According to new reports, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is the subject of an ongoing investigation brought by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors from the public integrity unit.
The investigation dates back at least a year and seeks to determine whether donations made to his gubernatorial campaign violated the law.
As part of the probe, investigators are looking into his time spent as a board member on the Clinton Global Initiative, a branch of the Clinton Foundation established by former President Bill Clinton.
No allegations suggest the foundation did anything improper, but rather the investigation is strictly focused on campaign contributions.
One such contribution in question came from a Chinese businessman, Wang Wenliang, who donated $120,000 to McAuliffe through his U.S. business. Wang served as a delegate to China’s ceremonial legislature, the National People’s Congress.
Wang has also donated a staggering $2 million to the Clinton Foundation and has donated to various other causes and organizations, including New York University and Harvard.
While U.S. election law forbids foreign nationals from donating to federal, state, and local elections, Wang holds a legal permanent resident status in the U.S., which makes him eligible to donate.
So far, neither Wang nor his company have been contacted by U.S. investigators.
McAuliffe wasn’t made aware of the investigation until it was publicly announced, however, his attorney has claimed that McAuliffe will cooperate with investigators on the matter.
“The Governor will certainly cooperate with the government if he is contacted about it,” said attorney for the McAuliffe campaign Marc Elias.
“Neither the Governor nor his former campaign has knowledge of this matter, but as reported, contributions to the campaign from Mr. Wang were completely lawful,” Elias said.
McAuliffe is the second consecutive Virginia governor, following former Gov. Bob McDonnell, to come under investigation by the Justice Department.
In 2014, McDonnell was convicted of corruption charges related to gifts and loans he received from a friend, however, he has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. (For more from the author of “Democrat Virginia Governor and Clinton Ally Under FBI Investigation” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-58.jpg10801920Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-23 22:37:442016-05-23 22:37:44Democrat Virginia Governor and Clinton Ally Under FBI Investigation
You could say that it all depends on how you define “lie.” Or, perhaps, that it’s hell to have a public record.
Either way, Hillary Clinton’s vast resume of, shall we say, inconsistencies, is the dog that caught the car and won’t let go. A viral video collection of her comments on various subjects through the years is bestirring Republican hearts.
To those who’d rather vote for a reality show host than a Clinton, the video merely confirms what they’ve believed all along. For independents and even Democrats, it’s a reminder of how often Clinton has morphed into a fresh incarnation as required by the political moment.
Most of the highlights will be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect. Politicians count on Americans’ short attention spans (and memories) as much as they do their own policies and/or charms. This video , inartfully titled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight,” clarifies blurred recollections and recasts them in an order that, among other things, reminds us how long the Clintons have been around. (Read more from “Hillary Clinton’s Viral Nightmare: A Video of Her ‘Lying for 13 Minutes'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/15287886681_2e874712b4_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 22:57:262016-05-21 23:21:23Hillary Clinton’s Viral Nightmare: A Video of Her ‘Lying for 13 Minutes’
While the liberal media write about white nationalists supporting Donald J. Trump, the Communist Party (CPUSA) has been broadcasting its support for the national Democratic Party and both of its candidates. But for some reason, our media have failed to take notice.
Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected President, the CPUSA—which was then funded by Moscow—has been organizing what it calls an “all-people’s front” against the “extreme right,” and it usually depends on the Democratic Party as its preferred electoral vehicle. John Bachtell, national chair of the Communist Party USA, explains, “This battle has been waged over 35 years through election cycles, in the legislative arena, and in the battle to sway public opinion.”
The CPUSA endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and his reelection in 2012. This year, party members are involved in the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but are prepared to support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she is the eventual nominee.
While Trump is rightly questioned about support for his campaign from such figures as David Duke, the former KKK leader, the open and admitted involvement of communists in the Democratic Party gets completely ignored by the press.
The CPUSA is based on Marxist doctrine, which calls for the abolition of private property and the overthrow of global capitalism. What is called “Cultural Marxism” seeks to eliminate traditional adherence to Judeo-Christian values and silence those in favor of traditional families and those who recognize male and female differences.
