Melania Trump Files $150 Million Libel Lawsuit Over ‘Lies’ About Her Past

Donald Trump is not the only member of his family who knows how to counterpunch.

Melania Trump, the wife of the Republican presidential candidate, on Thursday followed up on previously made threats and filed a libel lawsuit over a story claiming she had been an escort in the 1990s.

Trump is suing Mail Media, parent company of the British newspaper the Daily Mail, as well as a Maryland blogger named Webster Griffin Tarpley.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Daily Mail offered a retraction.

Trump is seeking $150 million in damages, according to a statement released by Charles Harder, her attorney. Harder was Hulk Hogan’s lawyer in the pro wrestler’s successful lawsuit against Gawker that netted Hogan $140 billion and bankrupted the gossip site.

“Defendants broadcast their lies to millions of people throughout the U.S. and the world — without any justification,” Harder said. “Their many lies include, among others, that Mrs. Trump supposedly was an ‘escort’ in the 1990s before she met her husband. Defendants’ actions are so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs. Trump that her damages are estimated at $150 million.”

The complaint was filed in Maryland Circuit Court. In the lawsuit, Melania Trump addresses an Aug. 19 Daily Mail article headlined “Naked photoshoots, and troubling questions about visas that won’t go away: The VERY racy past of Donald Trump’s Slovenian wife.”

The article was based upon the work of a Slovenian journalist who helped write an unauthorized biography of Melania Trump and claims by a Slovenian magazine that connected the operator of her modeling agency to an escort agency.

Trump’s lawsuit says the article was not true.

“The statements of fact in the Daily Mail Article are false. Plaintiff did legitimate and legal modeling work for legitimate business entities and did not work for any ‘gentleman’s club’ or ‘escort’ agencies. Plaintiff was not a sex worker, escort or prostitute in any way, shape or form, nor did she ever have a composite or presentation card for the sex business,” the lawsuit said.

“Plaintiff did not come to the United States until 1996. Thus, Plaintiff did not, and could not have participated in a photo shoot in the United States or met her current husband in the United States prior to that time,” the lawsuit also said.

Prior to its publication, British news organizations had been warned not to publish the allegations.

Although several news organizations have questioned Trump’s immigration status when she came to the United States, she has been clear that she never broke immigration laws.

Tarpley, who often writes about conspiracy theories, published a blog post headlined “Where Is Melania Trump.” The post included multiple allegations about her mental state and repeated the claim about her status as an escort.

Tarpley has removed the post and published a retraction.

The Daily Mail’s retraction highlighted some of the allegations made in the initial article but said the article “did not intend to state or suggest that these allegations are true, nor did it intend to state or suggest that Mrs. Trump ever worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business.’”

The newspaper went on to defend itself.

“The point of the article was that these allegations could impact the U.S. presidential election even if they are untrue,” the retraction read.

“To the extent that anything in the Daily Mail’s article was interpreted as stating or suggesting that Mrs. Trump worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business,’ that she had a ‘composite or presentation card for the sex business,’ or that either of the modeling agencies referenced in the article were engaged in these businesses, it is hereby retracted, and the Daily Mail newspaper regrets any such misinterpretation,” the newspaper said.

Harder told CNN that Trump would proceed with the lawsuit despite the retraction. (For more from the author of “Melania Trump Files $150 Million Libel Lawsuit Over ‘Lies’ About Her Past” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Assange: There’s ‘Demon’ at Work in America

WikiLeaks already has assumed a co-equal role in America’s 2016 election to many of those players who consider themselves significant, the network, daily and station editorialists and more.

It has released Democratic Party emails, resulting in the resignation of top party officials. It has publicly promised that those who supply insider information probably will be happy with the results, and it has made no secret of the fact that Americans likely will be getting access to a lot more heretofore “secret” details before the November election.

Now founder Julian Assange is making it clear that he’ll not take anything less than full and accurate representations by the mainstream outlets.

Following an interview he granted to the New York Times, there were a number of headlines based on the interview and resulting story about alleged links to the Russian government, about how he called Hillary Clinton a “demon,” and more . . .

