As of today, Hillary Clinton hasn't given a press conference in 258 days, something even the deeply pro-Clinton Washington Post finds
troubling. And while Hillary may have spoken to the FBI in an unsworn
testimony, there is no transcript of it, and only the FBI's own
subjective notes serve as proof it ever happened. Which is why on July
8, conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch, the source of so
much headache for the Democratic presidential nominee, had requested permission to depose Hillary in sworn testimony, and in public, as relates to the use of her private email server.
That however, will not happen as U.S. District Court Judge Emmet
Sullivan rejected the request to force Hillary Clinton to submit to a
sworn deposition, ruling instead that she must respond in writing to
questions about the issue:
The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is
necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the
creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State
Department business.
Sullivan said Judicial Watch had not demonstrated that an in-person
deposition of Clinton was necessary to attempt to clarify whether the
former secretary of state set up the system in order to avoid complying
with the Freedom of Information Act.
Judicial Watch’s argument that a deposition is preferable in this
case because of the ability to ask follow-up questions is not
persuasive. Given the extensive public record related to the
clintonemail.com system, a record which Judicial Watch has acknowledged,
Judicial Watch will be able to anticipate many follow-up questions. For
those follow-up questions that Judicial Watch is unable to anticipate,
it can move this Court for permission to serve additional
interrogatories.
Furthermore, to spend Hillary the indignity of appearing in public
and answering questions in real-time - instead giving her a 30 day
window in which to answer the questions - the judge decided to goalseek
his conclusion, saying it appeared Judicial Watch "likely has a very limited number of questions for Secretary Clinton," making it more plausible that the issue could be resolved in writing, thus justifying his decision to give Hillary a way out
It was unclear how the judge had any idea about the scope ot content of Judicial Watch's questions.
Finally, Sullivan noted that under legal precedents applicable to
current and former Cabinet officials, the court should only require
Clinton to appear at a deposition if "exceptional circumstances"
justified such an approach. As Politico adds, the ruling makes it far less likely that Clinton will face the potentially politically damaging step of having to leave the presidential campaign trail in
the coming months to testify under oath about her controversial email
set-up. However, it is still possible one of several other judges
considering similar cases could issue such an order.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement
regarding Judge Sullivan’s decision granting Judicial Watch permission
to submit interrogatories to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and to depose the former Director of Information Resource Management of
the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel:
“We are pleased that this federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to
provide written answers under oath to some key questions about her email
scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We will move
quickly to get these answers. The decision is a reminder that Hillary Clinton is not above the law.”
Alas, we have to disagree with Fitton's conclusion.
She is the head of the state department, her job is to serve the
objectives of U.S. Foreign Policy, as directed by the President of the
United States.
The parties supported were “freedom fighters” fight a oppressive
regime. Any actions, such as beheadings, torture, extermination based
on religion, was unknown and not condoned.
The regime mentioned used chemical weapons and violated laws of armed conflict(which will later be dispelled).
For those that think that sounds far fetched, here is a list of over 50 countries that the CIA worked to overthrow over the last 70 years.
Just to set the record straight, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, these
are countries that were were overthrown by the CIA’s Special Activity
Division and is a part of history; not theory, not made up bullshit;
this all actually happened and is openly admitted to by the United
States government and has been documented by multiple reputable sources.
(This is hearsay) Supposedly the death of Chris Stevens in the Beghazi
attacks were brought about because Ambassador Stevens was going to blow
the Whistle on the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, for
funneling weapons, supplies, and fighters in to Syria out of Libya,
violating the Logan Act.
The accusation implicating Hillary Clinton in the death of Chris
Stevens is that sensitive information was purposely made available to
local terrorist cells in Benghazi and Quick Reaction Forces were
recalled when requests for support were made, thus facilitating the
assassination of Chris Stevens and silencing his potential expose of
Hillary Clinton.
(As mentioned previously)So what about this whole talk that the
Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians and rebels? Well that information was found to have been altered by the United States media to garner support for war against Syria in 2013. The
BBC was caught blantantly falisfying evidence and stated the Syrian
government was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. The MSM
was forced to drop the narrative after multiple exposes revealed that
the MSM altered the footage and blamed the Syrian Government when in
fact it was the Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra that launched the attacks,
a rebel faction that was heavily funded and supplied by the United
States Government. The U.N. even later made statements clearing the government of Syria and blamed rebel factions for the attacks.
When the government campaigned for war to support the al-Qaedia backed rebels, this is when we saw
troops posting pictures in their uniforms with signs stating “I didn’t
join the United States military to support al-qaeda in Syria.” After massive amounts of similar pictures
and likely very stern statements being said, the United States was
forced to drop the narrative all together to avoid a mass mutiny within
the U.S. Military, though there exists some statements that "soft-coups" did occur within the Pentagon in 2015.
