James Comey: The Real Story Behind His Firing

 

Well, FBI Director James Comey has finally been fired. I can't imagine why it took so long. Both Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended that President Trump can him after he 'misstated' in front of the senate last week about Clinton's email practices that in their words, 'raised new questions about the director's competence and judgment.'

As we'll see, James Comey was not just incompetent. He was corrupt, owned, and what amounted to an enemy of the Trump administration. I'm surprised the president didn't fire him months ago.

Last March, when James Comey was pushing the Trump/Russia fable hard, he was hailed as “the most powerful person in Washington.” by the Lefty media's trained seals, the same folks that were referring to him as Satan in a power suit back in July when he put on his little show detailing exactly how Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies with her antics concerning classified information on an unprotected bootleg server. Not to mention probable obstruction of justice by illegally wiping material after it had been subpoenaed by congress. And of course, that while he had reopened his investigation, she shouldn't be prosecuted for anything. Of course.

And then of course, he suddenly changed his mind two days before Election Day, after the FBI had supposedly reviewed the 49,000 potentially relevant emails the FBI had found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. 'Nothing to see here, move along.'

After which of course, James Comey was a Democrat hero again. And remained one, because he continued to drop coy little hints about the Democrat's favorite bedtime story, how Trump was Putin's puppet and Russia hacked the election. That gave the fairy tale some weight, so it could be repeated by the media over and over. More on that in a bit.

The real story's simple.First of all, James Comey let the attention go to his head and got a mistaken impression of his importance in the grand scheme of things. And second, more importantly, he forgot that he was simply another DC chiseler owned by the Clintons, and tried to cover his behind to give the public impression he was someone of integrity.

That was really the reason for his little show back in July. Most FBI agents are fairly straitlaced, patriotic fellas who really care about law and order, and they knew Mrs. Clinton had committed multiple felonies. On the other hand there was Obama's crooked Attorney General, just a few days after she met with Bill Clinton in a hot Phoenix airplane hanger telling Comey that there was no way her Department of Justice was going to prosecute Hillary Clinton and telling him it was his job to talk to the media and let them know that. Oh and by the way, I'm sure she mentioned that also applied to the ongoing investigation of the Clinton Foundation too, something I'm sure Comey understood because of his own ties to the Clinton Foundation.

So he came up with a cockamamie idea; detail the felonies, sort of, to show the agents and the public he was really on the job, and then recommend no prosecution to protect the Clintons as well as himself.That was odd in itself, since the FBI doesn't usually make those recommendations, at least not publicly. But after AG Lynch got caught at her secret meeting with Mr. Bill, she likely told Comey that it was his mess to clean up.

He used that lawyer's favorite trick , supposed lack of intent as a reason not to charge Mrs. Clinton in an attempt to divert us from the actual issue, which was criminal negligence. Intent isn't a factor in the laws she broke, and a good prosecutor could definitely make the case that simply having those illegal private servers showed intent. So did wiping all those e-mails, another felony according to the Federal Records Act.

The problem for James Comey was that no one bought his shtick. The agents were outraged, because they felt it reflected on the Bureau's credibility. Ever since, there's been a major morale problem at the Bureau according to various sources. It was at the point where, reportedly, a number of people won't even return his greetings and limit their interaction with him as much as possible.

As far as the public went, the True Believers and the media were fine with it, while the rest of us realized that the fix was in and that was that. And needless to say, the Clintons were certainly fine with the outcome.

So Comey's main job after that was to keep in good with his benefactors by pounding the Russia drum loud and often,Trump, Trump , Trump. There's no evidence Russia had anything to do with hacking the election, but the same old tune keeps playing and will continue to play, though perhaps without Comey's help in the future.

I particularly liked Dem Rep Adam Schiff's take on this... 'Well, it's been a long time, we haven't found a unicorn yet and there's no evidence they exist. But of course they might, so it's vital that we keep investigating.' And of course, keep pounding that narrative into people's heads. Herr Goebbels wound be so proud.

Just for giggles, ask yourself this,just three little words..where's the crime? Let's imagine someone from Putin's government met with someone from Trump's campaign or even the Donald himself and told him 'President Putin really hates Hillary and wants you to win, so we're going to do everything we can to help,da?' And Trump or a member of his team said 'Oh, OK.'

Is that a crime? Absolutely not, unless you can prove actual collusion that affected the election. And that's not going to remotely happen because there's no evidence whatsoever, nothing even remotely connecting any of Trump's team or the president with meetings with Russians. And that's even with clear violations of FISA laws and the Fourth Amendment being used to try and find something. Comey's FBI even goofed when they said Trump's attorney met with the Russians in Prague and it turned out to be the wrong person entirely! And this is going on while leaks of the president's private conversations with world leaders weren't being investigated at all. That was something else that didn't sit well.

The idea that this is some kind of 'constitutional crisis' is ridiculous, although the usual suspects will of course go absolutely Batsh*t Crazy totryand convince the gullible that it is. That's to be expected. What happens if Trump appoints a real go getter who decides to investigate real criminal acts? What if he or she reopens the Clinton Foundation investigation, or actually gives Jeff Sessions what he needs to prosecute Hillary? What if they lean on Loretta Lynch or Huma Abedin and get her to spill the beans in exchange for immunity? Hence the manufactured hysteria.