On Twitter, he posted, “What we were drawing attention [to] is the amazing transformation that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are by becoming the national security party and the national security candidate by whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia. (Read more from “Assange: There’s ‘Demon’ at Work in America” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!

Thursday on the Mark Levin program, Conservative Review’s Editor-in-Chief read a report indicating the Obama administration cut a secret deal with Iran to permit the terrorist-sponsoring regime to violate restrictions put in place by last year’s nuclear deal.

“This is the biggest issue of the day, the biggest issue of the month, the biggest issue of the year!”

Listen:

“These are impeachable offenses. For Obama. For Vice-President Biden. For Secretary of State Kerry. For Susan Rice. For the whole top-level of the administration, the president on down,” Levin said.

“We have just armed up the most aggressive, detestable terrorist-state on the face of the earth! We’ve just sold out to them! They’re on their way [to] building nuclear weapons!”

“This is the fate that Barack Obama has sealed for the American people!”

Mark Levin continued after the break, tearing into the Iran nuclear deal and the feckless politicians who gave it to us.

“They may seek to wash their hands, but their hands are full of uranium! Their hands are full of plutonium!” (For more from the author of “MARK LEVIN: Dammit, Obama Lied and Iran Is on Its Way to Nukes!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!

It’s been a rough start to the week for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, State Department attorneys announced that they had retrieved 30 emails relating to the 2012 Benghazi attacks from Clinton’s private server.

According to the Washington Examiner, a judge requested that the agency review the documents ahead of a release to the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that resulted in a year-long FBI probe involving around 15,000 emails — over 2,000 of which were believed to contain classified information.

As the Examiner points out, the new discovery is noteworthy because Clinton had repeatedly insisted to government agencies and to the public that she turned over all work-related communications in the batch of 55,000 pages she submitted to the FBI in late 2014.

During the hearing Tuesday, State Department lawyers told Judge Amit Mehta of U.S. District Court that they had yet to determine how many of the 30 emails had already been disclosed in the 2014 email dump, according to the Examiner.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton announced in a tweet Tuesday that the State Department requested 30 days to review the new emails before releasing them to the watchdog group.

But wait — there’s more! On Wednesday, the New York Post announced that it has exclusively learned that Clinton continued to send classified information over her private server months after leaving the State Department:

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The email, sent from [email protected] (the account associated with Clinton’s private server), is marked classified until May 28, 2033. The RNC eventually received a heavily redacted copy through its Freedom of Information Act request, as it includes “information regarding foreign governors” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

Clinton sent the email to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The “123 Deal,” also called the “123 Agreement,” was a 2009 agreement between the United States and United Arab Emirates that established “a required legal framework for commerce in civilian nuclear energy between the two countries,” according to the UAE Embassy website.

“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” RNC research director Raj Shah told the Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”

Darn that Freedom of Information Act! (For more from the author of “Just When You Think the Clinton Insanity Is Over, There’s More!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left Is Busily Planting Fake Red-Meat Conservative News Sites

Almost all of us have been a victim of accidentally spreading fake news at one time. A trusted friend emails you a link to an article that is red meat for the conservative base; it sounds legitimate, and the name of the site even sounds official. You forward the article and post it on Facebook and Twitter — and then the backlash is embarrassing. Multiple people point out you’re wrong, and you feel like an idiot. But how were you to know, especially in this information overload, social media era? It has become normal to quickly skim articles and headlines. And why would you suspect your most trusted, intelligent friends would be sending you false news?

It used to be The Onion was the only satire news site. And the site makes it very clear its news is satire. But within the last year, multiple sites (there is a list compiled here) have sprung up that do not make it clear they are satire, if at all. They brazenly post fake news that isn’t even funny, like The Onion, but sounds like legitimate news.

By posting these outlandish tales, the sites attract many page views, which allows them to make money from advertisers. Even more nefarious, some are run by Democrats in order to make conservatives look like radical extremists. The strategy, an insider told me, is to fool so many conservatives into spreading a ridiculous, fake article that finally a prominent elected official falls for it. Then the left pounces on the official and makes them look foolish and/or an extremist.

