"The Democrats’ role in creating the framework for dictatorship reflects the fact that they, like Trump’s Republicans, express the social interests of the financial oligarchy and the affluent upper middle class, both of which look with horror at the growing movement of the working class."
Washington invokes "domestic terrorism" to justify police state rule
28 August 2019
Behind the backs of the population, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers, military leaders and intelligence agents are engaged in a secret operation to endow the executive branch with dictatorial powers to suppress social opposition in the United States.
On July 27, Donald Trump offered a glimpse of this movement within the state apparatus, tweeting, “Consideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA … a major Organization of Terror (along with MS-13 & others). Would make it easier for police to do their job!” On August 17, Trump repeated the same threat.
Trump has seized upon the actions identified with ANTIFA, a loose amalgam that includes middle class protesters and, no doubt, police provocateurs, in order to label any form of left-wing opposition to fascism “terrorism,” a hallmark of police-state dictatorships from Hitler’s Third Reich to Pinochet’s Chile.
A US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle waits to be driven into place in front of the Lincoln Memorial for President Donald Trump's 'Salute to America' Fourth of July event. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Trump is not merely expressing a personal opinion. In the face of growing strikes and protests and mounting social unrest internationally, the American ruling class is acknowledging that maintaining the flow of corporate profits and defending unprecedented levels of social inequality against the opposition of the broad masses of people requires dictatorial forms of rule. Under conditions in which three US billionaires control as much wealth as half the US population, even the worn-out forms of democratic rule have become untenable.
Trump increasingly legislates by “national emergency,” deploying troops on US soil, diverting Pentagon funds to build a border wall, threatening to end due process and constructing a network of concentration camps presently filled with desperate asylum seekers.
The next steps—including for martial law, mass arrests of left-wing dissidents, and shutting off the Internet—are being developed out of the public view.
For example, Brennan Center co-director Elizabeth Goitein wrote in theAtlantic in February that the military-intelligence agencies now interpret a section of the 1934 Communications Act as granting the executive branch the power to “seize control of US internet traffic, impeding access to certain websites” as well as to shut down the internet, block the delivery of email and manipulate smart speakers like Amazon Alexa upon the president’s proclamation “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.”
The government is also developing plans to abolish the Constitution and carry out mass arrests.
Since 2012, Congress has granted the Justice Department’s requests for funds to update secret executive directives called Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADS) used to plan “continuity of government” operations in case of national emergencies including mass social unrest, strikes and protests.
Perhaps the most well-known PEAD was the directive that authorized Lt. Col. Oliver North and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a contingency plan authorizing “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to FEMA, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis,” as The Miami Herald reported in its 1987 exposure of the program, known as “Rex 84.”
Goitein notes that such plans are far from dormant:
“A 2007 Department of Homeland Security report lists ‘martial law’ and ‘curfew declarations’ as ‘critical tasks’ that local, state, and federal government should be able to perform in emergencies. In 2008, government sources told a reporter for Radar magazine that a version of the Security Index [the mass arrest list of the mid 20th century] still existed under the code name Main Core, allowing for the apprehension and detention of Americans tagged as security threats.”
Trump’s July 27 and August 17 tweets to label Antifa a “major terrorist organization” are an expression of these police state plans, which can only be implemented through massive censorship and the silencing of dissent. These plans lie behind the international imperialist campaign to imprison and vilify WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, both of whom remain locked up for the “crime” of exposing such crimes to the world.
These plans are bipartisan.
Democratic Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff recently introduced the “Confronting the Threat of Domestic Terrorism Act.” This bill, which has a high chance of passage, would allow the Attorney General to prosecute people or groups as “domestic terrorists” if they engage in or conspire to engage in activity that seeks to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” if that activity impacts “interstate or foreign commerce,” which by nature any workers’ strike would do. The “conspiracy” clause will facilitate the prosecution of individuals based on political opinion alone.
The Democrats and the Democratic-linked press present this initiative as aimed against right-wing mass shooters. But because shootings, bombings and other acts of terrorist violence are already illegal in every state, the only purpose for the proposed law is to criminalize free association with those who will be listed as “domestic terrorists,” as well as to apply anti-foreign terrorist laws like the PATRIOT Act against US citizens engaged in First Amendment-protected speech and activity. This is directed ultimately against the working class.
As law professor and former Justice Department attorney Robert Chesney enthusiastically explains, a domestic terrorism statute would allow the government to compile “a list of proscribed organization to which it becomes a crime to provide, knowingly, any form of support (including becoming a person subject to the group’s orders).”
In addition, if “domestic terrorism” is made a legal category, then Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) may give the executive branch the power to arrest and indefinitely detain without charge or trial anyone labeled a “suspected terrorist” based on “extreme” political views.
The introduction of the war on terror into domestic law has more than legal significance. For nearly two decades, US imperialism has used the most brutal and criminal methods against the international working class in a desperate bid to maintain the hegemonic position it enjoyed in the post-war period.
To this end, the US has killed millions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere. Under the pretext of fighting “terrorism,” the US has fought to control the world’s geopolitical chokepoints and natural resources. But these wars have solved nothing. They have engendered massive opposition at home and have only metastasized the historical crisis confronting American imperialism.
Now, methods of equal or greater ruthlessness and criminality are being planned within the US itself, both in an attempt to maximize the level of exploitation of the working class and to terrorize the population into submission, ensuring the ruling oligarchy’s monopoly of political power.
Congressional Democrats have been key participants in creating the powers Trump is now wielding, voting overwhelmingly for the PATRIOT act, supporting the Obama administration’s assertion of the right to kill American citizens without trial, and now, acquiescing to even the most flagrantly dictatorial actions by the would-be tyrant in the White House.
The Democrats’ role in creating the framework for dictatorship reflects the fact that they, like Trump’s Republicans, express the social interests of the financial oligarchy and the affluent upper middle class, both of which look with horror at the growing movement of the working class.
The threat of dictatorship in the US is part of an international process. Across the world, governments are creating the legal and physical framework for mass repression.
But these conspiratorial cabals of financiers, generals and spooks will not be able to implement their plans for dictatorship without arousing the profound social opposition of billions of workers and young people worldwide. That opposition must be politically mobilized in a conscious struggle to tear control of society out of the hands of the capitalist class, dismantle the military-intelligence agencies and reorganize the world’s productive forces on an egalitarian socialist basis.
The judge found these releases, together with the
publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she
pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public
concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of
one of the two major political parties in the United States during a
presidential election.”
“Clinton also
failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his
presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON
Leaked Julian Assange
Message:
Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected,
Sadistic, Sociopath’
’
"But what
the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to
every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia
McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List
Of Suspicious ‘Charities’
"But what
the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every
person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy
- AMERICANTHINKER.com
Media silent on dismissal of DNC
suit against Julian Assange
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was
a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the
WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy
theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence
agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded”
with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed
claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was
“illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear
newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the
entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from
the New York Times (which
buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to
“alternative” outlets such as the Intercept,
the television evening news programs and the publications of the
pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of
the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the
unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war
crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New
York Times, the Washington
Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared
Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy
hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the
presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and
exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of
radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour
of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall
coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists
and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump
administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of
his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Timeseditorial page
editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other
intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that
will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the
military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and
information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling
presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led
millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of
which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and
dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks
could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political,
financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them
‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.”
This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of
the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and
WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the
Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie
Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of
Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be
their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They
“allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two
major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the
DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain
the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents
were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
The ruling demonstrated the flagrant illegality of the US
vendetta against Assange. The slander that he was operating as a “Russian
agent” to “interfere” in US politics was used by the American government and
its intelligence agencies to pressure the Ecuadorian regime to sever Assange’s
internet access in 2016, and again in 2018. It served as a central pretext for
its illegal termination in April of his political asylum in the embassy
building.
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of
the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the
Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on
18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of
175 years’ imprisonment.
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming
that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from
Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other
documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous
whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic
principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if
they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity,
illegally.
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak
US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’
publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016
leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump
administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,”
undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to
Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and
prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In
its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as
an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture
operations conducted by the CIA.
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the
entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally,
demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to
the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded
the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.
All of them are using the persecution of Assange as a test case
for the imposition of ever-more authoritarian measures, aimed at suppressing
mounting popular hostility to war, social inequality and an assault on
democratic rights.
What is required is the development of a mass movement from
below, to mobilise the immense social and political power of the working class
internationally to secure Assange’s liberty and to defend all democratic
rights.
GEORGE
SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
*
NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an
organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by
billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court
fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist,
unnecessary wall.”
*
*
“Obama would declare himself president for life with S
oros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
*
“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it
were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have
let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became
disabled?”
THE PHONY
CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund
*
*
“There is
no controlling Bill Clinton. He does
whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,”
states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.