The purpose of funding these factions was that through US aid the
rebels would overthrow Bashar Al-Assad and we could then install a
puppet government.
All this information is public and evidence is readily available
and ranges from high-ranking leakers to diplomatic cables to former
members of the DoD coming forward admitting that the U.S. founded ISIS
through funding rebels to overthrow the government of Syria.. CNN, Fox,
and MSNBC wont be reporting this information. Why? These news sources
are bought and paid for by the U.S. Government. Does that sound far
fetched? Well, here
is CNN, award winning reporter, Amber Lyon, stating that multiple
governments pay CNN, and other news agencies, to report and fake news
stories and highlight news stories that put governments in a positive
light.
The narrative is now aimed to demonize Russia, the biggest country
that is actively wiping out ISIS in Syria and is directly supporting the
government of Syria. Why do we demonize Russia? There exists residual
cold-war hatred of Russia and Russia has publically denounced the
globalist objectives of the United States. Russia is also allied with
Syria and since we are using rebel factions and ISIL to facilitate the
removal of Bashar Al-Assad, the same people we claim to be against but
are using to facilitate regime change, we are inherently against them.
Bombing of hospitals? Both sides did it. Why? Both sides are at
the mercy of shitty intelligence objectives by blowing up the hospital
of their enemies. Both the United States and Russia and have bombed
hospitals. Only the United States had bombed schools full of children,
as well, in multiple theaters of war, many times.
And if you want to make the argument that somehow the United States is
above other countries bombing the wrong targets, I have personally
worked with contractors that were led to believe that their targets were
valuable targets only to watch small children flee burning buildings
after airstrikes.
It is important to note that what I have laid out transcends both
republican and democratic parties and that what is happening today isn’t
a democrat problem, nor a republican problem; it is a bad government
and foreign policy problem that has been dictated at echelons above the
government. Hillary Clinton is at the very tip of the spear and will
continue the diplomatic objectives that were laid out under the Bush,
continued by the Obama administration, and will lead us further down the
path of war, the loss of our troops, and further drive us in to debt
under the guise of spreading democracy and freedom.
This has to stop. The problems we face today were created by us to
fuel the war-machine. Our economy prospers while millions suffer and
our only effort in solving the problem is to throw more gas on the fire
so that a select few politicians and corporations make financial gains.
Stop Hillary. Elect Trump. Make the media transparent again.
Stay focused on this issue because what is happening in Syria will be
the catalyst for future events. This is important extremely important,
and my words cannot impart how significant the coming months will be in
regards to Syria and the elections.
She is the head of the state department, her job is to serve the
objectives of U.S. Foreign Policy, as directed by the President of the
United States.
The parties supported were “freedom fighters” fight a oppressive
regime. Any actions, such as beheadings, torture, extermination based
on religion, was unknown and not condoned.
The regime mentioned used chemical weapons and violated laws of armed conflict(which will later be dispelled).
For those that think that sounds far fetched, here is a list of over 50 countries that the CIA worked to overthrow over the last 70 years.
Just to set the record straight, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, these
are countries that were were overthrown by the CIA’s Special Activity
Division and is a part of history; not theory, not made up bullshit;
this all actually happened and is openly admitted to by the United
States government and has been documented by multiple reputable sources.
(This is hearsay) Supposedly the death of Chris Stevens in the Beghazi
attacks were brought about because Ambassador Stevens was going to blow
the Whistle on the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, for
funneling weapons, supplies, and fighters in to Syria out of Libya,
violating the Logan Act.
The accusation implicating Hillary Clinton in the death of Chris
Stevens is that sensitive information was purposely made available to
local terrorist cells in Benghazi and Quick Reaction Forces were
recalled when requests for support were made, thus facilitating the
assassination of Chris Stevens and silencing his potential expose of
Hillary Clinton.
(As mentioned previously)So what about this whole talk that the
Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians and rebels? Well that information was found to have been altered by the United States media to garner support for war against Syria in 2013. The
BBC was caught blantantly falisfying evidence and stated the Syrian
government was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. The MSM
was forced to drop the narrative after multiple exposes revealed that
the MSM altered the footage and blamed the Syrian Government when in
fact it was the Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra that launched the attacks,
a rebel faction that was heavily funded and supplied by the United
States Government. The U.N. even later made statements clearing the government of Syria and blamed rebel factions for the attacks.
When the government campaigned for war to support the al-Qaedia backed rebels, this is when we saw
troops posting pictures in their uniforms with signs stating “I didn’t
join the United States military to support al-qaeda in Syria.” After massive amounts of similar pictures
and likely very stern statements being said, the United States was
forced to drop the narrative all together to avoid a mass mutiny within
the U.S. Military, though there exists some statements that "soft-coups" did occur within the Pentagon in 2015.
The purpose of funding these factions was that through US aid the
rebels would overthrow Bashar Al-Assad and we could then install a
puppet government.
All this information is public and evidence is readily available
and ranges from high-ranking leakers to diplomatic cables to former
members of the DoD coming forward admitting that the U.S. founded ISIS
through funding rebels to overthrow the government of Syria.. CNN, Fox,
and MSNBC wont be reporting this information. Why? These news sources
are bought and paid for by the U.S. Government. Does that sound far
fetched? Well, here
is CNN, award winning reporter, Amber Lyon, stating that multiple
governments pay CNN, and other news agencies, to report and fake news
stories and highlight news stories that put governments in a positive
light.
The narrative is now aimed to demonize Russia, the biggest country
that is actively wiping out ISIS in Syria and is directly supporting the
government of Syria. Why do we demonize Russia? There exists residual
cold-war hatred of Russia and Russia has publically denounced the
globalist objectives of the United States. Russia is also allied with
Syria and since we are using rebel factions and ISIL to facilitate the
removal of Bashar Al-Assad, the same people we claim to be against but
are using to facilitate regime change, we are inherently against them.
Bombing of hospitals? Both sides did it. Why? Both sides are at
the mercy of shitty intelligence objectives by blowing up the hospital
of their enemies. Both the United States and Russia and have bombed
hospitals. Only the United States had bombed schools full of children,
as well, in multiple theaters of war, many times.
And if you want to make the argument that somehow the United States is
above other countries bombing the wrong targets, I have personally
worked with contractors that were led to believe that their targets were
valuable targets only to watch small children flee burning buildings
after airstrikes.
It is important to note that what I have laid out transcends both
republican and democratic parties and that what is happening today isn’t
a democrat problem, nor a republican problem; it is a bad government
and foreign policy problem that has been dictated at echelons above the
government. Hillary Clinton is at the very tip of the spear and will
continue the diplomatic objectives that were laid out under the Bush,
continued by the Obama administration, and will lead us further down the
path of war, the loss of our troops, and further drive us in to debt
under the guise of spreading democracy and freedom.
This has to stop. The problems we face today were created by us to
fuel the war-machine. Our economy prospers while millions suffer and
our only effort in solving the problem is to throw more gas on the fire
so that a select few politicians and corporations make financial gains.
Stop Hillary. Elect Trump. Make the media transparent again.
Stay focused on this issue because what is happening in Syria will be
the catalyst for future events. This is important extremely important,
and my words cannot impart how significant the coming months will be in
regards to Syria and the elections.
Submitted
by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the
United States Army Special Forces (Airborne)) via SHTFPlan.com,
The Obama Administration has been characterized by not only a lack of
transparency on issues that surface, but a deliberate obfuscation to
mask true actions and intentions. There are literally no limits
to what the man and his handlers will do outside of the law to attain
their ends, while simultaneously “crafting” legislation to enslave the
citizenry. The fawning, lying press trumpets his victories and
quietly spins his defeats: objectivity cannot be maintained by
journalists on the government payroll and command.
Hence a sitting American president, a man who should have been hauled
off of a stage in 2012 and clapped in irons for treason is able to do
whatever he wants. Remember?
“Tell Vladimir I’ll have more leeway after the election.”
Now the Congress and the State Department labeled Iran both a “rogue
state that supports terrorism” and “a supporter of Hezbollah and
Al-Qaeda.” So my question is where did Obama secure the necessary
Congressional approval to airlift $400 million to Iran on January 17,
2016? More: Since this was Obama’s move, did he not use his position
unilaterally and without any Congressional approval to provide funding
to a nation that supports (and conducts direct action missions to
complement) terrorist activities? And this is with Iran, that vows to
strike the U.S.?
Just as in the same vein, how can we join Russia in a bombing campaign of “boogeyman” ISIL/ISIS when we, the U.S., created it?
Just as in the same vein, how can we send a QRF (Quick Reaction
Force) of our military’s finest commandos to stop the slaughter of an
American ambassador and his staff in Libya…when we approved of and
enabled it?
The “administration,” if you prefer that ludicrous term to the true state, the “regime,” is made of Teflon…nothing can touch it.
Fast and Furious proved it. Hillary’s e-mails proved it. The
cashiering of half of the admiralty and general staff of the United
States Armed Forces proved it. The removal of TARS, of the scrambling
of fighters, the scrapping of the A-10 Warthog, the cessation of
Tomahawk production…all of these measures prove it. Obamacare
steamrolling through the (at the time) Democrat-controlled
Congress…enabled by Senator Olympia Snow (R, Maine) proved it. The
hearings and the deciding vote. Nothing can stop the administration. Nothing. And nothing will be able to stop the next one.
Does everyone really think that Trump will be elected? Really?
Throughout the past two weeks, he has literally run on “self-destruct”
and must have a lobotomized campaign manager. Haven’t we seen this
before, when Romney won the first debate and made a fool out of Obama,
and then turned into a neutered eunuch for the next debates? Do not be fooled: it is all intentional.
There is no such thing as an election, only a controlled paradigm
shift with a force-fed theatrical playbill that the dumbed-down public
gobbles up. The two “camps” of Democrat and Republican, and the
illusion of a colossal battle, a political “Clash of the Titans” between
conservatism and socialism drawing the focus and attention of the
people away from surrounding events nationally and in the world.
Look at Hanna, the alleged Republican…the first of the jackasses to
come out and support Hillary Clinton. Look at the moneyed interests
pooling behind her: Meg Whitman, Warren Buffet, and the invisible but
ever-present incubus of George Soros, the man who destroys countries for
a hobby and a price. Look at Hillary, the “good wife,” the “good
mother,” the “good 501-C-3” member with a billion dollar “kitty” in the
Clinton Foundation and three Delaware shell corporations to hide her
loot. The “good speaker,” snagging $50 – 200 K dollars per speech. The good fundraiser who raised $90 million dollars in the month of July alone.
By her campaign slogan… “I’m with Her” …by those very words
are such notables as James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Houma Abedin, Debbie
Wassermann-Schultz…all of them…complicit with her in the crimes she has
committed. She would provoke a nuclear war with Russia in order to
prevent those e-mails from coming to light. Her “candidacy” is a degradation and an abasement, not only
of the American Justice system, but of the entire Constitution of the
United States and the freedom of every citizen. Those who are
“with her” don’t even realize they’ll be the first ones in the gristmill
when the time arrives. That time is almost here. It’s all been smoke
and mirrors, but soon there won’t need to be. The obfuscations and
treacherous maneuvers are masked but in a short time they’ll all be
completely unveiled.
The 2nd Amendment will be completely destroyed and/or
nullified. The face of this entire country is going to change, and akin
to most bad things, it’ll have to happen before people realize it and
take action. Everybody who criticizes the incoming dictator is marked, make no mistake about it. We still have a little bit of time, but not much, and effects generated need to have substance, not form.
No juvenile displays of occupying a shed/storage room/visitor center in
a National Park or Forest. No standoffs with a disbandment and then
everyone is arrested individually. The torch is being passed. Everyone who is criticizing Obama and warning about Clinton is a target and they are marked, along with countless others of the 325 million of us. If Hillary Clinton takes the presidency, it is the end of the United States.
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial
character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from
inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary
Clinton.
Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department
was actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State
(ISIS) in Syria.
Clinton as repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple
statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.
WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested:
The Reagan administration officials hoped to secure the release of
several U.S. hostages, and then take proceeds from the arms sales to
Iran, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.
Sounds familiar?
In Obama’s second term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized
the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the
Muslim Brotherhood, and friendly to the Libyan rebels, in an effort to
topple the Libyan/Gaddafi government, and then ship those arms to Syria
in order to fund Al Qaeda, and topple Assad in Syria.
Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of
Syria” (aka Al Qaeda/ISIS) to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime
change in Syria.
Under oath Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons
shipments during public testimony in early 2013 after the Benghazi
terrorist attack.
In an interview with Democracy Now, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is now
stating that 1,700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly
connect Hillary to Libya to Syria, and directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, I want to mention something else. In March, you
launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email
attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server
while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents span the
time from June 2010 to August 2014; 7,500 of the documents were sent by
Hillary Clinton herself. The emails were made available in the form of
thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as the result of a
Freedom of Information Act request. Why did you do this, and what’s the
importance, from your perspective, of being able to create a searchable
base?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of
Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information
that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form,
about how modern institutions actually behave. And it’s gone on to set
people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court
cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into
election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some
case—or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases,
taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so
on. So, you know, our civilizations can only be as good as our knowledge
of what our civilisation is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that
which we do not understand.
So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the
cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich
picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly,
how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the
disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction
of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large
segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being
pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS,
that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary
Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.
It appears that Hillary Clinton committed perjury, just like her husband was caught doing as President. This is a breaking news story. We will update this as more details become available.
One of the biggest surprises over the past
week was Donald Trump's dramatic meltdown, and subsequent escalation,
with the family of Humayun Khan, the US Muslim captain killed in
Afghanistan in 2014, who during the DNC, tangentially accused Trump and
his potential policies of being responsible for their son's death (he
wasn't). What is most striking is that instead of ignoring this attempt
to bait the Republican candidate in public, to which he most gladly
obliged, he should have simply moved on and stayed on the offensive,
pressing Hillary over the recent Wikileaks disclosure revealing the
cronyism and corruption within the Democratic Party, as well push the
familiar narrative of her email scandal.
Conveniently, Hillary helped him do just that yesterday, when she acknowledged on Friday afternoon that she may have "short-circuited" when
she claimed in recent interviews that FBI Director James Comey said she
was "truthful" about her use of a private email server as secretary of
state. In doing so Hillary once again shifted the news spotlight away
from Trump and back on to herself, as she once again revealed that the
only consistent thing about Hillary Clinton are the constant lies.
Following a heavily covered interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace,
Hillary stated that Comey had found her statements "truthful" and
"consistent" with what she has said publicly. Clinton’s lying led The
Atlantic to publish an article titled “ Why Can't Hillary Clinton Stop Lying?” and the Washington Post’s
fact checker Glenn Kessler awarded her four “Pinocchios”, adding that
“Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative
about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation.” Notably, the NYTimes
did not publish anything related to this flop and it took the Public
Editor, whose job it to be the readers' advocate at The NYT, to write an
op-ed titled The Clinton Story You Didn’t Read Here.
After an almost universally bad week for her opponent Donald Trump,
Hillary went out of her way once again to explain away her home-brew
server, only this time it led to a less than favorable outcome.
Clinton insisted in two
televised interviews aired this week, including one with Fox News' Chris
Wallace aired Sunday, that Comey had found her statements "truthful"
and "consistent" with what she has said publicly. The Democratic
nominee, speaking at a joint convention for African-American and
Hispanic journalists, remarked that she was "pointing out in both of
those instances that the Director Comey had said that my answers in my
FBI interview were truthful." She then reiterated the "truthful"
assessment in an interview with a Colorado television station later in
the week.
According to Politico,
Hillary stressed that "that's really the bottom line here. And I have
said during the interview and many other occasions over the past months,
that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly," Clinton explained Friday. "So
I may have short-circuited it and for that, I, you know, will try to
clarify because I think, you know, Chris Wallace and I were probably
talking past each other because of course, he could only talk to what I
had told the FBI and I appreciated that."
"But I do think, you know, having him say that my answers to the FBI
were truthful and then I should quickly add, what I said was consistent
with what I had said publicly. And that's really sort of in my view
trying to tie both ends together," she added.
Notice the difference between her original statement and revision. In
the first one, James Comey confirmed her statements about her email
setup were consistent and truthful. In her revision, the FBI director
confirmed that what she told the FBI was truthful. Perhaps because lying
to the FBI is a crime but lying to the American population is not?
Her word choice of “short-circuiting” confirms what many voters in this election feel about Hillary. Her
answers are memorized, poll tested and scrutinized by hundreds of
staffers, almost in a robotic fashion, to ensure she does not “bend” the
truth. This is why Hillary does a press interview every 240 days at best
Finally, having finally found a new opening to dig itself out of the
hole it has found itself in, Donald Trump's campaign laced into Clinton
over her latest "pretzel-like response."
“Hillary Clinton’s habitual lying about the use of her secret server
to send and receive classified, top secret information shows her blatant
disregard for national security and a continued pattern of bad
judgment," senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a
statement. "Clinton knows the actions she has taken are disqualifying
for someone wishing to become commander-in-chief, and that is why
today’s painful, pretzel-like response to a simple question about her
illegal server was obvious to everyone watching."
Now the only question is whether Trump can keep his mouth shut long
enough to give Hillary more chances to stick her foot in hers, and do to
her own polling what Trump has been so eager to do to his over the past
two weeks.
As
David Moyes’ troubled time at Manchester United was coming to an end, a
banner appeared at Anfield, home of arch rivals, Liverpool. It read
"Agent Moyes: Mission Accomplished".
The idea was that the only way to destroy the dynasty built by Alex
Ferguson, United’s legendary manager, was to do it from the inside.
I was reminded of the banner thinking about Donald Trump.
There are more than a few Republicans who believe his entire campaign
is not geared at winning the White House but simply clearing a path for
Hillary Clinton. A so-called "false flag" operation.
Remember, the Democratic nominee for president would be the least
trusted candidate to run for the presidency if she wasn't topped by one
other candidate. And that would be Donald Trump.
It’s just one of the incredible conspiracies that have circled around the businessman’s campaign.
It’s no surprise. Conspiracy theories tend to arise as people try to
make sense of unusual events. In fact in the book American Conspiracy
Theories two respected academics found that "inducing anxiety of loss of
control triggers respondents to seen nonexistent patterns and evoke
conspiratorial explanations". And the rise of Trump has been unusual and
unexpected.
The suggestion that Trump is somehow a Democrat insider was given
real credence in a tweet last December by none other than Jeb Bush. He
wrote “Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy @HillaryClinton.
Continuing this path will put her in the White House” OPINION: Welcome to the Trump show
So how could that possibly be true? Well first of all, Trump used to
be a Democrat. He held and - in some cases - still holds views which are
closer to Democratic orthodoxy than that of his own party. He was a
friend of the Clintons. They attended his wedding in 2005. And he
praised both Clintons, but especially Hillary, calling her “a terrific
woman”.