The CPUSA is associated with the International Meeting Of Communist And Workers’ Parties, which represents the international communist movement and includes the Communist Party of Russia. In its contribution to the 2014 meeting, the CPUSA combined elements of traditional Marxism with the cultural version, urging action on behalf of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) communities, support for a “democratized and demilitarized U.S. foreign policy,” and protection of the environment “through a massive movement against our domination by the fossil fuel industry…”
In foreign affairs, the CPUSA has also called for the abolition of NATO.
In the current election campaign, the CPUSA is firmly on the side of the Democrats. In a story about the “Super Tuesday” presidential primaries, the party newspaper, the People’s World, announced that while the GOP was pushing “powerlessness,” both Democratic candidates were promoting “empowerment” for the people. This is Marxist jargon for integrating Marxist demands into Democratic Party policies.
Although the liberal media tend to highlight differences between Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, the communists say there is more that unites than divides them.
The Communists dislike Trump because of his “authoritarian” tendencies and criticism of immigrants. However, while the communists claim that Trump “glorifies militarism abroad,” they have not explicitly condemned his foreign policy views, which tend to be on the isolationist side. Trump has been critical of NATO, which began as an anti-Soviet alliance, and is supportive of Russian foreign policy interests in Europe and the Middle East.
More recently, communist writer Larry Rubin expressed the Communist Party view that Sanders and Clinton have to do more to keep workers from defecting to Trump.
Ultimately, Rubin argued that in order to ensure a victory over the Republicans in November, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign should “be ready to inherit the grassroots organizational models and far reaching proposals that have attracted so many working people and millennials to Bernie Sanders’ political revolution,” and that the Sanders campaign should “be ready to unite with the Clinton effort.”
In this way, Marxists of various persuasions could take more important roles in the Clinton for president campaign.
In an interview, “Why America Is Warming To Socialism,” national CPUSA chair John Bachtell mentioned the Sanders appeal and emphasized that “democracy would be at the center” of the growth of socialism in the U.S.
In a separate article, Bachtell warned against Sanders following a third party option in November, and urged communists to continue working through the Democratic Party. While Mrs. Clinton is perceived as “more hawkish on foreign policy,” he said, she “is no neo-con.” The term “neo-con” is often used to disparage advocates of U.S. global engagement and military intervention. “She supports diplomatic efforts like the Iran nuclear deal and the normalization of relations with Cuba,” Bachtell said about Clinton.
Even on domestic issues, Clinton is acceptable to the Marxists because she “is susceptible to pressure from below” from Marxist agitators and their organizations, he said.
He went on to suggest that CPUSA members are currently working inside the Democratic Party by supporting Sanders. The Sanders program, he said, “addresses the needs of the country and is closest to our own. My guess is most of our members support the Sanders campaign.”
Going beyond the Sanders campaign, however, he said the Democratic Party as a whole includes “a substantial current of self-described democratic socialists” and other activists who “exert influence and hold leadership positions at various levels. They still see the Democratic Party as the most viable means to advance their agendas within the party system at this moment.”
As suggested by its endorsements of Obama in 2008 and 2012, the CPUSA has been very pleased with the Obama administration. The communists believe that Obama, who was influenced at an early age by CPUSA figure Frank Marshall Davis, has transformed America into a socialist state through Obamacare and other initiatives, and has changed U.S. foreign policy by establishing relations with anti-American regimes in Cuba and Iran.
Earlier this year, in response to Obama’s State of the Union address, the People’s World praised the first black president for projecting “a bold vision for a more socially and economically just nation while appealing to the hopes of the American people.” The paper said, “President Obama recounted historic achievements of the administration and advanced the challenges with full knowledge of the powerful forces arrayed in opposition.” Those achievements were said to include “creation of millions of new jobs, normalization of relations with Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal and Obamacare and extension of health care to 18 million people.”
