The Mexican Invasion and Occupation: Mexico & Dems Build the LA RAZA UNIDOus Mex Welfare State

THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA. In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

HILLARY CLINTON TALKS ABOUT FEMINISM - BUT ISN'T SHE AN ABETTER AND ENABLER OF MORE THAN ONE SERIAL RAPIST?

We NAnd there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier.

She is incredibly incompetent, fundamentally dishonest, and criminally corrupt, and these are her good qualities. KENNETH ELIASBERG

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

eed a Smarter Conversation About Feminism in Politics

By Sarah Jones

Photo: Erik Voake/Getty Images for Hulu

Hillary Clinton is an American Moses, announced Time magazine in 2016. Her narrow loss to Donald Trump made her “an imperfect prophet, leading women to the edge of the Promised Land.” The comparison, maybe borrowed from a common metaphor about the civil rights “Moses generation” and the Obama-led “Joshua generation” that followed it, is somewhat apt. Clinton beheld a promised land without ever being able to enter it, and an optimist might think she had ushered in a smarter and more robust conversation about feminism. That would be an achievement worthy of the Moses comparison. Then again, Moses didn’t stick around for years to come, complaining about his fellow prophets.

The reasons for Clinton’s loss in 2016 are by now familiar ground: Her campaign made regrettable tactical decisions. Her rhetoric was uninspirational; her policies, tentative; her public image marred by her embrace of the country’s elite. There were other factors, too, and they didn’t all originate with Clinton. We know that Trump’s racism appealed to many, and probably so did his open disdain for women. But of all the explanations for Clinton’s inability to enter the Promised Land, it’s the last — misogyny — that she most prefers.

Since 2016, she’s blamed sexist double standards, a dynamic she often associates with Bernie Sanders for running against her in the Democratic primary. The Vermont senator’s democratic socialism forced her into “the unenviable role of schoolmarm,” she wrote in her 2017 book, What Happened. She did not say, exactly, that Sanders is sexist, but the subtext isn’t subtle. Sanders, she believes, made her look like a punitive lady boss, an archetype that perpetually haunts the chances of a woman being president. She repeats herself, and so do the debates she generates; the cycle is almost as predictable as a family curse. If the conversation about sexism and Clinton’s campaign feels stuck in a rut, it’s in part because the former candidate herself won’t think outside it.

Clinton’s thinking hasn’t changed much over the last several years. In a Tuesday morning interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Clinton wouldn’t commit to endorsing Sanders if he became the nominee, critiquing instead the “culture around him.”

“It’s his leadership team,” she said. “It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.” Clinton stopped short, again, of calling Sanders himself a sexist, but this act of restraint is so small it’s almost worthless. Clinton wants people to believe that Sanders draws sexists to him, that they find something about him appealing, that prejudice is part of a divisive culture he helps stoke. It’s an inflammatory suggestion, as Clinton, an intelligent person, likely understands. Her remarks are proof that she still doesn’t know why she will never enter Zion, but they’re also an abuse of her platform. The Democratic Party’s first female nominee for president could amplify the needs and work of women far less powerful than she. Instead, she’d rather talk about herself.

Clinton is a celebrity now, her power felt less in the halls of Washington, D.C., than in the frantic arena of news cycles and content generation. Within hours of publication, her interview with The Hollywood Reporter was viral. Twitter spread her remarks with bruising speed. The Hollywood Reporter set the trap and Clinton baited it. The public is hardly to blame for giving into temptation. Nor can anyone who covers politics for a living pretend that Clinton’s remarks simply don’t matter. The division Clinton sets up in her comment — Sanders versus the women — certainly shows us how she explains her loss to herself, and to the public. But the idea that Sanders has a woman problem has cachet beyond Clinton’s inner circle or her online fanbase.

It’s an opportune moment for a smarter conversation about feminism in politics, as a more adept political thinker might have understood. The prospect of a second Trump term presents unique dangers for women. Abortion rights have never been robust, but they are even more fragile than usual right now, with the might of the Supreme Court arrayed firmly against them. The American working class is half female. Women, especially women of color, are more likely than men to live in poverty. The Trump administration’s attacks on union rights harm women, who are over-represented in the public workforce and for whom the labor movement has helped bridge historic gender gaps in pay and professional advancement. Misogyny, in other words, doesn’t look like a primary challenge from the left. It has nothing in common with proposals to create universal health care or make childcare affordable for all. Misogyny keeps women poor and it keeps them quiet. It is a tangible threat, a baseball bat, a gun.

Clinton could talk about that threat. She could focus on women who do not share her advantages, bring them with her into the limelight. Instead, her comments feed what can only be understood as a conversation about feminism in politics in the glibbest sense. For several long weeks serious people have wondered whether something Sanders may or may not have said to Elizabeth Warren about the sexism of the American voter is proof that he, individually, is prejudiced. Warren is not the second coming of Clinton, but the coverage of her years-old conversation with Sanders felt altogether too familiar; it was Sanders versus the women, again. At its dumbest, the controversy invoked the worst of the 2016 dogfights. The Vermont senator’s legislative record, which is unimpeachably pro-choice, didn’t matter; neither did his endorsements of women, or all his campaigning for Clinton back when most of us thought she would still defeat Trump. On Twitter — which matters even though it shouldn’t because the press and the president and Congress and leading activists all use it far more than do most Americans — the idea that Sanders has a problem with women still travels. Clinton herself has helped keep it alive.

But Clinton is ill-positioned to take us into the promised land. In the same Hollywood Reporter interview, Clinton insisted she knew nothing of Harvey Weinstein’s abuse of women. “How could we have known? He raised money for me, for the Obamas, for Democrats in general. And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense. And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior,” she said. But it’s possible that she did know, as Lena Dunham revealed in 2017. Dunham said she warned Kristina Schake, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, that Weinstein was a “rapist.” Schake said she’d tell Clinton strategist Robby Mook, who’s denied hearing any such information about Weinstein. Tina Brown, the famous magazine editor, said she informed the Clinton camp about Weinstein rumors in 2008. Maybe Clinton’s staff conspired to keep her ignorant, but people around her did know, and kept Weinstein close by anyway. On Monica Lewinsky, Clinton was similarly defensive. Asked if she had changed the way she thought of her husband’s relationship in the wake of Me Too, the former secretary of State said no. “I do think the culture has changed, and mostly for the good, but I also think you still have to look at every situation on its own facts and merits to make a decision,” she continued. So much for the feminist candidate.

Clinton’s latest broadside ought to cement her status as a cautionary tale for the ages. We should choose our feminist prophets with more caution. They reveal themselves by their grasp of the stakes women face. Feminism isn’t a brand, or a shield to deflect the blame for losing to Trump. The purpose of feminism is liberation, and it is urgent.

