and then use sleight-of-hand to make the ill-gotten gains disappear. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and Clintons gotta grift.
We already knew that Hillary Clinton used hacker-friendly “home brew” Internet servers while running the State Department to conceal the corrupt dealings of the anticipatory presidential bribe clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and to evade her disclosure responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.
She also personally approved a series of illegal schemes and dirty tricks including fomenting violence at Trump rallies to create the false impression that his campaign and supporters were violent, crazy people and at the same time provide evidence to support the Left’s narrative that the billionaire businessman was a dangerous fascist.
And don’t forget the wacky Russian “piss-gate” dossier assembled by Trump-hating British ex-spy Christopher Steele that was paid for by Hillary’s campaign and the DNC.
Even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller is intensely interested in money-laundering allegations, he doesn’t seem too interested when Democrats are implicated.
Trump campaign leaders Paul J. Manafort Jr. and Richard W. Gates III were investigated by Mueller for money laundering wholly unrelated to the campaign. Two months ago Gates accepted a deal from Mueller and pled guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators.
Possible campaign finance improprieties are driving Mueller’s investigation of President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen said Wednesday that because of the criminal investigation against him, he will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a lawsuit brought by porn star Stormy Daniels. The performer, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Cohen in 2016 reportedly to keep her mouth shut about an alleged sexual fling she had with Trump before he was president. At issue is whether the $130,000 was an improper campaign contribution.
Former federal prosecutor and Trump confidante Joseph E. diGenova described Mueller’s recent raid on Cohen’s law office as “an act of terror.” It was “an outrageous act against the attorney-client privilege,” he told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night.
Also on Fox, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that Cohen has a reputation for recklessness and that he was surprised the attorney was still representing the president. Interestingly, Turley also noted that Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ attorney who has caused Trump’s handlers so much heartburn, used to be his law student. Avenatti is “an adrenaline junkie,” Turley previously said.
One of the reasons for Andrew McCabe’s current legal troubles is the suspiciously large $675,000 payment the campaign of his wife, Jill McCabe, who ran for the Virginia State Senate in 2015, received from the state’s Democratic Party and a political action committee of then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a longtime Clinton crony. Was the payment a kind of veiled bribe to McCabe to do or not do something at the Justice Department? We may never know.
McCabe was acting director of the FBI from May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired then-director James B. Comey, through Aug. 2, 2017, when new director Christopher Wray took over. McCabe was fired for gross misconduct by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 16 of this year and is planning to launch a series of frivolous lawsuits for wrongful dismissal, and possibly against Trump and Comey, for defamation.
McCabe’s bloviating lawyer, Michael Bromwich, sputtered that the president and critics are slandering McCabe and that this is hurting the FBI. “We’ve never seen anything like this before,” he said. “It does damage not only to Andy McCabe individually but also to the FBI as an institution.”
Meanwhile, as of last week the Democratic National Committee is suing Russia and WikiLeaks in a breathtakingly stupid effort to keep the fading Trump-Russia electoral collusion conspiracy theory alive. In such a lawsuit, defendants are entitled to go on evidentiary fishing expeditions (i.e. the discovery process) and given how dirty the DNC is, who knows what they might find.
“This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party,” said Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Trump's 2020 reelection effort.
The Trump campaign expects to use the discovery process to examine "actual corruption" by the DNC to "influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election."
Trump tweeted that the lawsuit from “the Obstructionist Democrats” was likely “good news” for his campaign because “we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI.”
This could be fun.
Really fun.

No comments: