U.S. Wire Payments to Iran Undercut Obama

/0 Comments/in , /by

The United States made at least two separate payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer within the last 14 months, a Treasury Department spokesman confirmed Saturday, contradicting explanations from President Barack Obama that such payments were impossible.

Responding to questions at an Aug. 4 press conference about a $400 million payment delivered in cash to the Iranian government, Obama said, “[T]he reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money.”

But a Treasury Department spokesman acknowledged on Saturday that on at least two occasions, the U.S. did make payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer.

In July 2015, the same month in which the U.S., Iran and other countries announced a landmark nuclear agreement, the U.S. government paid the Islamic republic approximately $848,000. That payment settled a claim over architectural drawings and fossils that are now housed in the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art and Iran’s Ministry of Environment, respectively. Then, in April 2016, the U.S. wired Iran approximately $9 million to remove 32 metric tons of its heavy water, which is used to produce plutonium and can aid in the making of nuclear weapons. (Read more from “U.S. Wire Payments to Iran Undercut Obama” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Critics See Potential for Violence in Trump’s Call to Disarm Clinton Bodyguards

/2 Comments/in , /by

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump ruffled a few feathers, including those of former congresswoman and shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords, when he pointed out what he perceived to be rival Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy on Second Amendment issues.

Giffords, who was a Democratic U.S. representative from Arizona when a would-be assassin shot her in the head, took exception to the rhetoric Trump used during a speech in Miami this week.

After insisting Clinton wants to dismantle the constitutional right to bear arms, Trump suggested the former first lady’s security guards should get rid of their guns first.

“They should disarm,” he told a crowd of supporters. “Right? I think they should disarm immediately. Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns … let’s see what happens to her.”

He went on to assert the result would be “very dangerous.”

Trump made a similar point the same day on Twitter.

Along with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, Giffords put public pressure on the brash billionaire to apologize.

In a statement following Friday’s speech, the couple described Trump as “dangerously unfit” to serve as president, citing his comments about Clinton’s bodyguards as the latest evidence.

The joint statement noted Trump’s previous acknowledgement that he regrets some of his more incendiary rhetoric, expressing a desire he will “immediately renounce these comments, apologize to Hillary Clinton, and acknowledge that once again he has gone dangerously too far.”

Other public figures joined the couple in their dismay over the statement.

Giffords and Kelly, along with other Trump critics, implied the statements could prompt an unstable supporter to attempt violence against Clinton.

“They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed,” the statement concluded.

In the online debate that ensued over Trump’s campaign remarks, numerous comments expressed a much different interpretation.

The Giffords-Kelly statement was not the only official denouncement of its kind. In a statement from campaign manager Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign not only criticized Trump’s comments but alleged the GOP nominee “has a pattern of inciting people to violence.” (For more from the author of “Critics See Potential for Violence in Trump’s Call to Disarm Clinton Bodyguards” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

California Could Let Felons Behind Bars Vote, Despite What the State Constitution Says

/0 Comments/in , /by

California Gov. Jerry Brown is considering whether to sign a bill that would allow tens of thousands of incarcerated felons to vote, while continuing to deny the vote to others.

The Legislature sent a bill to Brown’s desk that would restore voting rights to an estimated 50,000 convicted felons who are behind bars in county jails, but not to felons who are serving their sentence in prisons.

The legislation is a means to get around the language of the state constitution, which specifies:

The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.

In 1976, California voters approved an amendment to the constitution to restore voting rights to felons so long as they are not still “imprisoned or on parole.”

In 2011, Brown, a Democrat, signed the Realignment Act, which empowered officials to move low-level offenders to county jails as a way to address overcrowding in the state’s prisons.

The stated goal of the legislation on Brown’s desk was to clarify the distinction between voting rights for felons in prison and those serving in county jails, something left murky by a 2014 court ruling.

Supporters contend that the word “imprisoned” in the California Constitution refers to a state prison, but not a county jail.

If Brown signs the bill, he would add 50,000 felons to the voter rolls, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of California. The state has 123 county jails.