Tick...tick...tick -- The stench of Epstein closing in on Bill Clinton

By Monica Showalter

Much of the fallout of the Jeffrey Epstein pedophilia among the powerful scandal has fallen onto Prince Andrew of U.K., an insignificant second son of Queen Elizabeth II. The pervert's suicide, though, and the increasingly suspicion-arousing circumstances point to much more important people. As I've argued before, the media scrum around Andrew seemed to be an attempt to deflect attention from more powerful players involved with Epstein as the story burns out and the public loses interest.

Beneficiary number remains is Bill Clinton, whose associations with Epstein are pretty astonishing. He's been listed on the flight logs of more than two dozen Epstein "Lolita Express" flights. He's been a regular at Epstein's "cowboy village" in New Mexico with its group showers which, based on the word of maintence staff, seemed to be all about perversion out of the public eye. He's been seen with all those candy stripers.

Well, now the lid's starting to bounce on that boiling pot, and maybe too soon for Bill's tastes. The Sun of the U.K.'s new U.S. edition, now has an astonishing series of photos of Clinton livin' it up on Epstein's airplanes, Clinton posing with Epstein's accused pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Clinton whooping it up with underage staff, generally partying hearty on the pervert's dime. Yet to this day he claims to know nothing about what Epstein was about, never noticed a thing.

BILL Clinton poses side-by-side with suspected pimp Ghislaine Maxwell - as the pair board pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious private jet.

The former US President is seen smiling on the steps of the plane – dubbed the Lolita Express - next to Maxwell, in astonishing pictures exclusively obtained by The Sun.

All it can do is raise suspicions about whether Epstein's prison "suicide" was in any way authentic - a question that even (tick, tick, tick) 60 Minutes gave credibility to, given the mounting evidence - and what Clinton might be trying to hide. It's possible there are still pictures and cell phones and other paraphernalia out there if it's not been preemptively destroyed. (After all, if someone could have taken Epstein out to keep him from talking, how much more likely they'd be to break and enter into some of Epstein's redoubts to destroy the evidence.) It's conspiracy stuff, sure, but it's linked to a strange chain of events.

Why on earth would Clinton hang out with a revolting human being like Epstein anyway? As Andrea Widburg has noted here, it's almost as if the world's elites have some kind of power racket going, given that pedophilia is all about power over the powerless. Clinton himself was out of power when he started associating with the monster, and his wife Hillary had it while he didn't. She even blithely ignored him when he warned her to go to Wisconsin in 2016, which cost her the election. His association had some kind of roots in power.

What's really strange is why the media is so intent on protecting Bill. Shouldn't he, and for that matter, his longtime enabler Hillary Clinton be answering a few questions from the press. To date, they are amazingly incurious. Yet as pictures like the Sun's get out, the clock is now ticking.

Photo illustration by Monica Showalter with use of public domain sources.

Ed Buck Will Finally Face Trial, but His Conviction Is Far From Guaranteed

Charged with the the deaths of two men who overdosed in his apartment, the former Democratic operative’s path to punishment could be difficult and uncertain

Jason McGahan

on September 11, a black man whom the authorities are calling “Joe Doe” hurried from a West Hollywood apartment to a nearby gas station and asked the attendant on duty to call 911. A wealthy older man had injected him with crystal meth, Doe said, and then refused to call an ambulance when he began overdosing.

Thus began a chain of events that resulted, at long last, in the arrest of Ed Buck. By then the longtime Democratic Party operative was the target of protest vigils, a wrongful death lawsuit, and a TV news stakeout. Though two black men had been found dead of meth overdoses in his home in a span of 18 months, and several others were telling investigators that Buck had brought them into his residence and injected them with a quantity of the drug that made them lose consciousness, local prosecutors had resisted calls to make an arrest. The 911 emergency of Joe Doe propelled the case suddenly forward out of what seemed, at least to observers, an interminable lapse of inertia. Within days after Doe was discharged from the hospital, Buck was arrested at his home by L.A. County sheriff’s deputies and booked on state charges in connection with Doe’s overdose. In Doe, investigators had a witness who had escaped Buck’s apartment alive, and what he told them gave prosecutors the break they needed to bring long-awaited charges in what was alleged to be one of the most macabre L.A. crime sprees in years. At that point, however, local prosecutors had competition.

Earlier this year, at the invitation of the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, a federal drug task force opened an investigation into Buck’s alleged crimes. Where L.A. County District Attorney Jackie Lacey had previously judged the evidence insufficient to charge Buck in the two overdose deaths in his home, the United States attorney in L.A., Nicola Hanna, saw things differently. In a whiplash turn of events over 48 hours, Buck was arrested, charged in state court, and then promptly transferred to federal custody and hit with a new set of charges in the deaths of 26-year-old Gemmel Moore and 55-year-old Timothy Dean.

This summer, the legal drama of Ed Buck enters its improbable third act. The notoriety of Buck, once famous as a well-connected political donor, has long since eclipsed his renown. By the time he was handcuffed and hauled away from West Hollywood in a sheriff’s vehicle, the name Ed Buck had come to represent many things to many people: to local prosecutors, he is a scourge; to black and LGBTQ activists, an avatar of status and privilege; to the right wing, a cudgel with which to bash the Democrats; and, to black gay men working as escorts in West Hollywood, a kind of terrifying urban legend come to life. But while the case against him has progressed, the path to conviction is difficult and uncertain.

The Buck who appeared in court before federal Judge Frederick F. Mumm on October 10 was a shadow of the political phenom who arrived in L.A. three decades ago and became a major player in the local Democratic Party. He stood, looking drawn and anxious in a loose beige prison smock. When Mumm asked how he would plead to charges that he supplied the methamphetamine that killed Moore and Dean, the defendant hesitated for a long moment before responding: “I am working on one hearing aid. Not guilty.”

Family members of Moore and Dean attended the arraignment and assembled outside court afterward. Moore’s mother, LaTisha Nixon, later called Buck a “monster” and dismissed his apparent weakness as an act to gain pity from the court. The families and their activist supporters have long argued that Buck led a double life that protected him from the consequences of his alleged crimes, likening him to a modern-day Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. “This was a really hard case for people in society and politics to wrap their heads around,” says Jasmyne Cannick, an L.A.-based media consultant active in the campaign that called for Buck’s arrest. “Here you have this white man, an animal rights activist who’s run for office and who seems like he’s a decent guy, a good person. It was really a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation.”

It’s not as if Buck hadn’t shown occasional glimpses of a darker side: He has been the subject of several requests for temporary restraining orders. And on at least two occasions, his vitriolic style convinced deputies at West Hollywood’s City Hall to escort the targets of his tirades to their cars after public meetings. Still, even to those who had run afoul of Buck’s temper, the depth of his fall from grace is astonishing.

“Here you have this white man, an animal rights activist who’s run for office and who seems like he’s a decent guy. It was really a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation.”

The Ed Buck of the late 1980s was a charismatic gay political celebrity who lead a quixotic crusade that helped bring down Evan Mecham, the rancorous Republican governor of Arizona. The Arizona Republic said Buck was “destined to go down in history as one of Arizona’s most unlikely political figures.” After moving to L.A., Buck acclimated quickly, forging political friendships with area congressmen, members of the state Assembly and the City Council. He fostered golden retrievers, railed against private development, and donated handsomely to scores of Democrats, including all but one of the present members of the West Hollywood City Council. But the same 65-year-old who had grinned in photos with Hillary Clinton and former Governor Jerry Brown was known to homeless men in WeHo’s Plummer Park as “Dr. Kevorkian.”

Buck was being held in early November without bond at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown L.A. An official with the Federal Bureau of Prisons declined to discuss the conditions of his confinement except to say that Buck is not permitted visitors. In state court, where he faces separate charges of operating a drug den and providing the drugs that caused Joe Doe’s hospitalization for a drug overdose, Buck wore a protective blue vest, the kind meant to prevent inmates from killing themselves and protect them from attacks by other prisoners.

The source of Buck’s wealth has always been shrouded in mystery. He claimed he retired in his early 30s on proceeds from the “million-dollar” sale of his business (he owned a service that provided driver’s license information to auto insurers). A former friend told me that more recently Buck has lived frugally off investment gains from the stock market. Local prosecutors put forward a different theory, arguing in a recent filing in state court that Buck “has no known source of income” and “may be funding his lifestyle with narcotics trafficking.”

Since 2005 Buck has donated more than a half-million dollars to political candidates and causes in Los Angeles. Though he was once a registered Republican in Arizona, nearly all of his donations have been linked to Democrats since he moved to West Hollywood in 1991. He has cut checks for 40 officeholders in California, including several in L.A. City Hall, the California Assembly, and Congress, the Los Angeles Times has reported. Some of those politicos have returned the money or redirected it to charitable causes after Buck’s arrest. Lacey returned the $100 donation that Buck made to her 2012 campaign for district attorney. She has said that she doesn’t know Buck and his modest largesse played no role in the decision about whether to prosecute him.

Whatever its source, Buck’s fortune seems depleted. Seymour Amster, the attorney who began representing Buck after the death of Moore, is not listed as his attorney in the federal case. Facing a possible life sentence in federal prison, Buck has elected to be represented by a public defender, at a cost of $500 a month, according to a court filing. Amster has spoken for Buck in the press, saying that Moore’s death was “a tragedy, not a crime,” which he attributed to Buck’s having “opened his home to an individual who was troubled.” He referred to the activist campaign against Buck as “a race war.” Amster appeared at Buck’s side in state court, but that case is on hold until the federal case is completed, says a spokesman for the DA’s office. Amster, who previously defended the serial killer known as the Grim Sleeper, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

When Moore was found dead in Buck’s apartment in 2017, the initial investigation by the Sheriff’s Department and coroner’s office treated the overdose as an accident. A law enforcement source told Los Angeles that this erroneous assumption contributed to errors that investigators committed at the scene. A year later, when Lacey decided not to prosecute Buck in Moore’s death, prosecutors listed “inadmissible search and seizure” as one of the reasons. Lacey later told a meeting of the Stonewall Democratic Club that investigators had illegally seized around two grams of methamphetamine from a toolbox in Buck’s apartment. Federal prosecutors later charged Buck with intentionally distributing the drugs that killed Moore and Dean and three counts of drug distribution. They must prove that the drugs provided by Buck were the drugs that entered into the victims. Court documents in the federal case make no mention of an illegal search.

Nearly three weeks after Moore’s death the Sheriff’s Department reopened the investigation as a possible homicide. It happened after Moore’s mother and a young man who had worked as an escort for Buck aired their suspicion that Buck had supplied and injected Moore with the drugs that killed him. Nixon told a local reporter: “[Buck] would have my son … go out to … Santa Monica Boulevard looking for young gay black guys so he could inject them with drugs, see their reaction and how [they] would react and take pictures of them.” The reporter, Ryan Gierach, had known Buck for 14 years and knew of his meth use. “I needed no convincing,” Gierach said. “Over 13 or 14 years I’ve seen a man, a vital, vigorous, incredible intellect, descend into a monster.”

Buck had once been a political mentor of sorts to Gierach, opening doors and giving him inside information until the two had a falling out in 2015 after Buck refused to lend him money. Gierach incorporated Nixon’s lurid allegations into a news feature that delved into Buck’s prominence in the Democratic Party and included a recent photo of Buck with Clinton. The Drudge Report promoted the story. The London tabloid The Daily Mail ran its version under the headline: “Male prostitute, 26, dies of meth overdose at Hollywood home of high-profile Democrat donor.” Fox News seemed to embrace the story as a chance to attack multiple foes at once: Democrats, the Clintons, and Hollywood. (On the night Buck was arrested, Tucker Carlson reported the story with a photo showing Buck with Hillary Clinton: “Turns out when Buck wasn’t donating to the Democrats, he liked to inject young men with narcotics in his living room.”)

“I’ve seen a man, a vital, vigorous, incredible intellect, descend into a monster.”

Entries from Moore’s personal journal were published in various news outlets in which he blamed Buck for getting him addicted to crystal meth. Moore wrote in a December 2016 entry that Buck “gave me my first injection of chrystal [sic] meth it was very painful, but after all the troubles, I became addicted to the pain and fetish/fantasy.”

Eighteen months after Moore’s death, Timothy Dean, a fashion consultant for Saks Fifth Avenue who had performed in adult films, died of a meth overdose in Buck’s living room. Nine months later Joe Doe fled Buck’s apartment and ended up being treated at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for a drug overdose.

Federal prosecutors have the ability to charge Buck in the two deaths without having to prove that killing them was his intent. The same statute is being used to prosecute the men who sold the fentanyl-laced painkillers that killed rap star Mac Miller. Lacey said in a statement that “there is no comparable statute in California criminal law that my office could have used to charge defendant Buck in either of the deaths.”

Investigators eventually gathered testimony from at least nine men who said that Buck had brought them to his home and insisted that they take drugs he gave them as compensation for sexual services. Two of them reported that he had injected drugs into their bodies while they were asleep. One of those two men is Joe Doe.

With the exception of Doe, local and federal prosecutors have differed over the credibility of witnesses. Many have puzzled over how Buck had avoided so much as a drug charge in the case. Nixon’s attorneys in a wrongful death lawsuit against Buck have suggested that local prosecutors were influenced by the fact that many of the alleged victims were homeless, black, and sex workers. The federal trial of Ed Buck was originally scheduled to begin November 26, but has been moved to next summer.

And there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier.

She is incredibly incompetent, fundamentally dishonest, and criminally corrupt, and these are her good qualities. KENNETH ELIASBERG

Hillary the Punisher: Ronan Farrow says he was cut dead from Clinton circles after he exposed Weinstein

By Monica Showalter

Apparently, the queen and her moneymen are not to be challenged.

Young Ronan Farrow learned that the hard way when he found out he was persona non grata from charmed social circles of Hillary Clinton following his investigation into Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein's long career of sexual harassment and intimidation, an investigation which won him the Pulitzer prize.