As I’ve written previously, putting out heroic stories about Donald Trump that turn out to be false doesn’t help Trump when people discover they are false.

Some of the worst offenders are sites that rip off names from legitimate conservative news sites. World News Daily Report is a typical example. It sounds very similar to the conservative site WorldNetDaily, which recently renamed itself to WND. The disclaimer on the site says nothing about the news being fake; instead, it disingenuously states that the site is not responsible for inaccurate information. The fake site’s “About us FAQ” page pretends to cater to conservative Jews and Christians with a strong defense of Israel. Yet how are fake news articles helping Israel? The site has become so successful that the myth-debunking site Snopes now lists it second on its “Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors.”

For some of these sites, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. The gossip website Gawker was recently sued by celebrity wrestler Hulk Hogan for posting a sex tape of him, which put the company into bankruptcy and forced it to shut down a week ago. There are many ways these sites could be sued out of existence, such as for libel or the unauthorized use of images. Facebook has started removing these articles from users’ news feeds. Perhaps a developer can create an app to add to browsers that will specifically block these sites.

The people who run these sites are nothing more than cruel bullies who should get a taste of their own medicine. It is one thing to identify a story as parody, but to deliberately print false news to trick innocent people in order to make them look bad and destroy their credibility is dishonest, a nuisance and an abuse of the press. If they knowingly put false news about a crime or catastrophe out over TV, they would be prosecuted, due to the dangers of creating substantial public harm such as a mass panic.

Until these sites are curtailed, conservatives must get into the habit of looking up news articles regularly on myth-debunking sites like Snopes (granted, that particular site leans to the left). If The New York Times isn’t breaking some huge story, but a site called Your News Wire is, that is a good indication it may be a fake article. (For more from the author of “The Left Is Busily Planting Fake Red-Meat Conservative News Sites” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Critical Infrastructure’: Feds Plan Special Declaration to Takeover Elections, Nationwide

Even before the FBI identified new cyber attacks on two separate state election boards, the Department of Homeland Security began considering declaring the election a “critical infrastructure,” giving it the same control over security it has over Wall Street and and the electric power grid.

The latest admissions of attacks could speed up that effort possibly including the upcoming presidential election, according to officials.

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

DHS describes it this way on their website: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.” (Read more from “‘Critical Infrastructure’: Feds Plan Special Declaration to Takeover Elections, Nationwide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOOM: Here Are the 25 Questions Hillary Clinton Must Answer — Under Oath — by Sept. 29th

There are only a few groups dedicated to the tireless pursuit of corruption in Washington.

I’m not talking about the various Ethics or Oversight committees in Congress. Those feckless clowns seem more interested in protecting the status quo than in any real investigation. No, I refer, of course, to the patriots at Judicial Watch who have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s criminal activities like a starving greyhound after five pounds of filet.

We’re at the point in various judicial activities that Hillary Clinton is now compelled to answer a series of 25 questions — under oath — related to her pernicious, illegal and outrageous use of a home-brew email server to intermingle official State Department business with that of the Clinton Global Graft Initiative. Annnd the questions are:

1. Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

2. Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.

3. When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

4. Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

5. In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

6. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

7. Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

8. After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

9. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

10. During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?

11. During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

12. During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.

13. At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?

14. On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.

15. In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

16. Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.

17. In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.

18. On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.

19. Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?

20. When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?

21. After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?

22. In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

23. After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

24. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

25. Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

I just have two words for the Clinton Kamp.

Ruh.

Roh. (For more from the author of “BOOM: Here Are the 25 Questions Hillary Clinton Must Answer — Under Oath — by Sept. 29th” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EX-CLINTON STAFFER: Hillary Very Ill; Sleeping up to 18 Hours a Day; Health Records Will NEVER Be Released

The Clinton 2016 campaign machine consists of around 1,000 people.