“Bill Clinton
mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many
people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does
not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.
CLINTON
MAFIA AND THEIR BANKSTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS
WHO IS
TIGHTER WITH THE PLUNDERING BANKSTERS? CLINTON, OBAMA or TRUMP?
The Clinton White House famously
abolished the Glass–Steagall legislation, which separated commercial and
investment banking. The move was a boon for Wall Street firms and led to major
bank mergers that
some analysts say helped
contribute to the
2008 financial crisis.
Bill and Hillary Clinton raked in
massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, with CNN documenting a
total of at least $7.7 million in paid speeches to big financial firms,
including Goldman Sachs and UBS. Hillary Clinton made $675,000 from speeches to
Goldman Sachs specifically, and her husband secured more than
$1,550,000 from Goldman speeches. In 2005 alone, Bill Clinton collected over
$500,000 from three Goldman Sachs events.
Hillary Clinton is simply the epitome of the rabid self – a whirlpool of selfishness, greed, and malignance.
It may well
be true that Donald Trump has made his greatest contribution to the nation
before even taking office: the political destruction of
Hillary Clinton and her infinitely corrupt machine. J.R. Dunn
"Hillary will do anything to distract
you from her reckless record and the damage to the Democratic Party and the
America she and The Obama's have created."
THE FINAL DAYS OF HILLARY CLINTON:
MISTRESS of the SWAMP, GLOBAL BRIBES SUCKER and LOOTER OF THE POOR
“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel
and unusual punishment, the sentence I would like
to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same
8-by-12 cell.” ROBERT ARVAY – AMERICAN THINKER
com
The Clinton Looting of the Poor
of Haiti
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly
spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
IT WAS BILL
CLINTON WHO UNLEASHED WALL STREET’S BIGGEST CRIMINAL BANKSTERS…. And haven’t
they sucked up the banksters’ gratuities since?
Only Barack
Obama has serviced banksters more than Hillary and Billary!
“Clinton also failed to mention how
he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential
tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S
ROAD TO REVOLUTION
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/bill-and-hillary-clintons-global.html
Transcripts
released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street
bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010
Simpson- Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for
sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the
elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’
Hillary
Clinton's Russia collusion IOU: The answers she owes America
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446736-hillary-clintons-russia-collusion-iou-the-answers-she-owes-america
During the combined two decades she served as a U.S. senator and
secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s
patrons regularly donated to her family charity when they had official business
pending before America’s most powerful political woman.
The pattern of political IOUs paid to the Clinton Foundation was
so pernicious that the State Department even tried to execute a special agreement with the charity to
avoid the overt appearance of “pay-to-play” policy.
Still, the money continued to flow by the millions of dollars,
from foreigners and Americans alike who were perceived to be indebted to the
Clinton machine or in need of its help.
It’s time for the American public to call in their own IOU on
political transparency.
The reason? Never before — until 2016 — had the apparatus of a
U.S. presidential candidate managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S.
intelligence community on a rival nominee during an election, and by using a
foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research document.
But Clinton’s campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and
through their shared law firm, funded Christopher Steele’s unverified dossierwhich, it turns out, falsely
portrayed Republican Donald Trump as
a treasonous asset colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack
the U.S. election.
Steele went to the FBI to get an investigation started and then
leaked the existence of the investigation, with the hope of sinking Trump’s
presidential aspirations.
On its face, it is arguably the most devious political dirty
trick in American history and one of the most overt intrusions of a foreigner
into a U.S. election.
It appears the Clinton machine knew that what it was doing was
controversial. That’s why it did backflips to disguise the operation from
Congress and the public, and in its Federal Election Commission (FEC) spending
reports.
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) used the law firm of Perkins Coie to
hire Glenn Simpson’s research firm, Fusion GPS, which then hired Steele —
several layers that obfuscated transparency, kept the operation off the
campaign’s public FEC reports and gave the Clintons plausible deniability.
But Steele’s first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture
the FBI’s imagination. So the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British
national, went to senior Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr — whose wife,
Nellie, also worked for Fusion — to push his Trump dirt to the top of the FBI.
Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research
augmenting Steele’s dossier to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer
Michael Sussmann used his connection to former FBI
general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the FBI, too.
Then Steele and, separately, longtime Clinton protégé Cody Shearer went to the State Department to
get the story out, increasing pressure on the FBI.