The governor’s office would not say whether Brown will sign the bill.

“Generally, we do not comment on pending legislation. The governor has until September 30 to act on the legislation and when he does so we will issue a news release and post on our website,” Brown spokesman Gareth Lacy told The Daily Signal in an email.

If the bill becomes law, it would create an odd circumstance in which inmates out of prison on parole are prohibited from voting, but felons behind bars in county jails could vote, said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association, which represents 58 county sheriffs.

“We think that it’s appropriate to keep felons from voting while they are incarcerated,” Salzillo told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Our notion is that it’s a consequence of being incarcerated. Society has said for a certain period of time you are precluded from participating in certain aspects of civic life.”

The bill passed by a vote of 23-13 in in the state Senate in August and by a vote of 41-37 in the state Assembly in June.

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, sponsored the legislation, saying it addressed voting rights questions gaining attention in other states.

“While national attention is focused on a few states, many fail to realize that in California voters of color have suffered new restrictions on their right to vote in recent years,” Weber said in prepared remarks. “I wrote AB 2466 because I want to send a message to the nation that California will not stand for discrimination in voting.”

California Attorney General Kamala Harris asserted her support, saying in a formal statement: “The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and society, and yet for too long we have stripped certain individuals of that right.”

If Brown signs it into law, the measure also would guarantee that juvenile offenders retain their right to vote when they turn 18 if they committed a delinquent felony offense, according to a “fact sheet” from Weber’s office. It also would clarify information that courts send to election offices, to ensure eligible voters aren’t denied the right to vote by mistake.

But the controversy is over what Weber’s office describes as the provision of the bill that “defines the term ‘imprisoned’ for purposes of voting as a state-prison or federal-prison sentence.”

To differentiate prisons and jails regarding voting rights would be splitting hairs, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation who specializes in election-related issues.

“If you look at the state constitution, you would have a hard time believing that jails and prisons aren’t the same intent,” he told The Daily Signal. “If the governor signs the bill, any voter in the state will have a cause of action [to sue the state]. If the state is taking action in diluting an individual’s vote, it is easy to get standing.”

Earlier this year, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, took executive action to restore voting rights to felons after they are released.

“Social science shows that felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat,” von Spakovsky said.

Only Maine and Vermont allow felons to vote even while serving their sentence in state prisons. If Brown signs the measure, California would not be going as far as those New England states in granting inmates the right to vote.

In a formal statement, Lori Shellenberger, director of the ACLU of California’s Voting Rights Project, said:

The Legislature’s vote demonstrates that our elected officials want to be on the right side of history and end this insidious form of voter discrimination. It’s also a vote for public safety. When we allow people to exercise their civic duty to participate in our elections we reduce their chances of re-offending and make our communities safer.

Massachusetts used to allow felons to vote from behind bars, von Spakovsky said. However, after inmates formed a political action committee to influence legislators, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban felons from voting while incarcerated.

Nationally, 38 states and the District of Columbia allow most ex-felons to regain voting rights after completing their sentence, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some of these states restore rights automatically, others either require felons to wait or apply to have their rights restored. (For more from the author of “California Could Let Felons Behind Bars Vote, Despite What the State Constitution Says” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Media Upset With Trump’s Honesty Around NY Bombing

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday a bomb went off in the Chelsea section of New York City, after an earlier bomb went off in Seaside, New Jersey. Donald Trump announced the bombing at his next scheduled event. The media went into a frenzy because Trump called a bombing a bombing before city officials confirmed.

They even asked Hillary Clinton about Trump’s remarks right after she called the incident a bombing herself on her campaign plane.

It is not irresponsible to call a bombing a bombing. That is in fact what happened and what social media networks were calling it. What the media don’t realize is that Americans are sick and tired of being lied to.

Almost contemporaneously to Trump calling it a bombing, the mayor of New York, Bill DeBlasio, was quick to rule out terrorism even before authorities had conducted a full investigation. You don’t see Clinton attacking him. No, she’s talking about how she’s in contact with him.