Which culminates a long road of indignities for the young man. Seems the threats from Weinstein's minions to him were not enough. Nor was the rejection he encountered from assorted media organizations who refused to run his work until the New Yorker finally picked it up. Nope, the punishment Farrow endured also extended to House Clinton, which cut him dead.

Which, to the rest of us, seems like a good thing, given their long history of moral turpitude. But to young Ronan, it was another sling and arrow, because he was a Democrat and that was his social circle.

According to the Washington Examiner:

“It’s remarkable how quickly even people with a long relationship with you will turn if you threaten the centres of power or the sources of funding around them,” Farrow told the Financial Times.

“Ultimately, there are a lot of people out there who operate in that way. They’re beholden to powerful interests and if you go up against those interests, you become radioactive very quickly,” he said.

Clinton appointed Farrow as her special adviser on global youth issues in 2011 when she was secretary of state. Farrow said he had worked with Clinton “for years” when he was looking into the Weinstein story.

Instead of praising young Ronan for standing up for the interests of sex-harrassed women, for igniting the #MeToo movement, Hillary, that supposed big champion of women's progress, shut him out, probably refusing to take his calls, and in his view, solely on the grounds that one of her most important moneymen was put out of commission. He was dead to her.

And that tells us a lot more about Clinton than it does about Farrow.

It's a reminder of Clinton's pay-to-play orientation, and privilege-of-kings morality. Rules of decency do not apply to her. Women's rights, or anyone's rights, are window dressing. Money talks. Maybe that can be brought up next time someone bruits about her name for president again.

Everyone knows she stood by her man, blamed his women, and perhaps was a psychological co-rapist for the sake of her political ambitions.

Bill and Hill - and the Evil that Men Do

By Deborah C. Tyler

People tend to cut quite a bit of slack for the weaknesses of the flesh because there’s a lot of that going around. But Hillary will gain no benefit from that latitude. Everyone knows she stood by her man, blamed his women, and perhaps was a psychological co-rapist for the sake of her political ambitions. Before the next president is elected, Hillary will not only have an albatross around her neck, she will be covered with names like Wellstone, Broaddrick, Moffet, Ward Gracen, Brown, Dowdy, Jones, Ferguson, Zercher, Willey, and more. A majority of those one hundred people will remember the evil the Clintons did, and their legacy will be lost in the folds of tattered dresses and bleeding lips.
Lives -- after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with the Clintons.

If you asked one hundred people what they think about when they hear the name Bill Clinton, a goodly number will say womanizer, cheater – a few will use the dreadful word rapist. And that number will increase. Time and neurology are working against the Clintons.
Most memory training programs are simply a matter of learning how to associate memories with emotionally charged ideas. This is because the brain is designed to remember where the dangers and the goodies lie and to forget the dry statistics. The brain is more inclined to remember Jennifer Flowers than the unemployment rate in 1996. This effect has tainted the collective memory of many presidents, for example, disclosures about the mistresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Kennedy. This effect will increase for Bill Clinton both because of the outrageous nature of his conduct and the way it has and will be reported.
People tend to cut quite a bit of slack for the weaknesses of the flesh because there’s a lot of that going around. But Hillary will gain no benefit from that latitude. Everyone knows she stood by her man, blamed his women, and perhaps was a psychological co-rapist for the sake of her political ambitions. Before the next president is elected, Hillary will not only have an albatross around her neck, she will be covered with names like Wellstone, Broaddrick, Moffet, Ward Gracen, Brown, Dowdy, Jones, Ferguson, Zercher, Willey, and more. A majority of those one hundred people will remember the evil the Clintons did, and their legacy will be lost in the folds of tattered dresses and bleeding lips.
Lives -- after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with the Clintons.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/bill_and_hill__and_the_evil_that_men_do.html#ixzz3w7CfTc1m

Hillary Clinton Is not just a sore loser, she is a total loser

By Kenneth Eliasberg

As one can readily see, Hillary Clinton has been unable to recover from having lost the 2016 presidential election -- a self-inflicted wound that she will never cop to. Or, possibly, an act of divine intervention. She has come up with well over a dozen reasons for her defeat -- every one but the real one, i.e. she is a loser -- not just a sore loser, but a total loser. She is incredibly incompetent, fundamentally dishonest, and criminally corrupt, and these are her good qualities. In addition, she is bereft of a trace of integrity or character, has absolutely no judgment, and is devoid of people skills ( she’s very easy to dislike and distrust and thereby become a member of her deplorables). The 2016 race was hers to lose, and by failing to listen to advice on where to campaign, she managed to do just that -- lose! Thank God -- a Hillary Clinton presidency would be the last nail in America’s coffin.

We could go through the litany of Hillary Clinton’s failures – Cattlegate, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, her clumsy and opaque handling of the health care assignment her husband handed her, her tour of duty in the U.S. Senate, or her stint at the State Department, starting with her failure to get the Russian word for “reset” correct and ending with her dereliction of duty in the case of Benghazi (which produced four dead Americans, including her “friend” Ambassador Christopher Stevens), which, on testifying before Congress, she fobbed off with “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

But, for present purposes, I would just like to focus on the liberties that she has always taken with the truth. When Bill Safire of the New York Times called her a congenital liar, he flattered her. You see, the Clintons don’t just tell lies, they live them.

Consider her most recent whopper -- the one in which she observed, on being asked what was her most difficult decision, that it was remaining in her marriage. Why was this her biggest whopper? Because she had no choice but to remain in her marriage, if, indeed, the arrangement that the Clintons have qualifies as a “marriage,” rather than a political partnership looking to advance the ambitions of each of the partners.

Some have applauded her incredible loyalty to Bill in view of his tawdry behavior. However, if all they had was an “arrangement” to advance their ambitions, his infidelities were irrelevant as far as hurt feelings were concerned.

But they were necessary to make her both the object of sympathy (although one has to wonder why you are deserving of pity on your husband’s 1000th marital transgression). Also, every time he got caught, so it goes, he owed her one. Ergo, the health care assignment, her Senate term, and, finally, her stint as Secretary of State. In each of these situations she distinguished herself more for her failures than any accomplishment.

The point here is that Hillary had no choice but to stay in her marriage. Without her connection to Bill Clinton, Hillary could not be nominated for, let alone be elected to, dog catcher of even the smallest of communities. Her successes in securing all of these positions was achieved by attaching herself to Bill’s coattails and riding them to each one of these positions.

So why did Hillary lose the 2016 Presidential election? Because she’s Hillary Clinton, a born loser. And, more to the point, Hillary Clinton belongs in the Big House, not in the White House.

BILL CLINTON: SERIAL RAPIST and his enabler, Hillary!

MONICA’S VIDEO ON SERIAL RAPIST BILL CLINTON, HUSBAND OF SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON, CHARITY FOUNDATION FRAUDSTER

Monica Lewinsky says Bill Clinton hinted she should perjure herself, arranged a farewell Christmas tryst before dumping her

https://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/11/video-serial-rapist-and-grifter-bill.html

Why is no one helping or caring about all these women? Who Hillary Viciously went after. The hypocrisy right now on the left is utterly stunning me. Bill Clinton-12 women on record telling their stories of him sexually assaulting them starting back in college! Imagine all the women who still have never told their stories about him?