The pace and expectations are unforgiving. A single mistake can get you booted in a nanosecond. According to a report at TruePundit, one well-placed staff who worked with Clinton on a daily basis made just such an error and came forward to reveal what’s really going on in the campaign:

Only a small group of people running her campaign know the specifics of Hillary’s health issues. But she is suffering from something. She sleeps approximately 18 hours a day. And some days, she sleeps more.

I’m serious. This is why no one sees her.

The campaign will never release her medical files to the public. In contrast, they feel if the opposition continues to hammer the issue, it will create a backlash of sympathy…

…That press conference everyone is waiting for? It’s been 270 days since she gave a press conference or 280 days. Whatever it is. Hillary will not be giving any press conferences before the election.

Why? She doesn’t have to, according to campaign handlers. Her poll numbers have not suffered from not talking to the press but more importantly, Hillary acknowledges that the media has become more of a wild card amid all her scandals and campaign staffers agree it is highly unlikely she could field questions competently without giving Trump fodder to boost his campaign. Think of Clinton in her orange pants suit making wipe-the-server jokes…

It would therefore appear that the Democrats have nominated a very sickly woman who won’t speak to the press for fear of putting her foot in her mouth. Not to mention a person who is as crooked as a corkscrew.

But that’s the Democrat Party for you, ain’t it? (For more from the author of “EX-CLINTON STAFFER: Hillary Very Ill; Sleeping up to 18 Hours a Day; Health Records Will NEVER Be Released” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bad Karma for the Clintons at Last?

Hold on; we may finally be getting some fireworks in this lackluster presidential campaign — as the Clinton Foundation scandal seems to be gathering steam.

Could the Clintons finally have to face the music for their adult-lifetime of corruption? Is it possible that Hillary Clinton’s lifelong scheme to be America’s first female president could be derailed by this power couple’s wanton venality?

I’ve watched closely through the years the Clintons’ uncanny agility at hurdling real scandals and coming out almost unscathed. Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached, but what a dud that turned out to be, with Clinton rising to the figure of beloved statesman among Democrats and his accusers being painted as petty partisans.

There has been no justice, and they have made off like bandits ever since. One might argue that it’s unfair to impute Bill Clinton’s misdeeds to his wife, but it’s not a matter of imputation. Hillary Clinton has been integrally involved every step of the way — from enabler to enforcer to joint participant. Don’t ever forget her complicity, such as her leading role in destroying the train of women who dared to blow the whistle on him.

From the beginning, these two have stepped all over people (Travelgate) and mutually abused and destroyed Bill’s harassment victims. But do you remember the grating mantra of the Clinton-guarding media? “These are private matters that have nothing to do with his public life. Private conduct is irrelevant to one’s fitness for public office.”

Well, these disgraceful hacks don’t have that excuse in their arsenal of dodges this time. There is no way even a journalism school valedictorian could credibly argue that the Clinton Foundation graft didn’t directly involve the public interest.

The media and Democratic Party’s joint alibis for the Clintons through the years have puffed the Clintons up with a sense of invincibility. The couple have to believe there is nothing they could do that would bring them down.

When I first heard about the foundation’s influence peddling, I had little doubt there was truth to it, but I had no expectation that anything would come of it. In a sense, the Clintons have benefited from the plethora of charges leveled against them over the years. After a while, these allegations — no matter how credible — become just noise and are easily characterized as another chapter in a decades-long partisan witch hunt.

It’s awfully convenient for the Clintons and their liberal hatchet men to paint every scandal as a politically motivated slander, but when the media and the Democratic Party themselves always refuse to put truth above their own ideological and political interests, it’s inevitable that only Republicans would bring these charges.

But the Clinton Foundation scandal seems to be different. It is objectively true that the Clintons have become mega-millionaires since the close of Bill’s second term — and they’ve done it through exorbitant speaking fees, which, absent other consideration, couldn’t possibly benefit the payers commensurate to their payments, and bizarre contributions to their foundation by foreign interests that had unusual access to Hillary’s State Department.