So let’s recap the past 24 hours: a bombing at a Marine Corps 5K in Seaside, New Jersey; a bombing in the Chelsea area of New York City; the discovery of a secondary Al-Qaeda-style pressure cooker bomb in NYC; and a jihadist stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. But of course the media aren’t incredulous at DeBlasio calling the bombing “intentional” but not terrorism.

Is there any wonder why Trump has taken a lead in the presidential race? People are hungering for their leaders to speak the truth about terrorism, not to continue to obfuscate and lie. (For more from the author of “Media Upset With Trump’s Honesty Around NY Bombing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Heroic Cop Jason Falconer Stopped the St. Cloud Jihadist. Here’s What You Need to Know

/0 Comments/in , /by

The hero off-duty police officer who intervened to stop the St. Cloud jihadist attacker has been identified as firearms trainer and concealed carry advocate Officer Jason Falconer.

Falconer was identified by the St. Cloud Times as the off-duty police officer who shot and killed Dahir Adan, a Somali immigrant who entered Crossroads Center Shopping Mall on September 17 with a knife and stabbed nine people.

“I want to recognize the individual off-duty police officer who eliminated the threat, and took down the suspect,” said St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis, noting that Falconer “clearly prevented additional injuries and potentially loss of life.”

Kleis called Falconer a hero, saying he “happened to be in the right place at the right time.”

Falconer identified himself as a police officer, and the suspect lunged at him, Kleis said according to the St. Cloud Times. It was at that moment Officer Falconer opened fire, killing the suspect.

The Minnesota Star Tribune reports that Falconer is not seeking recognition for his heroism.

“The officer’s life was clearly in danger,” Kleis said, pointing to interior surveillance video that shows the officer shooting, and the suspect falling and getting back up three times, and at one point lunging toward Falconer.

Alerted to the praise for his actions coming from Gov. Mark Dayton and Sen. Amy Klobuchar for his actions inside the mall, Falconer said Sunday afternoon, “I’ve been trying to stay away from it all, for the time being.”

All the same, he is a hero.

(For more from the author of “Heroic Cop Jason Falconer Stopped the St. Cloud Jihadist. Here’s What You Need to Know” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Is LITERALLY Sending Our Special Ops to Fight for ‘Moderates’ Who Want to Kill Us

/0 Comments/in , /by

It never ends. Is it too much to ask that we don’t send our brave troops into aimless quagmires full of enemy forces fighting each other with no positive outcome that fulfills our interests? Can’t we just let our enemies fight each other?

When I warned several months ago that Obama was sending our special operators into a meat-grinder, this is exactly what I meant:

The U.S. has sent about 40 special-operations troops to work alongside Turkish forces to fight Islamic State in northern Syria, U.S. officials said.

It is the first time American special-operations forces are working with the Turkish military and moderate rebels in Syria, in a move seen by U.S. officials as a way to strengthen the relationship with an ally in the fight against Islamic State militants. [Wall Street Journal]

I guess after fighting for Iran in Iraq, including giving air cover for and sharing bases with some of the same Shia militias that blew up hundreds of U.S. soldiers, it should come as no surprise that we are now fighting for the greatest Sunni Islamist power in the region as well. After all, Recep Erdogen is the leading Muslim Brotherhood inspiration in the world.

However, as Patrick Poole reports at PJ Media, these same Turkish fighters attacked our special operators near Aleppo yesterday!

And what about the “moderate” Syrian rebels?

Patrick Poole has the full roundup of videos and pictures showing the Free Syrian Army combatants threatening to behead the U.S. soldiers that are helping them. Yes, these are the much-vaunted Syrian rebels we’ve been funding for the past few years.

Read Patrick’s full report here.

Some of these forces were affiliated with Ahrar-al-Sham, the al-Qaeda linked group that Obama has refused to designate as a terror group. As USA Today reported last week, “nearly all the U.S.-backed opposition groups are fighting alongside Nusra against the Syrian government.”