Eileen Wellstone (1969)

Allegation: S-exual assault

Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972)

Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974)

Anonymous female lawyer (1977)

Juanita Broaddrick (1978)

R-ape

Carolyn Moffet (1979)

Elizabeth Ward (1983)

Sally Perdue (1983)

Paula Jones (1991)

Sandra Allen James (1991)

Christy Zercher (1992)

Kathleen Willey (1993)

Monica Lewinsky. 22-year-old intern working for the President

Ronan Farrow: Bill Clinton ‘Credibly’ Accused of Rape, Investigation Is ‘Overdue’

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/11/03/ronan-farrow-bill-clinton-credibly-accused-of-rape-investigation-is-overdue/

BEN KEW

3 Nov 20192,510

2:29

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow said on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, that “credible” accusations of rape had been made against former President Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick, adding that an investigation into the allegations is now “overdue.”

Maher asked Farrow, who is best known for helping uncover the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal, whether Clinton could have survived in today’s political climate of hyper-awareness about sexual misconduct.

“I think that it is very important to interject that Bill Clinton is a different conversation,” responded Farrow. “He has been credibly accused of rape. That has nothing to do with gray areas. I think that the Juanita Broaddrick claim has been overdue for revisiting.”

Broaddrick, a former nursing administrator, first made the allegations against Clinton in 1999, claiming that he raped her in her hotel room in Little Rock in 1978, when he was Arkansas attorney general and running for governor. Clinton has denied the allegation through his attorney.

Farrow recently accused Hillary Clinton in his best-selling book Catch and Kill of pressuring him during his investigations into Harvey Weinstein’s behavior. According to Farrow, Clinton’s publicist Nick Merrill described the story as “a concern” for her reputation.

Meanwhile, Maher also pressed Farrow on longtime rumors that he is the son of singer Frank Sinatra, with his mother Mia Farrow having been romantically involved with the singer and the pair bearing a strong physical resemblance.

“Now, what do you think your father would think about what you’re doing now?” Maher asked Farrow, in reference to his investigative reporting.

“I knew I was walking into that so I asked,” Farrow said. “I didn’t want to give you the sound-bite of ‘Which one?’”

In 2013, Mia Farrow said in an interview with Vanity Fair that Sinatra could “possibly” be her son’s biological father.

“I feel like there’s no one more #MeToo-y than Frank Sinatra,” Maher said, asking. “You do own a mirror, don’t you?”

Farrow eventually admitted that he “doesn’t know” what Sinatra would have thought of his journalism, but joked that Maher could “ask my mom” for answers.

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com

Where were the HOWLERS when serial rapist Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were on the prowl?

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/07/30-lies-of-hillary-clinton-and-thats.html

"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

Leaked Julian Assange Message:

Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected, Sadistic Sociopath’

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/02/julian-assange-hillary-clinton-is.html

Hillary, Billary, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Harvey Weinstein and their boy Obomb….. new definitions of

degradation and sleaze.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-sleazeters-hillary-clinton-says.html

DO YOU GET SICK AND TIRED OF HOLLYWOOD’S STAGGERING HYPOCRISY???

RICH LIBERALS AND THEIR CELEBRATES P IMPS AND PERVS

…. The parasitism of Hillary, Billary, Obomb, Heffner, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Weinstein and the rest.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/10/rich-liberals-and-their-celebrated.html

Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a plenary session at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, on May 6, 2015. (Abdeljalil Bounhar/AP Photo)

POLITICS

Bill Clinton Accusers Speak Out After Ronan Farrow Says Ex-President Was ‘Credibly Accused of Rape’

BY JACK PHILLIPS

November 6, 2019 Updated: November 6, 2019

Juanita Broaddrick, who has long accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault, said that she agrees with comments made by reporter Ronan Farrow.

Farrow wrote the book “Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators,” touching on NBC News’ attempts to silence his reporting about Harvey Weinstein. He told “Real Time with Bill Maher” that Broaddrick had credibly accused Clinton of rape.

“Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape … That is, I think the Juanita Broaddrick claim has been overdue for revisiting,” he said on Nov. 1.

He was answering a question from Maher, who asked a panel, “Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998 survived today? Or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?”

According to the Daily Caller, three women who have accused Clinton of assault, including Broaddrick, said they are hoping for justice.

Clinton has denied all of the allegations.

“I always have thought that this should be revisited. … I would like for something to be done in order to expose this man for all of the things that he has done and possibly get all of his past presidential perks taken from him,” Broaddrick told the website. “That would be my biggest goal, because I don’t think anything else can be done after 40 years.”

Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (C) sits with, (L-R)Paula Jones, Kathy Shelton, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey, before the second presidential debate with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at Washington University in St. Louis, on Oct. 9, 2016. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

Broaddrick said that the allegations of assault never amounted to anything because of the power he wielded.

“I think it’s because of who it was,” she said. “[Lauer and others] are all lower characters. Who should have been exposed was the president of the United States.”

She accused him of rape when he was campaigning for governor of Arkansas in 1978.

Leslie Millwee, another Clinton accuser, told the Daily Caller that she was pleased to hear Farrow’s interest in the allegations.

“I absolutely agree that it’s long overdue. … I think that more things are going to come to light,” Millwee said. “I’m really excited that Ronan’s looking into it. I was sexually assaulted three times by Bill Clinton … and I would not only like for Juanita to get justice, you know, I’d like to get justice. I’m elated that he’s looking into this.”

“I don’t care what your political affiliation is—whether you lean left or right—sexual assault is bad and wrong and it should be looked at in that way, and nothing to do with political affiliation,” said Millwee, a former Arkansas reporter.

And Kathleen Willey, a former aide in the White House, said that she doesn’t believe Farrow’s interest in the topic will actually lead to charges against Clinton.

“The world knows that the Clintons have everybody in their back pocket, and I just don’t know who’s willing to come forward and take something like that on,” she told the news outlet. “I certainly agree with what Ronan Farrow said. … What does ‘revisit’ mean? Is the [district attorney] going to look into this? Is the special counsel?” Willey said. “It’s been 40 years, and I can’t see anybody picking the ball up and running with it.”

Willey claimed that Clinton assaulted her in 1993 in the Oval Office while she volunteered as an aide, according to Business Insider. Clinton denied the allegations.

Millwee alleged that the former president sexually assaulted her in 1980 several times at the television station where she worked. She came forward with the allegations in 2016, speaking to Breitbart.

Clinton eventually was impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives for lying under oath and obstruction of justice following the publication of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The Senate ultimately acquitted him in 1999 and he served out his second term until January 2001.

O.K., Prince Andrew's out of public life. Why isn't Bill Clinton?

By Monica Showalter

The press is making a big deal out of Britain's Prince Andrew now being ousted from public life, based on his pretty gamy associations with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He had his hand draped around the bare midriff of a 17-year old, in one photo. He kibbitzed with Epstein after his Florida slap-on-the-wrist conviction and there's a photograph there, too. Flight records show he rode the Lolita Express. And incredibly, he claims he never knew anything untoward was going on.