In the view of the man who first floated the idea, the self-described
"conservative-Paleo-libertarian" Justin Raimondo, Trump’s
pronouncements, "the open racism, the demagogic appeals….sound like
something out of a democratic political consultant’s imagination, a
caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor".
Sceptics also point to the fact that any other political outsider
would have been ignored by the media. Instead when Trump spoke it was
covered wall to wall by the cable news networks and given extensive
coverage in newspapers. Conservative talk radio lapped it up and
promoted it.
What does the world really think about a President Donald Trump?
And that in part is why Trump is where he is at. No other candidate
could compete with his free media. He blew them off the air, and he blew
them off message. People like Jeb Bush weren’t able to push their own
points or put forward their own policies because they were too busy
responding to the latest Trump outburst.
He had toyed with a presidential run before and enjoyed the media and
attention that came with it - this was the time he had to get in the
race or be forever branded a political tease.
Donald Trump won the nomination because unlike any other Republican
politician he tapped into the fear and anxiety of America’s working
classes and gave it a voice. He understood what they worried about most;
a lack of economic advancement; the fear of immigration and a concern
that their world was changing too fast and they couldn’t pump the
brakes.
Yet his most recent pronouncements - repeatedly calling Hillary
Clinton “crooked”, claiming the election will be rigged and stolen from
the Republicans, are not the words of someone who wants a smooth
transition of power or someone who wants his former buddy sitting behind
the Resolute desk in the White House.
Trump is doing what he’s doing because he wants to win the White House. Not for anyone else. For himself.
Khizr
Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald
J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to
international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition
to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to
controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to
essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to
the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both
appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald
Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain
Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to
the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic
migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting
terrorists.
Since then, Clinton operative George
Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill
Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor
as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an
interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same
mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that
has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House
Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov.
John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media
condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends
throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.
Video: FBI interviews Clinton in email probe: campaign
But until now, it looked like the Khans
were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It
turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans
are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim
migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons
themselves.
Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat,
used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm
that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of
Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government
disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection
between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.
“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm
hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of
Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the
Free Beacon reported.
The federal form filed with the Department of Justice
is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938,
which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign
governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United
States register with the federal government.
The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given
between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi
Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.
Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.
“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries
that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as
slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”
“Crooked Hillary says we must call on
Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a
separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to
immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the
Clinton Foundation!”
Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.
Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.
“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember
the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a
suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys
mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim
American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”
Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.
“Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to
2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,”
Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation
technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was
well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday
night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military
lawyer.”
But representing the Clinton Foundation
backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle
$50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the
Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton
Cash.
The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s
taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she
was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server
system that jeopardized classified information handling and was
“extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.
“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard
Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice
since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s
campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008,
as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax
returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which
they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz
has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on
M&A and executive compensation.”
“Topaz was a partner at Hogan &
Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where
Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to
Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.
For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.
“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent
for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small
company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote.
“The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ
program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed
by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been
responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton
links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal
establishment was monitoring her private email use.”
If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan
& Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the
current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a
few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former
president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary
Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email
server system.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the
U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration
program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”
“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on
this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears
and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year.
“The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts,
members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that
the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me
to mention a few of the flaws.”
From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the “flaws” with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:
– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved.
– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.
– Jobs created are not “direct” or verifiable jobs but rather are “indirect” and based on estimates and economic modeling.
– Jobs created by U.S. investors are
counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if
EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.
– Investment funds are not adequately vetted.
– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.
– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.
– There’s no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.
– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.
– Regional centers don’t have to certify that they comply with securities laws.
– There’s no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.
– There’s no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.
– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.
– Regional centers draw Targeted
Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a
lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in
those areas.
– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.
– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected.
– Visas are not properly scrutinized.
– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.
– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.
– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.
– There’s no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.
That’s not to mention the fact that,
according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security
violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and
around already. In fact, the program—according to Grassley—was used by
Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the
United States.
“There are also classified reports that
detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has
received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side
of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The
enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal
memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of
the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives
to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of
program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology,
economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists,
investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”
Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart
News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made
absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global
Initiative. Hillary Clinton’s coronation ceremony spent exactly zero
minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about
anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography.
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.
How
could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure
thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself?
Consider the possibilities.
The inevitability behind Mrs.
Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses
the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
Opinion Journal Video
Hoover Institution Research
Fellow Bill Whalen on the latest Golden State poll and the implications
for next week's presidential primary. Photo credit: Getty Images.
A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr.
Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win
would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost.
California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in
recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to
underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and
caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young
voters.
To this end, data from mid-May show that there were
nearly 1.5 million newly registered Democratic voters in California
since Jan. 1. That’s a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations
compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for
Mr. Sanders.