The concept of a moderate rebel in Syria was best expressed by terrorism expert Max Abrams on twitter:

Folks, how can Republicans in Congress allow this to continue for even one day, especially given the leverage they have with the budget bill and the defense authorization bill? Yet, sadly, there is not even a shred of debate over placing our troops in a meat-grinder on behalf of one terrorist faction in order to fight another. Amazingly, the only point of contention over the NDAA is whether to designate the Sage Grouse as an endangered species.

When one considers the training and sacrifice it takes to become a special operator, it’s hard not to recoil with shock and outrage that their dedication is being sacrificed on the altar of Islamo-fascisim and America’s enemies. Does anyone in Congress care about their well-being, or if nothing else, about America’s time, treasure, and talent being utilized by our enemies?

At some point, the American people need to rise up and demand an end to this vicious cycle of dying on the sword of Islamism. There are undoubtedly certain military interventions that are in our strategic interests. But when there is no good outcome and multiple enemy factions fighting each other, can we just root for casualties and let Allah sort it out? (For more from the author of “Obama Is LITERALLY Sending Our Special Ops to Fight for ‘Moderates’ Who Want to Kill Us” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Minor Candidates: The Green Jill Stein

/0 Comments/in , /by

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein previously ran for president in 2012, receiving 0.4 percent of the vote — her 470,000 votes only 64.4 million behind Barack Obama and more importantly, 800,000 behind her fellow third-party candidate, Libertarian Gary Johnson. But she did get seven times as many votes as the actress Roseanne Barr, who had wanted to be the Green Party candidate.

Stein and her husband are both physicians. She describes herself as an agnostic, although she attended a Reform Jewish synagogue while growing up. She is an activist on environmental issues, gaining national recognition in the late 1990s for protesting coal plants in Massachusetts, which she referred to as “The Filthy Five.” She has run for numerous political offices but never won any of them, except member of the Lexington (Massachusetts) Town Meeting.

Her running mate is human rights activist Ajamu Baraka, known for referring to NATO as “gangster states.” His website describes him as being “at the forefront of efforts to apply the international human rights framework to social justice advocacy in the U.S.” and as “a veteran grassroots organizer whose roots are in the Black Liberation Movement and anti-apartheid and Central American solidarity struggles.”

Stein’s Agenda

Stein’s agenda includes “an emergency Green New Deal,” calling climate change “the greatest threat to humanity in our history.” She wants to nationalize the Federal Reserve, increase mass transit, raise the minimum wage to $15 and legalize marijuana. Under her administration, housing will be “guaranteed,” Obamacare will be transformed into a single-payer system, college will be free, and all student loan debt cancelled.

She supports reparations for black Americans and has called for freeing police-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, a popular leftist cause. (She also calls for freeing Indian leader Leonard Pelltier, in prison for killing two FBI agents in 1975.) She opposes charter schools and computers in schools, believing that wireless internet damages children’s brains.

The Green Party candidate of course favors radical environmental policies; she wants to create 20 million green jobs to address the “national emergency” of climate change and for the U.S. to have 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.

To pay for her ambitious plans, Stein would raise taxes on the rich and cut defense spending by at least 50 percent.

Stein’s foreign policy is as radical as her domestic policy and openly anti-Israel. Her platform calls for losing all of 700+ foreign military bases and withdrawing all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. America “must take the lead in nuclear disarmament by itself starting to disarm.” The nation must also “End the destructive US economic and military intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations,” which, her platform argues, “serves the interests of multinational corporations and global capitalism over the interests of the vast majority of the citizens of those nations.”

She has criticized the Israeli government for “apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law.” She considers Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal and supports a boycott of Israel.

Stein’s Arrests, the Media’s Uninterest

A warrant was put out for her arrest on Wednesday by a North Dakota county court, after she spray-painted “I approve this message” on a bulldozer during a protest of the Dakota Access pipeline. Both Stein and her running mate face charges of criminal trespass and criminal mischief.

This isn’t the first time Stein has been arrested while running for president. In August 2012, she was arrested for participating in a sit-in in a bank to protest home foreclosures. A couple of months later she was arrested for trying to force her way into the presidential debate at Hofstra University, to protest being excluded from participating. And later that month, she was arrested for criminal trespass, trying to deliver food and supplies to environmental activists camped out in trees protesting the Keystone XL pipeline.