Looking ahead, the communists are counting on a “radical restructuring of the economy as advocated by Sen. Bernie Sanders,” and “a new peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy” that includes “elimination of weapons of mass destruction,” the closing of U.S. military bases, and “radically downsizing the US military.”
Such a plan, of course, would invite more Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East, and encourage Chinese Communist expansion in Asia and the Pacific.
We eagerly anticipate U.S. media personalities questioning Sanders and Clinton about the support they are receiving from the CPUSA. Of course, any journalist who dares to raise the issue runs the risk of being perceived as a McCarthyite. (For more from the author of “Organization for Mass-Murder Endorses Hillary and Bernie” please click HERE)
“Unpredictable” versus “unqualified” could be the choice between what are likely to be the two most unfavorable presidential candidates in American history.
As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are within a tiptoe step of becoming their respective party’s nominees, abstract outlines of the themes of the general election are beginning to take shape.
Clinton, in recent interviews, has hammered Trump for being a “loose cannon” and “provocative.” Trump has delighted in repeating remarks from Clinton’s current primary rival Bernie Sanders, arguing that Clinton’s “judgment is clearly lacking.” And both candidates are taking an increasing focus on terrorism and national security as it relates to both of these character qualities.
“I am the only person that says we will not be led down the tubes by an incompetent person like Hillary Clinton,” Trump said as a New Jersey fundraiser with Chris Christie on Thursday evening. “You look at what she has done. Her deal with Libya. Just take a look at Libya. It is a catastrophe.”
(Note: In a little noticed story published earlier this week, it was revealed that the former chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Benghazi said in January that “nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.” Meaning, he felt that military could not have done anything differently to save American lives in Benghazi the night of the attacks. Of course, the decision to place Americans assets there in the first place remains within Clinton’s area of responsibility as Secretary of State.)
Clinton, for her part, previewed her initial lines of attack in a rare interview on Thursday with CNN, seeking to mark Trump’s hot talk as a barrier to making the nation safer.
The former Secretary of State unveiled her barrage of attacks in one answer to CNN’s Chris Cuomo that began by calling Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, “provocative and wrongheaded” that led to him “being used essentially as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”
Clinton also criticized Trump’s “unpredictable, dangerous rhetoric” and repeatedly stated his comments would have a negative effect on national security.
“Having watched presidents” she said, “having seen the incredibly difficult work that they do and the decisions that they have to make—the thinking that goes in sitting in the situation room, do we go after Bin Laden or not? I was part of that. Was it a clear, easy choice? Of course not. did it have to be carefully parsed and analyzed and then we gave our opinions and up to the president to decide.”
But Trump is certain to do all he can to turn Clinton’s experience in the Obama Administration into a negative. That’s why he’s not shying away from the “unqualified” label for her, first publicly raised by Sanders against Clinton.
It’s usually the very first thing Trump and his advisors bring up when it comes to Clinton.
On cue, Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller responded to Clinton’s interview in a dueling appearance on CNN thusly, “We obviously agree with Bernie Sanders that Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be president.”
“The Democratic party is on the verge of nominating the most pro-war, pro-wall street lawmaker in the modern history of the Democratic party,” he said. “That’s amazing. Think about it. You have a candidate in Hillary running on a pro-war platform about what she did in Libya, doing in Syria, about the toppling of the Egyptian regime and the military took back control, who’s running on a pro-wall street, pro-war agenda. That’s not the right fit.” (For more from the author of “A Battle Of “Uns” Between Clinton and Trump” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-57.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-21 03:08:082016-05-21 03:08:08A Battle Of “Uns” Between Clinton and Trump
Judicial Watch announced today that it has scheduled the depositions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano regarding the creation and operation of Clinton’s non-government email system. The first witness, Lewis A. Lukens, will be deposed on Wednesday, May 18.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted “discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system. The court noted that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
The Clinton email witnesses are scheduled to be deposed by Judicial Watch attorneys for as long as seven hours:
May 18 – Lewis A. Lukens, deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department’s Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011, who emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account.
May 27 – Cheryl D. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff throughout her four years as secretary of state.