A little rich there, old chap. Or very, very, naive...

U.K.'s Daily Mail has this comprehensive report, reasonably explored from a U.K. perspective. But the U.S. press has been all over it, too. Here's CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, CNBC, Time, Fox News...

It's good clean fun for the American press, given that the British royal family is unimportant here, and relies on a pristine public image to maintain U.K. public support which is pretty incompatible with jetting around with Epstein, but it also raises questions about why that other famous friend of Epstein's, Bill Clinton, who rode the Lolita Express again, and again, and again, isn't getting the same pariah treatment. Fact is, the press hasn't brought the disgusting thing up at all, even as Clinton's wife (and daughter) gallivant around the country on a thinly disguised campaign for Hillary as president.

Joe Biden's gotten all kinds of questions based on his son Hunter's gamy business dealings. But Hillary Clinton remains immune -- and not a word has been said in the media about hubby Bill, who's still carrying on his public life as usual. It's as if he's out of the picture, and all those denials he's thus far made are simply factual ... albeit about as factual as Prince Andrew's denials.

And there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier. Someone like Clinton turning up with Epstein, is pretty obviously a matter of public interest, particularly with his wife's presidential ambitions. Just recently, one of Clinton's accusers, Juanita Broaddrick, gave this interview to Australia's Sky News, bringing up the constant issues with the much-vaunted Democratic ex-president, and still seeking justice. She's not getting any so far:

Juanita Broaddrick@atensnut

My interview with Sky News Australia this evening

MeToo movement "never wanted anything to do with the victims of Bill Clinton” | Sky News Australia https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6108127574001 …

MeToo movement "never wanted anything to do with the victims of Bill Clinton” | Sky News Australia

It’s “disheartening” the Me Too movement "never wanted anything to do with the victims of Bill Clinton” according to a woman who claims the former President raped her. Juanita Broaddrick alleges Mr...

skynews.com.au

5,964

10:16 PM - Nov 23, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

3,058 people are talking about this

Which brings up again why Clinton isn't getting any attention, let alone ostracization, on his well-known relationship with Epstein. Why not? The Brit press is interested in British angles, the American press should be similarly interested in American angles. But only Prince Andrew gets the full press attention. Maybe that's because he's not a Democrat to protect?

It just shows the press's credibility problem in conveniently attempting to protect another Democrat from any uncomfortable questions.

Is someone gonna ask the Clintons about all those trips to Epstein's 'cowboy village'?

By Monica Showalter

The press is piling on against the U.K.'s Prince Andrew, who's been probably credibly accused of participating in "suicide" pervert Jeffrey Epstein's sex-with-little-girls operations.

Yes, it's wretched and appalling. It's bad for a royal family that for decades has portrayed itself as the embodiment of middle-class values. This is Shaka Zulu or Genghis Khan territory.

But it's also of limited interest, given that Prince Andrew is not even important in the royal succession lineup, and frankly, who cares what some rich overseas princeling is up to? The media sure didn't, up until now.

There's likely a reason for it — to deflect attention from the growing evidence that Bill, Hillary, and even Chelsea Clinton have had a pretty spectacularly intense association with the very same pervert.

The Daily Mail has been on the job and has found another credible witness, a former contractor of Epstein's at his New Mexico "cowboy village" ranch who says the Clintons jetted in annually on Epstein's Lolita Express and had a grand old time on Epstein's many-camera'ed grounds. Some opening points from the Mail:

Bill and Hillary Clinton would stay at Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexico ranch frequently after they left the White House, former estate workers told DailyMailTV

The former president was Epstein's closest 'celebrity mate' and the Clintons visited Zorro Ranch 'a whole bunch of times', a former contractor who ran the IT system at the property said

The family never stayed in the main house but bunked down in a special cowboy-themed village created by Epstein, which lies a mile south of his own villa, sources said

The guest homes are next to other traditional Wild West-style buildings such as an old schoolhouse and saloon bar, which are all near Epstein's private airstrip, where he arrived on his private planes

And to read the details of the report is enough to give the gross-outs to anyone. Why were the Clintons going to a place Epstein called his "baby-making ranch"? What was that about Epstein having an eight-person "party shower"? Did the Clintons do the "party shower"? Was it on film? How many times? And who else was in the pen with them? What about that party room with the stripper poles? Did the Clintons go there, too? What was the Secret Service thinking, or did Bill bug out again on his Secret Service? And why are taxpayers paying for this farce?

Why again did Epstein have that icky portrait of Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress on his Manhattan mansion wall?

As one of the contractors who witnessed this, Jared Kellogg, told the Mail:

'My contact was Brice, their main concern was that there was no video surveillance on the property at all. I thought this was a simple request, as they wanted surveillance to protect their investment. It's a huge site.

'But what was weird was that the whole time I was on site, Brice would be bragging about how the Clintons would visit, the whole family. Not just Bill, but Bill, his wife, their kid, and they would stay on the ranch itself.

More ickiness about Epstein's obsession with cameras:

Instead of using an expensive, robust camera system, which used underground cables, he wanted a 'point-to-point wireless fluid mesh design', which means cameras are operating via antenna, and is considerably cheaper.

After Kellogg did an estimate and sent in a plan, he never heard back.

He said: 'They had this huge facility, but it felt like they didn't have the money to do anything. They were trying to find the most cost-effective way to transmit video footage and we had to come up with a point-to-point wireless fluid mesh design because normally we want to trench everything. It saves money as you don't have to build a trench and put in a cable.

Sound like someone who's been blackmailed? You decide.

Now, arguably, one could argue that the press is saying nothing about this, given that the contractor was a different kind of witness from Virginia Giuffre, the credible young woman who says Epstein trafficked her with Prince Andrew when she was a teenager.

But the Mail slips in something that hasn't appeared significantly in the press at all: that Giuffre also says she saw Bill Clinton at Epstein's pervert haunts being honored by the pedophile himself.

Why aren't the media covering that? Now we have the Clintons pinned at two places — the "cowboy ranch" and the Caribbean pervert island — and no one's saying anything. It's all about Prince Andrew.

Yet Eptein was obsessed with cameras and obviously blackmail. He roped in Prince Andrew. But the real question is to what extent he got the Clintons. With all these new revelations rolling out, why is the press silent?

Image credit: Photo montage by Monica Showalter from public domain sources.

Convicted sex offender and Mueller witness George Nader indicted for illegal contributions to boost Hillary Clinton

by Daniel Chaitin

& Jerry Dunleavy

Convicted sex offender George Nader, who was a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, has been indicted by United States prosecutors for his alleged role in a scheme to conceal large sums of illegal campaign contributions to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Nader, a 60-year-old Lebanese American lobbyist, is accused of conspiring with Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, the Los Angeles-based 48-year-old chief executive of Allied Wallet, to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions to political committees associated with a presidential candidate to gain influence during and after the 2016 campaign.