Bill Clinton flippantly dismissed the suggestion of any quid pro quo, saying there is no evidence that any of the donors received anything for their donations. When asked whether there is at least an appearance of impropriety, he said, “I’m not responsible for anybody else’s perception.” It couldn’t be more fitting that he was the first postmodern president. He lent Oval Office credence to the demonic lie that words have no meaning apart from what people choose individually to assign to them. He’s unctuously transitioned from “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” to “I can’t be held accountable for your accurate perception that my wife and I are wholly corrupt and have not only used our public positions to financially profit but also compromised and damaged the nation’s interests in the process.”

Just think about the charge that Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain secured a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that led to her approval of certain extremely controversial arms sales to Bahrain after his kingdom donated up to $150,000 directly to the Clinton Foundation and some $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative. This alone would be enough to bring down a deified Roman emperor.

The Associated Press reported that more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state donated to the Clinton Foundation either individually or through related entities. Clinton apologists are already trying to tell us there’s nothing to see here, but sentient human beings know better.

No president in modern history, including Richard Nixon, has been the scandal virtuoso that both of the Clintons are in their own right. The jig just may be up.

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange promises more email dumps that will bring Hillary Clinton down. Wouldn’t it be the profoundest poetic justice if the Clintons were done in by the very emails Hillary thought she had deep-sixed months ago? (For more from the author of “Bad Karma for the Clintons at Last?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Billionaire George Soros Tries to Mastermind the Leftward Slide of Catholics

Writing about billionaire currency speculator and international leftist moneyman George Soros is always risky. Just coolly describing who the man is and what he does can make a writer sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Soros is an obscenely successful capitalist who wants to destroy capitalism; a Jewish Holocaust survivor who funds Israel’s harshest, most unjust critics; an irreligious Hungarian citizen who wants to manipulate churches in America.

Just a few of the organizations Soros underwrites, according to Discover the Networks, include:

Al-Haq: This NGO produces highly politicized reports, papers, books and legal analyses regarding alleged Israeli human-rights abuses committed against Palestinians.

Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “extremists.”

American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.

Catholics for Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women’s right to abortion-on-demand.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: This political nonprofit group is dedicated to generating support from the Catholic community for leftwing candidates, causes and legislation.

Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and discrimination against blacks. It seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United States, and demands reparations for slavery.

NARAL Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.

Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radical leftwing politics.

Soros Spent $650,000 Trying to Hijack Pope Francis’ U.S. Visit

New documents from Wikileaks reveal that Soros has tried to suborn the political sympathies of Catholics in America. To do so, he hoped to tap into Pope Francis’ perceived political and economic views, via a leftist Central American cardinal who has made harshly anti-American and anti-Semitic statements, and aligned himself with allies of Fidel Castro.

All that sounds more like an episode of NBC’s The Blacklist than a sober headline in black and white, so look at the facts for yourself. As the reliable pro-life news source LifeSiteNews has reported:

Leaked emails through WikiLeaks reveal that billionaire globalist George Soros — one of Hillary Clinton’s top donors — paid $650,000 to influence Pope Francis’ September 2015 visit to the USA with a view to “shift[ing] national paradigms and priorities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign.” The funds were allocated in April 2015 and the report on their effectiveness suggests that successful achievements included, “Buy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope.”

The monies were granted to two US entities that have been engaged in a long-term project, according to the report, of shifting “the priorities of the US Catholic church.” Grantees were PICO, a faith-based community organizing group, and Faith in Public Life (FPL), a progressive group working in media to promote left-leaning ‘social justice’ causes. Soros has funded left-wing causes the world over and was just found to have been funding an effort to eliminate pro-life laws around the globe.

Board Minutes from the May 2015 meeting of Soros’ Open Society Foundation in New York reveal that in the planning stages of the papal visit initiative, the group planned to work through one of the Pope’s key advisors, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, naming him specifically in the report. In order to seize on the opportunity provided by the Pope’s visit to the US, says the report, “we will support PICO’s organizing activities to engage the Pope on economic and racial justice issues, including using the influence of Cardinal Rodriguez, the Pope’s senior advisor, and sending a delegation to visit the Vatican in the spring or summer to allow him to hear directly from low-income Catholics in America.”