In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure —
and bad intel — until an investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its
hapless sheriff at the time, James Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help
of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
To finish the mission, Simpson and Steele leaked the existence
of the FBI investigation to the news media to ensure it would hurt Trump
politically. Simpson even called the leaks a “hail Mary” that
failed.
Trump won, however. And now, thanks to special counsel Robert
Mueller, we know the Russia-collusion allegations relentlessly peddled by Team
Clinton were bogus. But not before the FBI used the Clinton-funded,
foreign-created research to get a total of four warrants to spy on the Trump campaign,
transition and presidency from October 2016 through the following autumn.
The Clinton team’s dirty trick was as diabolical as it was
brilliant. It literally used house money and a large part of the U.S.
intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit job on Trump.
After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of
taxpayer dollars spent, it’s time for the house to call in its IOU.
Hillary Clinton owes us answers — lots of them. So far, she has
ducked them, even while doing many high-profile media interviews.
I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Longtime Clinton
adviser Douglas Schoen said Friday night on Fox News that it’s time for Clinton
to answer what she knew and when she knew it.
Here are 10 essential questions:
1.
In January 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a formal
investigative request for documents and written answers from your campaign. Do
you plan to comply?
2.
Please identify each person in your campaign who was involved
with, or aware of, hiring Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele.
3.
Please identify each person in your campaign, including Perkins
Coie lawyers, who were aware that Steele provided information to the FBI or
State Department, and when they learned it.
4.
Describe any information you and your campaign staff received,
or were briefed on, before Election Day that was derived from the work of
Simpson, Steele, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr or Perkins Coie and that tried to
connect Trump, his campaign or his business empire with Russia.
5.
Please describe all contacts your campaign had before Election
Day with or about the following individuals: Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Glenn
Simpson, Christopher Steele, former
Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, former
foreign policy scholar Stefan Halper and Maltese
academic Joseph Mifsud.
6.
Did you or any senior members of your campaign, including
lawyers such as Michael Sussmann, have any contact with the CIA, its former
Director John Brennan, current Director Gina Haspel, James Baker, Peter Strzok,
Lisa Page or former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe?
7.
Describe all contacts
your campaign had with Cody Shearer and Sidney
Blumenthal concerning Trump, Russia and Ukraine.
8.
Describe all contacts you and your campaign had with DNC
contractorAlexandra Chalupa, the Ukraine government, the Ukraine Embassy
in the United States or the U.S. Embassy in Kiev concerning Trump, Russia or
former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
9.
Why did your campaign and the Democratic Party make a concerted
effort to portray Trump as a Russian asset?
10.Given that investigations by a
House committee, a Senate committee and a special prosecutor all have concluded
there isn’t evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, do you regret the actions by
your campaign and by Steele, Simpson and Sussmann to inject these unfounded
allegations into the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community and the news media?
Hillary Clinton owes us answers to each of these questions. She
should skip the lawyer-speak and answer them with the candor worthy of an elder
American stateswoman.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose
work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the
Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in
drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an
investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.
Bill
And Hillary Tour Underwhelms In Ticket Sales, Attendance
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/01/bill-hillary-tour-underwhelms-ticket-sales-attendance/
Bill
and Hillary Clinton have taken their show on the road. Ticket sales for “An
Evening with the Clintons” are not what they once might have been, according to
all reports. With stops deliberately booked in what are assumed to be
Clinton-friendly cities, the aging power couple seems to be having trouble
filling seats.
It’s
not exactly a whirlwind tour. The schedule is downright lethargic in the
beginning. The first stop on November 27 was in Toronto, Canada with a stop the
next night in Montreal. The next stop on the schedule is Houston on December 4. In light of the passing of
former President George H.W. Bush, that date may be canceled or changed. But,
that’s all there is to the tour until 2019. They start back up in April 2019 in
New York City and continue through May, ending in Las Vegas on May 5. Does
anyone else think it’s odd that a former U.S. president and a former
Secretary of State began a self-promoting tour in Canada? Maybe it’s just me.
The
venue in Toronto only sold 3,300 tickets. Whole sections of the arena were
empty. I checked the website for ticket prices and for
the Houston stop, the cheap seats go for $15.00 and the most expensive ticket
price I could find was $1146.00. That’s a real bargain, especially
compared to the book tour events (it’s not just a book tour, they are events)
scheduled for former First Lady Michelle Obama. The high-end prices for the Michelle tour go for $10,000. That is
what I found and it’s not a stop in Houston but in Dallas at the American
Airlines Center. The Clinton venue in Houston is smaller.