June 3 – Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012, who suggested that Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests.
June 6 – Bryan Pagliano, State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
June 8 – 30(b)(6) deposition(s) of the State Department regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, for emails of Clinton and Abedin both during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and after.
June 28 – Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and a senior advisor to Clinton throughout her four years as secretary of state and also had an email account on clintonemail.com.
June 29 – Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management since 2007 and the secretary of state’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services.
In a separate FOIA lawsuit concerning Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi terrorist attack, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Judicial Watch can conduct discovery into the email practices of Clinton and her top aides. Judge Lamberth ordered Judicial Watch to follow up with his court once Judge Sullivan issued his discovery order:
When Judge Sullivan issues a discovery order, the plaintiff shall — within ten days thereafter–file its specific proposed order detailing what additional proposed discovery, tailored to this case, it seeks to have this Court order. Defendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff’s submission.
Judicial Watch filed its discovery plan yesterday with Judge Lamberth.
“This court-order testimony could finally reveal new truths about how Hillary Clinton and the Obama State Department subverted the Freedom of the Information Act,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. (For more from the author of “GENTLEMEN, START YOUR SHREDDERS! Schedule of Depositions Revealed in Clinton Email Scandal” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/490504092_1280x792.jpg7921280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-18 03:12:282016-05-18 03:12:28GENTLEMEN, START YOUR SHREDDERS! Schedule of Depositions Revealed in Clinton Email Scandal
By Jerome R. Corsi. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien, the New Hampshire state legislator who confronted Hillary Clinton in a town-hall rally in Derry, New Hampshire, during the state primary on Jan. 3, explained to WND in an exclusive telephone interview why she was so upset at reporters who defend Mrs. Clinton by suggesting she should not be blamed for her husband’s infidelity.
“This is about rape, not infidelity,” O’Brien insisted, explaining that at the Derry rally her goal was to confront Hillary about Juanita Broaddrick, a woman who went public in an interview with Dateline NBC that broadcast on Feb. 24, 1999, that Clinton had raped her decades earlier, in 1978, while Clinton was yet Arkansas attorney general.
The YouTube video of O’Brien’s encounter with Hillary at the Derry town-hall rally on Jan. 3 shows O’Brien standing to shout her question at Hillary as Hillary at first ignores her and then declares that she does not intend to call on O’Brien for a question, charging that O’Brien was being “very rude.”
“I asked myself what kind of a wife stays with a man who raped Juanita Broaddrick?” O’Brien asked.
In the YouTube clip, the CNN reporter interviewing O’Brien was clearly antagonistic, agreeing with Hillary that suggesting O’Brien was a Republican operative who only heckled Hillary to embarrass her politically. (Read more from “Women Confront Hillary: ‘It’s About Rape, Stupid'” HERE)
_______________________________________
Bill’s Sex-Assault Victim Lashes out Over Hillary’s Terrorizing
By Jerome R. Corsi. CNN reporter Chris Cuomo recently turned antagonistic in an interview with GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump for branding Hillary Clinton the “enabler” of her husband’s sexual crimes, prompting Kathleen Willey, a Clinton assault victim, to write an open letter to Cuomo.
The interview, broadcast Monday when Donald Trump phoned in to CNN’s “New Day” show, allowed Cuomo to confront Trump over his statements that Hillary Clinton enabled her husband’s sexual crimes by concealing the details, intimidating or harassing the other party, and more.
“[People see this] as potential proof that you don’t have anything to offer as president. What is your thinking on this line of attack?” he asked.
“Well, this is a nice way to start off the interview,” Trump responded, turning the table on Cuomo. “You should congratulate me for having won the race. I thought, you know, there’d at least be some small congratulations. But I’m not surprised with CNN because that’s the way they treat Trump. They call it ‘The Clinton Network.’” (Read more from “Bill’s Sex-Assault Victim Lashes out Over Hillary’s Terrorizing” HERE)
Some might say a rather disturbing moment occurred Wednesday during a Hillary Clinton rally at Camden County College in New Jersey.