LifeSiteNews links to a Spanish-language 2013 video in which “Cardinal Rodriguez endorsed PICO’s work … during a visit from PICO representatives to the cardinal’s diocese. ‘I want to endorse all the efforts they are doing to promote communities of faith,’ he said, ‘… Please, keep helping PICO.’”

Castro’s Cardinal?

In case you haven’t heard of Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga, he is one of Pope Francis’ chosen “Gang of Eight” tasked with fundamental reform of the governance of the Catholic Church. In October 2013, while visiting the University of Dallas, the cardinal gave a major address purporting to explain Pope Francis’ economic views, as found in the document Evangelii Gaudium. As The Catholic Thing reported, attendees might have been shocked when Rodriguez-Maradiaga quoted “as an authority on the morality of international investment the Swiss radical Jean Ziegler – a longtime defender of Fidel Castro, who has called the United States an ‘imperialist dictatorship.’” The cardinal repeated and endorsed Ziegler’s charge:

The globalization of the exchange of services, capital and patents has led over the past ten years to establish a world dictatorship of finance capital. … The lords of financial capital wield over billions of human beings a power of life and death. Through their investment strategies, their stock market speculations, their alliances, they decide day to day who has the right to live on this planet and who is doomed to die.

The cardinal elaborated on Ziegler’s attack on the U.S., asserting:

The effects and consequences of the neoliberal dictatorships that rule democracies are not hard to uncover: they invade us with the industry of entertainment, they make us forget about human rights, they convince us that nothing can be done, that there is no possible alternative. To change the system, it would be necessary to destroy the power of the new feudal lords. Chimerical? Utopian?

The Church decidedly bets on living the globalization of mercy and solidarity.

As one of us observed about this speech:

So democracies like ours are ‘neoliberal dictatorships,’ which the Church will help reform through the ‘globalization of mercy and solidarity,’ that is, by helping governments to seize wealth from some people, skim its own share off the top, and distribute that wealth to others. Those ‘others’ will doubtless be grateful, as Hugo Chavez’s supporters were in Venezuela; indeed, they will form powerful voting blocs dependent on state redistribution of wealth, as directed by humble clergymen.

Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga is no stranger to conspiracy theories. In May 2002, as the clerical sex abuse scandal was erupting all around the world, the cardinal dismissed it as an invention of Jews in the media who resented the Catholic Church for defending the rights of Palestinians — earning a condemnation in the Jewish Journal by Alan Dershowitz, who called Rodriguez-Maradiaga an “overt anti-Semite.”

Not So Much a Conspiracy as a Tsunami

It is unclear what concrete effects George Soros’s expenditures had on the progress of Pope Francis’ visit to America. We have no reason to think that Pope Francis, or even Cardinal Rodriguez-Maradiaga, had any knowledge of the financier’s involvement. But you don’t have to think very hard to wonder why Soros would consider Rodriguez-Maradiaga the ideal entry point for an effort to skew American bishops toward the political left. The two men have a great many views in common.

Even if neither Rodriguez-Maradiaga nor George Soros existed, the leftward slide among many Catholics would still be a problem. There is ample home-grown support among Americans for the “Seamless Garment” doctrine that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin invented, which leftists have used ever since as a poison pill to kill off the pro-life movement. Leave aside elderly bankers and aging Liberation Theologians; there are Joe Biden and Tim Kaine-style Catholics honeycombed through Catholic universities and bureaucracies who wish to submerge our concern for unborn life and religious freedom in a sea of Progressive platitudes. There are leading U.S. bishops eager to carry their banner, like Chicago’s Archbishop Blaise Cupich.

American Catholics who hold to the Church’s traditional social teaching, which elevates innocent life and human freedom, face a long and determined battle against the utopian forces who will ally with the pro-choice left to further their “long march” through Catholic institutions. (For more from the author of “Billionaire George Soros Tries to Mastermind the Leftward Slide of Catholics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.