Despite having leftist positions close to many journalists’, Stein won’t be getting any help from the media. The left-leaning Washington Post’s coverage is typical, referring to Stein’s long-shot chance as “Jill Stein’s fairy-tale candidacy.” The staff editorialized that her “policy ideas are poorly formed and wildly impractical.” Similarly, The Los Angeles Times opined, ” Stein has few executable policy plans.” (For more from the author of “The Minor Candidates: The Green Jill Stein” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Is Set to Cave in to Higher Spending Again

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s an all too familiar sight: It’s the end of the fiscal year, and Congress is scrambling to keep the government open after it has shirked its responsibility to pass the requisite 12 appropriations bills all year.

The end of the fiscal year is when Congress tends to throw fiscal responsibility out the window in order to avoid taking tough votes, especially before an election—and this year is no exception.

In recent Congresses, an end of the fiscal year continuing resolution has become a routine maneuver to push back the spending debate until the holidays in December. That’s when Congress usually scrambles to come to an agreement before the deadline (positioned just as everyone wants to get home to their families), which characteristically takes the form of an immense spending package that blows through the discretionary spending caps Congress set in 2011.

Indeed, since 2013, this breakdown in the budget process has led to Congress busting through its budget caps by a total of $174 billion. That’s billions in spending that would not have happened if Congress had stuck to its normal appropriations process and abided by the caps it instituted under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

So even though Congress promised to return to “regular order” this year by passing all its spending bills before Sept. 30, it’s not surprising to find members in the same position as the past few years. President Barack Obama likewise deserves a great deal of the blame for threatening to veto any appropriations bill that does not bust the caps that he himself signed into law.

Though this year-end breakdown has become routine, Congress is in an even worse position this time around.

Some members have proposed a continuing resolution that would put the funding decisions in the hands of the next Congress, but the more likely result will be to punt the debate into the lame-duck period following the results of the election. Purposefully positioning important long-term decisions for this period is especially egregious, as members of Congress face little accountability during a lame-duck session. This has the potential to further undermine the trust that the public has bestowed on Congress.

Moreover, due to the various budget gimmicks employed in last year’s funding bill, just maintaining current spending levels in a clean continuing resolution would end up exceeding the amended fiscal year 2017 budget cap by $10 billion.

As Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Winfree commented, that means Congress has effectively set itself up for failure. By teeing up spending levels that exceed the already increased budget caps, lawmakers must either utilize more spending gimmicks—flying in the face of fiscal responsibility—or face a politically harsh across-the-board cut in spending. Given the choice between the two, it is probable that members will take the politically expedient route and simply elect to spend more.

Worst of all, by caving to higher spending levels for 2017, breaking the budget caps again in fiscal year 2018—which are set to $16 billion below current levels—almost becomes a foregone conclusion for the big spenders in Congress.

This sets up the next Congress to go back on its promise to rein in spending once again, erasing the one modicum of fiscal restraint imposed on spending during the Obama administration. Continuing this vicious cycle would squander the opportunity to return to normal order during the next presidency and Congress.

Is this the only way forward? Not at all. Congress has options to maintain integrity in the budget process. It should:

Avoid considering any funding bills during the lame-duck session. If Congress is unable to agree on funding measures for fiscal year 2017 prior to the election, a partial year appropriation to move the decision to the 115th Congress is the best option.

Cut programs, eliminate corporate welfare, and pursue policy riders to reduce nondefense discretionary spending and improve upon current policy. Heritage’s 110 recommendations for discretionary spending reforms are a good place to start.

Consider a continuing resolution that reduces nondefense discretionary spending across the board.