A
Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s
weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic
superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly
backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they
should continue to stand behind her candidacy.
There is every
reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules
change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their
state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost
certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton
candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on
Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200
pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules
change on superdelegates more likely.
Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump
has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs.
Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC
News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind
him, respectively.
Then there is that other crack in the
argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently
runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by
about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.
The worries
about Mr. Sanders’s strength have stirred the beginnings of a
capitulation to him—by the Clinton camp, in league with the Democratic
National Committee—at the convention. To placate him, they have already
granted Mr. Sanders greater influence over the party platform. Two
divisive figures, Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison, have been added
to the platform committee, ensuring that the party will be pulled
further left. In addition to putting Mr. Sanders’s socialist nostrums on
display, the platform negotiations are likely to spur an ugly fight
over the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Mrs. Clinton also faces
growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent
report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was
secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has
been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings
buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides
may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of
culpability somewhere.
With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be
interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up,
a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the
July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector
general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is
unlikely.
Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as
high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4
to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago,
they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention,
with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the
messy, disastrous convention could be their own.
There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.
Mr.
Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the
nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders
supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen.
Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.
Where
is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the
campaign, other than to say that he doesn’t believe Mrs. Clinton
compromised national security with her home-brew email server. But with
her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders
candidacy showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking
ball for the president’s legacy, Mr. Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett
might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee and to
the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn’t displease the
White House.
All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is
easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary
Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the
Democratic presidential nominee. Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton, 1994-2000.
All along Hillary Clinton has pled that when
it comes to her violation of Federal regulations, she was at worst
naive, hardly malicious and - as of recently - merely doing what each of
her state department predecessors has done; and she has been very
careful to make it clear that she never purposefully and intentionally
"stripped" confidential data in order to send it through her unsecured
server as such an act would imply not only a breach of email retention
policy, but a willful abuse of confidential documents.
Well, moments ago Wikileaks unveiled what it believes may be the FBI's "smoking gun" in its case against Hillary. In a tweet, Wikileaks highlights one specific email and asks "Is this email the FBI's star exhibit against Hillary Clinton ("H")? "
The email in question (link)
Authored by Rachel Stockman via LawNewz.com, Donald Trump has undoubtedly made the class action lawsuit against Trump University a campaign issue. For the last several days,he has been on a tear against federal Judge Gonzolo Curiel who is overseeing one of the class action lawsuits against Trump University.
In the lawsuit, former students claim that the University and Trump
violated federal law by luring them to sign up with false promises and
then defrauded them once they handed over their checks. LawNewz.com discovered that when it comes to politics, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the law firm behind the class action lawsuit, is not exactly neutral either. Our analysis, using data first compiled by The Washington Post, found that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid the Clintons a total of $675,000 in fees for speeches since 2009.
Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech at the law firm as recently as
September 4, 2014. Bill Clinton also gave a speech for the same
fee back in 2013, and another one in 2009 before the firm had been
renamed (they used to be called Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP). In fact, of the five law firms that paid for the Clintons to speak over the last few years, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid out the most money.
Court records indicate 9 attorneys from Robbins Geller are listed as
representing Art Cohen and the other former Trump University students in
the class action lawsuit (there are three attorneys from another law
firm as well). A review of the case’s docket reveals that the Robbins
Geller attorneys have aggressively pursued the lawsuit, pushed for
Trump to testify and for the trial to begin before the November 2016
election. However, it is also worth noting that the lawsuit was filed in 2013, well before Trump declared he was running for President.
“These are real people who spent a
significant amount of money. This has impacted their lives. That does
not turn on the election or the election outcome,” Robbins Geller lawyer Jason Forge said about the case. A judge ultimately decided that the trial should begin sometime after the election.
In addition, in the midst of the litigation, one of the Robbins Geller attorneys, Patrick Coughlin,
who is also ‘of counsel’ at the law firm, maxed out his donations to
Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Records maintained by the Federal Election
Commission indicate that Coughlin has been a longtime financial
supporter of both the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton.
In February, he donated $5,400 to her campaign.
“No rule prevents a lawyer from donating to a candidate
or paying a prospective candidate for speeches and also representing a
client against her opponent. The story is interesting
because everything about Trump appears now to be interesting, but there
is no problem under the lawyer ethics rules,” NYU law professor Stephen Gillers told LawNewz.com. Gillers is an expert on legal ethics. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd is a high profile law firm,
based out of San Diego, with considerable resources. The
lawsuit against Trump was filed in the Southern District of California
(San Diego) back in 2013. The firm is frequently involved in
multi-million dollar complex litigation. In 2008, they obtained a $7.2 billion settlement for Enron shareholders as part of a massive federal class action lawsuit.