Anyway,
you won’t be surprised to read that a good bit of the Clinton question and
answer conversation centers around her bitterness toward President Trump. He
lives rent-free in her head.
And
the former secretary of state was prepared to mock Trump’s
interview with the Washington Post just hours after it published, shaking her head at Trump
telling the paper “my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can
ever tell me.”
You “literally you can’t make
this stuff up,” she said. “A dozen times a day your head is spinning.”< And
near the end of the event, Hillary Clinton returned to Trump's gut, criticizing
him for saying he does not "believe" a recently released dire
government report on climate change. "It just riles me up," she said.
"If you won't listen to people who actually spend time over decades
studying problems, my goodness, your gut is not the answer to everything that
is important in the world, I'm sorry."
The
tour comes at a time when speculation is strong on whether or not Hillary will
actually make another attempt at a presidential run. She joked about standing
for Parliament in Canada when asked about any plans to run but you know she’s
thinking about. I don’t think she ever stops thinking about it. She’s consumed
with anger that Donald Trump won. While the next generation of Democrats is
ready to move up, the Clintons (especially Hillary) refuse to leave the stage.
It’s no wonder ticket sales are slow. Why would anyone pay money to listen to
them when almost any day an interview or quote is available in print or on
television? It’s not like either of them are saying anything new.
Also,
there’s the re-emergence of Monica Lewinsky. She’s been telling her story after
all these years. Don’t expect either Clinton to be asked about that whole
scandal, though. It’s not happening. The former horndog-in-chief
still gets a pass on the difficult questions.
But the kickoff comes at a
tenuous time for the Clintons: Not only is their standing in the Democratic
Party in question after neither was particularly prolific during the midterms,
but the event comes amid a renewed focus on Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica
Lewinsky, a moment in history that has gained more attention recently because
of a multi-part series on the affair on A&E and other retrospectives. The
Lewinsky affair and other allegations against of sexual impropriety Bill
Clinton are also being re-examined in the light of the #MeToo era.
One topic that Hillary is quick
to criticize President Trump on is his relationship with Saudia Arabia. It’s
ironic given the Clinton Foundation’s refusal to state that they will no longer
accept financial
donations from The Kingdom as others
have.
“We
have a president who is part of the cover-up as to what happened in that
consulate or embassy when Mr. Khashoggi was murdered,” Clinton said. “And we
have a president and those closest to him who have their own personal
commercial interests.”
But the Clinton Foundation, to
which donations declined dramatically after Clinton’s 2016 defeat, has taken
multi-million dollar contributions from Saudi Arabia in the past and isn’t
ruling out continuing to accept them.
The
Clinton Foundation accepted between
$10 and $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with donations coming as
late as 2014. A now-defunct group named “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” which was
reportedly co-founded by a Saudi Prince and often worked as a PR front for the
kingdom, also donated between $1 and $5 million.
Implying
corruption about the sitting president in business dealings is probably not the
best idea. She and her husband have a legacy
of corruption. She
should just sit that conversation out.
More
Trouble For The Clintons: FBI Raids The Home of DOJ Whistleblower Who Ratted on
The Clinton Foundation
FBI
agents spent six hours raiding the home of Department of Justice whistleblower
Dennis Nathan Cain on Nov. 19th. According to Cain's lawyer, he was in
possession of documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One.
He had handed them over to the DOJ’s inspector general and both the House and
Senate Intelligence committees, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported.
From The Daily Caller:
The Justice
Department’s inspector general was informed that the documents show that
federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom,
the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The
Daily Caller News Foundation alleges.
The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert
Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to
Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump
campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.
Although
Cain handed over the documents, the whistleblower’s lawyer, Michael Socarras,
said the raid was excessive and went against whistleblower protections.
“The
bureau raided my client to seize what he legally gave Congress about the
Clinton Foundation and Uranium One,” Socarras told The DCNF.
A
special agent from the FBI's Baltimore division believed Cain had stolen
federal property and demanded to be let into the house. Cain let the agent know
that he was protected under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection
Act and that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz recognized
his whistleblower status. He also made the agent aware that he had submitted
the classified information to the Senate and House Intelligence committees. At
that point the special agent in charge of the sting direct 16 other agents to begin
a sweep Cain's property.
Cain
immediately handed over the documents to the FBI out of fear. Despite having
the documents, the FBI continued their raid.