After years of shirking the budget process and disregarding its self-imposed fiscal controls, Congress has the opportunity to break the cycle. It should seize it instead of positioning the next Congress yet again to spend more than is necessary to fulfill the federal government’s essential responsibilities. (For more from the author of “Congress Is Set to Cave in to Higher Spending Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Transgender Engineering? Female Draft? No, Congress Is Focused On… Obscure Birds?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rather than address the laundry list of issues currently besetting President Obama’s military — including transgender engineering, the female draft, religious liberty for contractors and others — congressional Republicans have opted to punt on the play, while blaming a tiny wild bird.

Yes, this is a real thing … a real debate. House Republicans are more concerned about ensuring a bird isn’t considered endangered than they are about including women into the draft, funding for rebel groups that are actually harming the military, and military religious liberty issues.

And why? The efforts for inclusion of the sage grouse provision in the bill is due to concern that placing the bird on the endangered species list would negatively impact military training on western lands. The sage grouse is present in 11 western states and the population has plummeted in recent years. The President Obama refused to put the species on the endangered species list last year, and has since unveiled a conservation effort of the animal plummeted in recent years. Spearheaded by Rep. Bob Bishop, R-Utah (D, 67%), the House’s version of the NDAA currently lists this provision, while it is omitted in the Senate version of the bill.

This isn’t the first time the sage grouse has been problematic for the NDAA. Last fall, the House attempted to include the ban in the legislation, but it was eventually removed from the bill.

In response, Reps. Adam Smith, D-Texas, and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. (F, 30%), released letters from the Pentagon that have ensured that land-use plans intended to preserve the sage grouse will not significantly impact military training, operations, or readiness.

“These letters put to bed once and for all the silly speculation that a few birds could hamstring the greatest fighting force in the history of the world,” Grijalva said in a statement. “I hope these letters will sway the Members who may have been confused when voting for this harmful provision in last year’s defense bill.”

House Republicans have consistently refused to stand up for provisions in the NDAA that really matter — and now, it’s backfiring. As a result of this sage grouse incident, House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders seem to have put the annual defense authorization bill on hold until after the November election, despite the fact both panels planned to finish talks about the legislation this week so the final measure could be addressed in the House and the Senate next week.

Meanwhile, it’s looking like the NDAA will be finalized during a lame-duck session, ostensibly because of the endangered status of a small bird. But those are congressional priorities for you, folks. (For more from the author of “Transgender Engineering? Female Draft? No, Congress Is Focused On… Obscure Birds?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA BUREAU CHIEF: Hillary Campaign Pitched Me the Obama Birther Story Back in 2008!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton surrogate Sid Blumenthal personally pitched a reporter on the President Obama “birther” story when she was campaigning for president in 2008, a former Washington reporter said Thursday.

The Clinton campaign and the media have consistently refuted Trump’s claim Clinton started the birther movement, which Trump re-upped Friday when he said for the first publicly that he believes Obama was born in the United States. “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy,” Trump said, drawing a slew of media fact checks almost immediately. “I finished it.”

But former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher has backed up Trump’s version of events, saying he was personally pitched the story by a Clinton surrogate in 2008.

Clinton had tweeted: “President Obama’s successor cannot and will not be the man who led the racist birther movement. Period.”

And McClatchy replied: “@HillaryClinton So why did your man #sidblumenthal spread the #obama birther rumor to me in 2008, asking us to investigate? Remember?”

Blumenthal is a former aide to Clinton’s husband Bill Clinton and their long-time friend.

“#CNN says #Hillary team in 2008 never raised the #birther issue,” he said in another tweet Thursday night. “#SidBlumenthal, long-time #HRC buddy, told me in person #Obama born in #kenya.”

Nevertheless, as soon as Trump reiterated his criticism Clinton started the birther movement, the media started churning out fact checks.

“I covered it at the time,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said Friday, referring to the movement. “She and her campaign never, never started the birther issue.”

“Trump Drops False ‘Birther’ Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It,” blared a New York Times headline. And The Washington Post fact checker quickly spun up a piece declaring the claim “debunked.”

At one point the MSNBC chyron read: “Trump (falsely) claims Clinton started birther controversy.”

(For more from the author of “MAINSTREAM MEDIA BUREAU CHIEF: Hillary Campaign Pitched Me the Obama Birther Story Back in 2008!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.