Hillary Clinton’s email headache is about to get even worse.A
scathing inspector general’s report this week was just the first in
what is likely to be a series of official actions related to her private
server stemming from the FBI, a federal courthouse and Capitol Hill.Clinton’s presidential campaign has failed to quiet the furor over the issue, which has dogged her for more than a year.In
the next few weeks — just as the likely Democratic presidential nominee
hopes to pivot towards a general election — it will face its toughest
scrutiny yet.
“All of that feeds into this overarching problem of
public distrust of her,” said Grant Reeher, a political science
professor at Syracuse University.
“To put it in slang terms, she’s got a pretty deeply held street rep at this point. This fits the street rep,” he added.
The State Department’s watchdog report was especially damaging,
given the official nature of its source. The report claimed that
Clinton never sought approval for her “homebrew” email setup, that her
use of the system violated the department’s record-keeping rules and
that it would have been rejected had she brought it up to department
officials.
Clinton’s allies attempted to paint the office as
partisan in the weeks ahead of the report’s release, but the effort
failed to leave a lasting impact.
For months, Clinton and her team
have failed to offer a convincing explanation for the use of the
private server, and she has steadfastly refused to apologize.
“I
thought it was allowed,” she said in an interview on CNN’s “The
Situation Room” this week, after the watchdog’s report became public. “I
knew past secretaries of state used personal email.
“It was still a mistake. If I could go back, I'd do it differently,” she said.
Clinton
and many of her top aides declined to take part in the inspector
general’s probe. But they won’t have that option going forward.
On
Friday, Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills was interviewed
behind closed doors as part of a court case launched by conservative
watchdog Judicial Watch. In coming weeks, longtime aide Huma Abedin,
former IT specialist Bryan Pagliano and other officials are scheduled to
answer questions under oath for sessions that could last as long as
seven hours.
A federal judge this week preemptively blocked Judicial Watch from releasing videotapes of the upcoming depositions.
But the group this week released the transcript
from its first interview, with longtime State Department veteran Lewis
Lukens. And it plans to do the same thing following each of the upcoming
depositions, providing fodder for weeks to come from some of the
closest rings of Clinton’s inner circle.
The court has said that
Clinton herself may be forced to answer questions under oath, which
would dramatically escalate the brouhaha surrounding the case.
At
some point in the next month, the House Select Committee on Benghazi is
also set to release its long-awaited report about the 2012 terror
attack, which has been linked to Clinton.
The committee has
pursued Clinton’s emails to the extent that they relate to the violence
in Libya, and the report is likely to stoke new ire about the matter.
However, its two-year investigation has been marred by partisan
bickering, and the report will likely be shrugged off by Democrats.
What
is potentially profoundly more damaging for Clinton is the looming FBI
investigation, exploring the possibility that she or her aides
mishandled classified information.
More than 2,000 emails that
Clinton gave the State Department from her private server have been
classified at some level, and 22 were marked as “top secret” — the
highest level of classification — and deemed too dangerous to release
publicly even in a highly redacted form. However, none of the emails
were marked as classified at the time they were sent, complicating the
investigation into whether her setup thwarted any laws.
Abedin,
Mills and other Clinton aides have reportedly been interviewed as part
of the FBI case. And Clinton herself is due up for questioning at some
point.
Legal experts appear skeptical that the Justice Department
would hand down a criminal charge against Clinton, due to both the high
legal hurdles involved and the intense political scrutiny surrounding
the likely presidential nominee.
But that won’t end the matter.
Republicans
appear primed to cry foul if the FBI closes its investigation without
handing down indictments or offering a public explanation. Senior
lawmakers have already excoriated the Justice Department for failing to
appoint a special prosecutor.
“It’s clear that the attorney
general, who serves at the pleasure of President Obama, is going to have
very little incentive or intention to pursue the appropriate
investigation,” Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said on the chamber floor this week.
Other Senate Republicans, including Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson
(R-Wis.) have launched their own investigations related to Clinton’s
email. Some of their findings, Grassley said this week, were at odds
with those of the State Department’s inspector general report.
“I
will follow up to get to the bottom of these discrepancies because
misrepresenting the facts to Congress is unacceptable,” Grassley
pledged.
How much the email issue hurts Clinton’s electoral hopes
remains an open question. Results of the June 7 primary contest in
California, the nation’s largest state, could offer some clues about
whether the email scrutiny hurts her polling.
Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), her primary opponent, has stubbornly refused to address the
issue, memorably declaring in October that people “are sick and tired of
hearing about your damn emails.”
Recent events have disproved that claim.
And as she gears up for a general election, Clinton has to expect that Donald Trump won’t be as kind.
Sanders
“didn’t pick up on the emails, which I think was a big mistake,” the
presumptive GOP nominee said on “Fox and Friends” last weekend.
“I’m going to pick up bigly.”