“After
asking and getting my approval to do so, DOJ IG Michael Horowitz had a member
of his staff physically take Mr. Cain’s classified document disclosure to the
House and Senate Intelligence committees,” Socarras said. “For the bureau to
show up at Mr. Cain’s home suggesting that those same documents are stolen
federal property, and then proceed to seize copies of the same documents after
being told at the house door that he is a legally protected whistleblower who
gave them to Congress, is an outrageous disregard of the law."
Cain
came across the classified information while working for a government
contractor. Under whistleblower protections, the inspector general is to share
that information with the attorney general. At that time, the attorney general
was Jeff Sessions.
“The
[whistleblower act] authorizes employees of contractors to take government
property and give it to the two intelligence committees confidentially,”
Socarras said.
Here's
how the information was handed off:
Cain met with a
senior member of Horowitz’s office at a church close to the White House to
deliver the documents to the IG, according to Socarras.
Cain sat in a pew with a hoodie and sun glasses, Socarras said.
Cain held a double-sealed envelope containing a flash drive with the documents.
The IG official met him and, without saying a word, took the pouch over Cain’s
shoulder and left.
Iowa college professor resigns under pressure after publicly supporting Antifa
English professor Jeff Klinzman was forced to resign from his position at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa last Friday under pressure from the college administration. He was placed on leave following comments he made in support of Antifa. The college is reportedly replacing Klinzman, who has taught there since 2010.
Kirkwood has also reportedly stepped up campus security, ensuring it will be a visible presence “on Monday morning and going forward.”
At the center of the recent controversy is a Facebook comment on the Iowa Antifa Facebook page. Klinzman wrote “Yeah, I know who I'd clock with a bat…,” in response to a tweet from President Donald Trump who called Antifa “gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting (only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats.”
On Thursday, Iowa ABC-affiliate KCRG published an article entitled, “Kirkwood professor: ‘I affirm that I am antifa.’” The quote came from a statement Klinzman made to KCRG reporter Josh Scheinblum. Scheinblum later tweeted his report to Donald Trump, who has called for Antifa to be listedas a terrorist organization.
On Friday, the professor resigned after being removed from his teaching positions.
Kirkwood College president Lori Sundberg issued a statement on the decision to remove Klinzman that claimed that the substance of his views was not at issue: “It is Kirkwood leadership’s assessment that the attention this matter has garnered has the potential to create an environment that is disruptive to our mission. Our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom has nothing to do with the substance of his views or his right to express them.”
Sundberg hypocritically affirmed Klinzman’s constitutional right to free speech while justifying the college’s removal of the professor based on the “perception” that public safety is at risk due to his views.
“This action does not in any way prevent him from continuing to engage in the expression of free speech. However, when the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy, or hampers our ability to deliver on our mission, we will always do what is necessary in service to our students’ pursuit of a higher education… In a free society and especially in higher education, a lively, robust and free exchange of ideas is essential, after all.”
By what standard is the college declaring that the views expressed by Klinzman are “perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy”? Perceived by whom? On what grounds? The rationale is in fact a justification for blatant attacks on free speech and the ability to remove from teaching positions anyone who expresses social and political opposition.
As the persecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange demonstrates, the attack on free speech centrally involves the attempt by the ruling elites internationally to suppress opposition to social inequality, poverty and war.
KCRG also performed “a search through Klinzman’s Facebook page,” reporting that he wanted to “stop evangelical Christians.” Klinzman said to the news outlet, “It’s not pretty, and I’m not proud, but seeing what evangelical Christians are doing to this country and its people fills me with rage, and a desire to exact revenge.”
Klinzman’s comments were not illegal. Secret Service officials acknowledged that they were not being investigated as threatening. Indeed, if they were, a significant portion of Facebook users would be under investigation for stating their hatred and anger at the Trump administration’s policies.
KCRG interviewed a security professional Jason Blazakis who, in answering Scheinblum’s questions about Antifa, emphasized the threats posed by far-right and white supremacist organizations: “I would just say if I’m an individual living in Iowa, I’d be more concerned, and I think the statistics bear this out, of being an individual that suffers because of a mass shooting carried out by an individual that may have right-leaning sympathies.”
Klinzman has also expressed concern for his safety on Facebook, noting that photos of his house have been posted on right-wing news sites, including Fox News and KCRG.
The threat of violence comes not from the left, but from the far-right, with the support of significant sections of the ruling class. From the months prior to his election in 2016 and since, Trump has worked to cultivate the far-right, surrounding himself with fascistic figures such as Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka.
However, it is not figures on the far-right who are targeted for removal from colleges and universities, but those who oppose them
No comments:
Post a Comment