Before taking the podium, the woman introducing the Democratic presidential candidate attempted to rally the crowd by reciting part of the Pledge of Allegiance. However, it’s the part she left out, and Clinton’s reaction to it, that is turning heads.
“Only Hillary can bring us together as one nation,” the woman began, before emitting a loud guttural noise to avoid saying the words “under God.”
Continuing right along, she finished the line from the Pledge, saying, “Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
As the crowd erupted in cheers, Clinton began laughing.
Some might question what was so funny about the willful omission of God during a presidential campaign rally.
This is also not the first time Democrats have had such an aversion to God or the concept of our country being under divine authority.
After Democrats stripped any mention of the word “God” from their charter, a vote was raised at the 2012 Democratic Convention to reinclude the word.
After the vote passed (although some might question the dubious method by which it was approved), the Democrats in attendance began booing.
As the Associated Press reported at the time:
“The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said ‘we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.’” (For more from the author of “Watch: Clinton’s Reaction After ‘Under God’ Omitted From Campaign Introduction” please click HERE)
It’s still true. Donald J. Trump really really happened.
Every morning faithful conservatives wake up and for a brief, fleeting moment believe life is normal. We are still in the throes of the primary. Conservatives still have a chance. And then, reality comes crashing down. Donald Trump, the ethics-free extraordinaire, is our party’s nominee. Oh, and our other choice is Hillary Clinton.
But, despondent and downtrodden is no way to go through life. On the bright side, the eye-poppingly disgusting comments from Trump’s former butler (#richpeopleproblems) about wanting to kill President Obama is the latest of your daily reminders why it was never a wise idea to hop aboard the Trump train.
(The ol’ quote about Trump hiring the “best people” never gets old, does it?)
Gallows humor. We’re going to need it this year.
Coming to terms with Trump doesn’t mean endorsing, enabling, or supporting his, or his surrogates, or former employees behavior. Like a wild dog off the leash, perhaps a treat could be thrown his way when he does something good, but defensive, cautious posture at a far away distance is best.
And while safely away from danger, some introspective thinking needs to be done. Conservatives should be honest with themselves about what went wrong. Without blaming it all on party leaders, or the poorly devised and accelerated primary process, or something beyond our control, although those are major contributing factors.
Something happened yesterday that clicked this into focus.
The Washington Post announced that Clinton has a plan, without any announced funding mechanism mind you, to provide “affordable child care,” which comes in addition to universal pre-school and paid family leave. (And, if Bernie Sanders is successful in pushing her further left, tuition-free college.)
Of course all of these policy ideas will require massive amounts of government intervention and intrusion into deeply personal areas of our lives. The policy ideas are wrong, but it is unwise to completely ignore the issues Clinton is raising.
Finding affordable child care is a very real problem working families face. In many areas of the country, child care is more expensive than college. There isn’t any financial aid available for child care, either. And, while it may be ideal for one parent to stay at home with the children, that isn’t an option for many for any number of reasons.
When I amicably asked on Twitter yesterday what Republicans would say to counter Clinton’s plan, I was met with derision by some friends, as if I were asking for my own special handout. If doing things such as ending the marriage penalty is a handout, however, sign me up.
(For what it’s worth, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio have worked on alternative reform ideas, which have been met with tepid reaction.)
But, this is the same old story.
Democrats announce a big, terrible idea that has great polling. Some Republican say, let’s do something half as bad so we don’t get beat. Conservatives say that’s unconstitutional. And Democrats win. That’s what happened with Obamacare. And immigration. And well, you name it.
Somewhere along the line, it seems many conservatives forgot how to just talk normally and help people.
“Because, Constitution! Because, principles! Because, free markets!” are ineffective and cheap arguments for or against anything. These arguments didn’t win in a GOP primary. Let that sink in.
Even self-evidently good policy requires salesmanship.
Enter Trump: Build the wall. Make America Great Again. With a no apologies, media accessible attitude.
Enter Clinton: Free stuff! Make history, elect me!