Nader and Khawaja were charged on Nov. 7 as part of a 53-count indictment dealt by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia. The indictment was unsealed on Tuesday.

Khawaja gave more than $4 million to Clinton's campaign and other Democrats during the 2016 cycle but later donated $1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee after Clinton lost, according to the Associated Press. As he shifted his focus to Republicans after the 2016 election, the Lebanese-born Khawaja met with Trump at a Manhattan fundraiser and got a photo with the president in the Oval Office.

The Justice Department announced on Tuesday that Khawaja allegedly conspired with Nader to make $3.5 million in straw donations to boost a presidential candidate from March 2016 through January 2017.

No candidate is mentioned by name, but the indictment and campaign finance records make it clear that the money was directed towards helping Clinton during the 2016 campaign.

"By design, these contributions appeared to be in the names of Khawaja, his wife, and his company. In reality, they allegedly were funded by Nader," Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and FBI Washington Field Office chief Timothy Slater announced in a statement.

"Khawaja and Nader allegedly made these contributions in an effort to gain influence with high-level political figures, including the candidate. As Khawaja and Nader arranged these payments, Nader allegedly reported to an official from a foreign government about his efforts to gain influence," they continued.

According to the indictment, after the election Khawaja used his company to steer $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee and attended Trump's inauguration with Nader.

The other charges in the indictment allege Khawaja and six associates — Roy Boulos, Rudy Dekermenjian, Mohammad “Moe” Diab, Rani El-Saadi, Stevan Hill, and Thayne Whipple — conspired to conceal executive contributions, totaling more than $1.8 million, to various political committees in 2016 through 2018. "Among other things, these contributions allegedly allowed Khawaja to host a private fundraiser for a presidential candidate in 2016 and a private fundraising dinner for an elected official in 2018," Benczkowski and Slater said.

Khawaja is also charged with obstructing the grand jury investigation in the summer by providing a witness called to testify in the case with false information about Nader and his connection to Khawaja’s company, while four of his associates are charged with obstruction by lying to the FBI.

Nader is already in federal custody on other charges. In July, he was charged with sex trafficking for allegedly transporting a 14-year-old boy from Europe and then abusing him. Nader pleaded not guilty in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

Part of a rap sheet dating to the 1980s, Nader pleaded guilty in 1991 to a federal child porn charge involving footage of 13- or 14-year-old boys and received a six-month sentence, served at a Baltimore halfway house.

Nader acted as a connection between Trump’s circle and Russian, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabian officials in 2016 and 2017 as he pursued business deals in the Middle East. This included helping to set up a January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles between Trump associate and Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian official with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, records indicate Nader visited the White House at least 13 times to meet with Trump’s then-chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Nader was interviewed by Mueller's team on multiple occasions regarding possible UAE efforts to influence members of Trump's campaign, and was mentioned in Mueller's final report more than 100 times.

An attorney for Nader declined to comment to the Washington Post, and an attorney for Khawaja could not immediately be reached by the outlet.

Federal Election Commission records detail the millions of dollars Khawaja admitted donating to Democratic candidates, campaigns, and political action committees.

Khawaja told the Federal Election Commission he donated $2,700 in October 2015 and $2,700 in July 2016 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary for America. He said he donated $135,000 in March 2016, $150,000 in April 2016, $68,400 in June 2016, and $60,000 in September 2016 to the Clinton campaign’s joint fundraising committee, the Hillary Victory Fund. The records also show a donation totaling $200,400 in July 2016 to the Hillary Action Fund, a joint fundraising effort between Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Khawaja told the FEC about donations to the DNC totaling $231,100, in addition to donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee totaling $33,400 in 2016 and $43,900 in 2017 and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee totaling $233,400 in 2016, $230,000 in 2017, and $237,300 in 2018.

Khawaja also reported donating massive sums to liberal PACs, including $1,100,000 to Priorities USA Action, the primary super PAC supporting Clinton's campaign, and $100,000 to Senate Majority PAC in 2016. He also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Senate and congressional races around the country with a special focus on his home state of California, including $4,200 in 2016 and $3,900 in 2017 to Schiff for Congress, the campaign committee for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

In addition, Khawaja’s company, Allied Wallet, reported giving $550,000 to the Philadelphia 2016 Host Committee, the Democratic National Convention’s fundraising arm, in July 2016. The business also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic super PACs in 2017 and 2018.

FEC records show Nader reported giving $595 in donations to Trump’s presidential campaign committee in 2016, as well as $100 dollars to Ben Carson's campaign, but not to any Democrats that election cycle.

Nader was a business associate of Elliott Broidy, a top Republican fundraiser and deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee who resigned from that position in April 2018 after reports that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen negotiated a $1.6 million settlement in 2017 between Broidy and a former Playboy model who said Broidy impregnated her. Nader and Broidy worked to influence U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East prior to Broidy's resignation and Nader's arrest in June.

Is that you, Bill Clinton? New book says Epstein blackmailed politicians

By Monica Showalter

Jeffrey Epstein was a bizarre creep. Not only was he a pedophile, but he seemed to be drawn to pulling in famous people to his pedophilery, in the interests of blackmail.

A new book lays out how strange it was, stating that Epstein got his entire spy operation from the media empire of the late Robert Maxwell, a sleazy tabloid-media character who was Epstein girlfriend Ghislane Maxwell's father, and who died under mysterious circumstances himself on his yacht, years ago. Apparently, he was useful to the Mossad for blackmailing politicians, so they all had some kind of relationship, and Epstein, a pedophile, was brought in. Here's an interesting review with excerpts from Medium:

According to the former spy, the ultimate order to embrace Epstein and involve him in the ongoing arms deals came from "the bosses" at Israeli intelligence headquarters.

"They were agents of the Israeli Intelligence Services," he told James Robertson.

"Later on [Ghislaine] got involved with Israeli intelligence together with him. But not in this arms deal with Iran business," Ben-Menashe also told Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and investigative journalist for the website Narativ.

"These guys were seen as agents. They weren't really competent to do very much. And so they found a niche for themselves — blackmailing American and other political figures."

He told Robertson, "Mr. Epstein was the simple idiot who was going around providing girls to all kinds of politicians in the United States. See, f------ around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it's not a crime. But f------ a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians f------ fourteen-year-old girls — if you want to get it straight. They would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that."

This, if true, tells us two things: that Epstein was able to get away from the long arm of the law due to politics, but he also may have had some nefarious sway over a lot of politicians, what with his tabloid spy ties via House Maxwell and, apparently, the Israeli spy apparat, too.

So imagine a guy like Bubba Clinton strolling into this and indulging his enormous appetites, and not a clue as to the forces circling him.

If even a scintilla of this is what was going on, there may be forces out there with the wherewithal to rub out Epstein in his prison, as well as hold enormous sway over many gullible and immoral Western politicians.

It once again raises questions as to where Bill Clinton was in all this. He's intersected the Epstein world all too often for something of this nature not to ensnare. And with a compliant media establishment, he's still getting away with saying nothing was going on.