It’s sort of ironic. Trump is a remarkable salesman without any ideology. Clinton is a pretty ideologically driven candidate who lacks salesmanship. Judging from the GOP primary, in this sort of competition, the odds are in Trump’s favor.
Running on ideological will always differences be important. But, as Trump’s success demonstrates it ain’t everything. Ideology should be the underpinning of a campaign; not the alpha and the omega. Ideology should be compatible with solutions, but never divorced.
The presidential candidacies of Trump and Clinton may be a nightmare, but if it helps wake up conservatives from their tired old conversations perhaps it won’t be entirely traumatic. (For more from the author of “Making the Best out of Trump Versus Clinton” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Trump__Clinton.jpg14532115Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 20:25:472016-05-13 20:25:47Making the Best out of Trump Versus Clinton
During the 2016 Republican primary season, the Conservative Review presidential profiles became a go-to place for conservatives looking to vet the Republican candidates. As the calendar turns towards the general election, CR has added a profile of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Here’s a sample:
Clinton has been a partner, with her husband, in political life for close over forty years. Together they are one of the most powerful couples in American History. They have completed almost twelve years in the governor’s mansion in Arkansas, two terms as president, eight years in the Senate, and four as Secretary of State. They have successfully pushed the country leftward in their time in public life.
Clinton herself, is to the left of her former husband’s governing record. As she has gained power she has shed any veil of being a centrist. This is most evident in her stance on social issues. When it was the safe political play to be against gay marriage she was, now that the mainstream media has changed tune so has Clinton. In the past she said she was for making abortion “rare” she now espouses an abortion on demand position.
When given access to power, Clinton has often used it to benefit herself and her cronies and places herself above the law. When her husband became president she was central to the professional travel staff in the White House Travel office being replaced with her Arkansas associates. Her use of a private email server to exchange classified information is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
CR has looked into Clinton’s positions on a wide range of issues, including the budget, spending, debt, civil liberties, education, energy and environment, foreign policy and defense, the free market, health care and entitlements, immigration, moral issues, the second amendment, and taxes, economy and trade.
As with our primary season coverage, CR will update the profiles of Clinton and Trump as the election season progresses. CR will also write a profile of the libertarian nominee for president when the Libertarian Party selects him or her at the end of May. (For more from the author of “How Liberal Is Hillary Clinton?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/3177408973_31af61c3ab_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 01:34:282016-05-13 01:46:53How Liberal Is Hillary Clinton?
Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice have given so much money to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign this time around that critics justifiably doubt the agency can handle her private email server case fairly and impartially.
In what appears to be a super-sized potential conflict of interest, Clinton, a pathological, self-serving liar who doesn’t mind if Americans die to further her political ambitions, has accepted almost $75,000 in campaign contributions in the current election cycle from employees at the Justice Department, the cabinet bureau that will eventually decide whether to prosecute the Benghazi bungler for her use of a hacker-friendly home-brew email server while top U.S. diplomat.
The server is at the heart of the scandal over Clinton’s mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, almost four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.
The fact that Mrs. Clinton destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.
This heavy team support for Hillary Clinton within the Justice Department adds to the growing expectation that she will never face justice for her willful national security breaches while serving at the State Department. After all, these DoJ employees are making it clear through their donations that they in effect want to hire Clinton as their boss. Presumably they wouldn’t want to hire her and then send her to prison.
A new Washington Free Beacon review of 2016 presidential campaign contributions reveals just how popular Mrs. Clinton is with Justice Department employees.
Clinton received $73,437 from individuals who listed “Department of Justice” as their employer. Among the 228 contributions, 12 hit the $2,700 level, the maximum amount individuals are legally allowed to give. The $73,437 is a huge improvement over Clinton’s 2008 White House run when she received 23 donations adding up to just $15,930 from DoJ employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the current election cycle, Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has received 51 donations from DoJ employees adding up to $8,900. Businessman Donald Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee, took in only two contributions from DoJ employees adding up to a meager $381.
Citizens United president David Bossie told the Washington Free Beacon he wants Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a hyper-partisan radical left-winger like her predecessor Eric Holder, to step back and appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.
“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” Bossie said. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.”
“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security,” he said. “This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”
It’s not like the DoJ has had a sterling reputation in the Obama era. From the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal to the gangsterish Operation Choke Point, the current DoJ is an extraordinarily politicized joke of an agency that goes after Obama’s enemies while letting the administration’s friends get away with crimes on a regular basis. The previous attorney general, the openly racist Eric Holder, barely escaped prosecution after Congress found him in contempt.
This is the same DoJ that helped to cover up ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s unlawful targeting of conservative and Tea Party nonprofits.The agency refuses to investigate civil rights violations involving white victims and turns a blind eye to vote fraud. It sent radical taxpayer-funded community organizers to Sanford, Fla., and Ferguson, Mo., to foment civil unrest after Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were killed by white men in self-defense. It works with dangerous Islamist front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to smear Americans as “Islamophobic.”
Under Obama, the Justice Department is skittish about treating criminals like criminals. The agency calls juvenile delinquents “justice-involved youth” to avoid hurting their feelings. Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason said last week that the bleeding hearts at the agency no longer refer to individuals as “felons” or “convicts” after they are released from prison because doing so makes it needlessly difficult for them to reestablish themselves in society.
Meanwhile, the FBI’s investigation, including an upcoming interview with Clinton about the emails, is reportedly ongoing. Adding to the high-stakes political drama, the Russian government is considering releasing a trove of Clinton’s emails that have come into its possession.
“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin right now between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly on Monday.
And just days ago after it was discovered that the emails of Bryan Pagliano, the State Department tech staffer who ran Clinton server’s, had gone missing, WND reports that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan raised the prospect in a Freedom of Information Act case brought by Judicial Watch that it may be necessary for Clinton to be put through the deposition process.
The news prompted WND to cheekily refer to Clinton as “Deleter of the Free World” in a headline.
Of course, Obama administration officials at the highest levels were long aware of Clinton’s cloak-and-dagger email infrastructure. The irretrievably corrupt Clintons created the system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional scrutiny, and funnel oceans of money to the international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
But getting Hillary in the prisoner’s dock won’t be easy. It may even be politically impossible.
Howard Krongard, who served as inspector general for the State Department from 2005 to 2008, predicted earlier this year that Clinton’s case would “never get to an indictment” even if the FBI referred her case to the DoJ for prosecution. He said the case would have to go through “four loyal Democratic women,” including Lynch, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who runs DoJ’s criminal division.
None of this ought to suggest the case against Mrs. Clinton is weak. Actually, it would be difficult for it be stronger or more clear-cut.
Around the time of the attack Clinton lied about the facts and blamed U.S.-based Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims,” an anti-Islam movie trailer on YouTube that almost nobody had seen. She claimed back then that the video inspired the sophisticated military-style operation that she claimed materialized spontaneously outside the facility which was in Islamist-held territory.
At the military ceremony that accompanied the repatriation of the body of Tyrone Woods, a retired Navy SEAL who perished fighting off Islamists in the 2012 attack, Clinton blamed all the death and mayhem of that awful day on Youssef, who ended up going to jail as a real-life political prisoner.
She promised the dead hero’s grieving father, Charles Woods, that Youssef who was thousands of miles away from Benghazi at the time, would pay for whatever it was he had done.
“She came over … she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’” Woods recounted to talk radio host Lars Larson. “That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”
If there is any justice, Americans will hear about Hillary Clinton’s outrageous scapegoating of an innocent man over and over again before Election Day. (For more from the author of “HILARIOUS: DOJ That Donated Tens of Thousands to Hillary Certain to Treat Her Crimes With the Utmost of Objectivity” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/24007578223_b82c58cbb9_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-13 01:28:522016-05-13 01:28:52HILARIOUS: DOJ That Donated Tens of Thousands to Hillary Certain to Treat Her Crimes With the Utmost of Objectivity