Image credit: Photo illustration by Monica Showalter from public domain sources.

How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

By William F. Marshall

These days it seems like coincidence abounds in the precincts of leftism. And an unquestioning Deep State Media are only too happy to label anyone who points out the absurdities of the supposed coincidences as “conspiracy theorists,” having long ago abandoned journalistic inquisitiveness for allegiance to a political ideology.

A few examples spring to mind: Jeffrey Epstein’s supposed suicide; a “chance” encounter on June 27, 2016 on the tarmac of Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, whose wife would be interviewed by FBI agents over her illegal email server five days later; and the failure by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to find “political bias” in the initiation of the Obama administration’s outrageous and utterly illegal spying operation on the Trump presidential campaign and presidency.

Take the case of the “suicide” of Jeffrey Epstein. There’s a reason the phrase “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” being tacked onto otherwise disconnected topics by people making public statements became a hilarious meme for a while. At the core of all good humor is an unspoken truth. It was a populist way of saying, “We’re not buying what you fake news media types are selling anymore.” And the flat-footed responses of the Deep State Media reporters confronted by these unexpected “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” truth bombs were the best part of all.

At an LSU-Alabama football game that President Trump attended, MSNBC reporter Monica Alba asked a Trump-voting student on live television, “What [Trump] policies stand out to you?” The young man gamely replied, without cracking a smile or missing a beat, “Just mainly the no-nonsense policies and especially since Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.” Alba visibly had difficulty maintaining her composure but being part of today’s toadying Fourth Estate that must protect the Clintons at all cost, dutifully ignored the student’s non sequitur tweak and edto another question.

Caleb Hull

✔@CalebJHull

MSNBC REPORTER: “What [Trump] policies stand out to you?”

ALABAMA STUDENT: “Just mainly the no nonsense policies and especially since Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

34.6K

2:53 PM - Nov 9, 2019 · Washington, DC

Twitter Ads info and privacy

10K people are talking about this

She gets the joke, but knows she can’t acknowledge it, as the word has gone out to the entire corporate media class that no one is allowed to question the circumstances of the death of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was as thick as thieves with Bill Clinton.

And the circumstances of Epstein’s supposed “suicide” are so outrageously questionable that any sentient person looking at the facts would have to have undergone a lobotomy not to conclude that a giant scam and cover-up occurred in relation to his death. But Epstein’s ability to expose rich and powerful liberals like Mr. Clinton, Prince Andrew and who knows how many others in his web of sexual perversion meant that the Bat Signal had to go out to Deep State Media members everywhere that no discussion of the possible murder of Epstein could be tolerated.

Consider the “coincidences” and anomalies that took place in Epstein’s final days and hours. Here you have the most high-profile criminal defendant in the United States, who had explosively damaging information on sexual predations involving perhaps scores or hundreds of the world’s most elite and powerful occurring aboard Epstein’s private 727 jet dubbed “The Lolita Express,” at his Caribbean estate wags nicknamed “Orgy Island,” at his sprawling New Mexico would-be baby farm, and at his Manhattan manse.

He finally ends up in jail at Manhattan’s Metropolitan Correctional Center in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons. He then supposedly attempted to kill myself but survived, yet was taken off suicide watch after only six days. Then lo and behold, both guards assigned to check on him fell asleep – simultaneously – and missed their rounds, both cameras trained on the area around Epstein’s cell failed, simultaneously, and the night before his death, Epstein’s one cellmate inexplicably was removed from the cell.

After his body was found on August 10, 2019, an autopsy performed by the city’s Chief Medical Examiner’s office determined the cause of death to be suicide after only five days, even before all of the evidence has been collected. Famed pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who attended the autopsy at the behest of Epstein’s brother, gave a must-see interview to Fox News. He noted that the three bones fractured in Epstein’s neck were indicative of homicide, not suicide. Baden said that Epstein’s neck “had been crushed.” It was not the result of a ligature (like a noose made from bedsheets), as was claimed. He noted the scene of the death appeared staged to suggest suicide.

Yet, the Deep State Media pushed the suicide narrative nonetheless, pooh-poohing anyone who suggested otherwise. They attacked the esteemed Dr. Baden for questioning the Epstein autopsy, with New York Magazine describing him as having “demi-celebrity status” and being fond of “self-aggrandizement.” Never mind the fact pattern he points to that is wildly divergent from a “suicide” determination. But this is our corporatist media today. Accept the Deep State narrative and move on.

Then we have Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton “bumping into” each other at the culmination of the FBI’s pseudo-investigation into Hillary Clinton’s outrageously criminal conduct in running highly classified government records over a ridiculously unsecure personal server, surely in violation of the Espionage Act and Federal Records Act, if not other laws.

The advance planning that goes into the travel of both a former president and a current Attorney General by their protective details and logistics personnel is immense. Two such officials do not simply have their respective airplanes sidle up to each other on the tarmac of an airport like you might bump into an old high school chum at Starbucks. The impropriety of the Attorney General meeting privately with the spouse of the subject of a high-profile FBI investigation was off the charts. But, we were told, they just discussed golf outings and grandchildren. Nothing to see here either folks. And the likes of CNN dutifully reported that it was only congressional Republicans who saw fit to question the circumstances.

And finally, we have DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifying to the Senate that, “We found no bias” on the part of those who initiated the counterintelligence operation targeting the Trump campaign, called Operation Crossfire Hurricane. His report itself said, “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision [to open an investigation surveilling the Trump campaign].”

One might reasonably ask: When top FBI lawyer and principal in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Lisa Page, says in an August 2016 text to fellow Crossfire Hurricane principal, FBI official Peter Strzok, that Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” And Strzok responds “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,” isn’t that perhaps documentary evidence of a political bias?

Perhaps Mr. Horowitz was looking for an FBI “To Do List” entitled “Steps We Will Take to Undermine the Presidential Candidacy of Donald J. Trump” and came up blank.

Nonetheless, the Deep State Media, like NBC News, dutifully and breathlessly declared in its headline on the story: “Internal Justice watchdog finds that Russia probe was justified, not biased against Trump.”

A representative republic is severely impaired, indeed threatened, when its constitutionally protected watchdogs in the Fourth Estate abandon their most basic critical faculties in favor of advancing the agenda of their preferred political party. Eventually, the absurdities they foist upon a skeptical populace lead inevitably to their deserved reputation as discredited Deep State handmaidens, not to be believed.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for more than 30 years. He is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc., and a contributor to Townhall, American Thinker, and The Federalist. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)

The Mexican Invasion and Occupation: Mexico & Dems Build the LA RAZA UNIDOus Mex Welfare State

Sunday, January 26, 2020

HILLARY CLINTON TALKS ABOUT FEMINISM - BUT ISN'T SHE AN ABETTER AND ENABLER OF MORE THAN ONE SERIAL RAPIST?

We NAnd there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier.

eed a Smarter Conversation About Feminism in Politics

No comments:

Blog Archive

Search This Blog