So James Comey is gone. But don't cry too much for him. There will undoubtedly be a corporate sinecure for him somewhere, just like there was before as a reward for services rendered.

Good riddance.

Socialists In France Use 'Computer Error' To Try To Rig Election Against Le Pen

 

While Marine Le Pen is leading in the polls for the first round of France's election, the current Socialist government has apparently found an underhanded way to defeat her...by massively rigging the votes due to a 'computer error.'

Over 500,000 French citizens living outside France received two voting cards and thus have a chance to vote twice in the first round.

As the UK Express reports, France’s Interior Ministry has said it will not be invalidating the election because of the duplicate voting glitch, and French authorities confirmed they would not be investigating the potential electoral fraud until AFTER the election.

Chief beneficiary here is likely to be Emmanuel Macron, who is running as an independent but is a long time prominent member of the Socialist Party. In fact, he was formerly an under-secretary in Socialist François Hollande's first government in 2012 before being appointed Hollande's Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in 2014. He and Hollande still have very close personal ties.

Most expatriate citizens of France are not on the Right, and many are pro EU because they feel it benefits their expat status. We are talking about potentially half a million votes here, more than enough to swing a close election.

Voting twice is a crime, but the only way to find out who committed in ifs if the authorities run a thorough check through their computer systems. If the Socialists return to power via Maron, I'd call that a pretty unlikely possibility.

Obama DOJ Moving Quickly To Quash New Clinton Email Scandal

Loretta Lynch and the Obama Department of Justice aren't wasting any time in moving to try and stomp on and defuse the latest Clinton e-mail scandal.

Remember how slo-oow things moved when congress wanted a subpoena complied with or someone like Judicial Watch wanted a response to an FOIA request?

Now things are going to be rushed with lightening speed in an attempt to save the corrupt Mrs. Clinton and her campaign. They may have claimed it took months to go through what was left of Hillary's emails which totaled out at less than 5% of what they found on Weiner/Huma's 's laptop. But when it comes to the 650,000 emails found on Huma and Weiner's laptop, hey, different story.

The FBI had already said they planned to make a preliminary assessment of those 650,000 emails within several weeks. But the Obama DOJ is cracking the whip on the Bureau. Now they're  telling  us with a straight face that the FBI will have a 'preliminary assessment' of Weiner's 650,000 emails 'within a matter of days!'

And who's in charge of the 'investigation' proves the fix is already in.

Yes, a senior DOJ official has sent a letter to lawmakers responding to their  request for more information about email review, saying the preliminary assessment completed in 8 days. Yes,you heard that right...they'll zip through 650,000 e-mails in 8 days.

 

And that senior DOJ official? None other than Peter Kadzic, one of John Podesta's closest friends!  That's whose going to be in charge of what's supposed to be an impartial investigationof Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton. This is as incestuous as it gets:

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik's role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta's, and thus the Clinton Foundation's inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign.

So now we can pretty much guess what's next. Kadzik will make sure only a small portion of the emails are examined, and we'll get a report in five days or so that there's nothing there to implicate Mrs. Clinton or Huma Abedin in any wrong doing, after which the rest of the unreviewed e-mails will be destroyed.

After which the Clinton media will of course trumpet Hillary's 'exoneration.'

This kind of perversion of justice and the law is a great reason to vote against Mrs. Clinton and for a change from this kind of routine corruption all by itself.

Behind The Smoke And Mirrors -The New Clinton Email Scandal Explained

 

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! " - Sir Walter Scott

The latest bombshell to hit this already explosive campaign season is an announcement by FBI director James Comey that the FBI has opened up a new investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal...and that Clinton's special assistant Huma Abedin and her 'husband' Anthony Weiner are involved.

As usual with Clinton Inc., this is a really tangled web, so let's examine what's going on, and of course, what it means.

First, let's quickly review:

As you know, Hillary Clinton went through what passed for an investigation into the felonies she committed as Secretary of State with her illegal, unprotected private servers and her careless handling of classified materials in violation of the Official Records Act. She has said repeatedly that she told the FBI that she had turned over all her e-mails. We certainly don't know if she actually did, because she deleted 32,000 of them without turning them over and than used a software called Bleachbit to destroy any possibility of recovering them. Since the FBI didn't even record her interview or make a transcript, that's where that stands.

Moreover, the FBI gave Clinton aide Cheryl Mills immunity while allowing her attorney client privilege (unheard of in these circumstances where someone being interviewed is a possible target) in exchange for her turning over her laptop...which they destroyed even though it had been subpoenaed by congress as evidence.

Basically the fix was in and Bill Clinton's little 45 minute meeting with AG Loretta Lynch aboard her private plane - just by chance, of course - was obviously to work out the details and and reaffirm Mrs. Clinton wasn't going to be charged because the Obama Department of Justice would tell FBI Director James Comey they weren't going to prosecute. And as the Wall Street Journal reveals, that Lynch and her DOJ goons would make sure there wasn't going to be any investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

So one day later, having gotten his orders from Lynch and the DOJ, Comey went to the unusual extent of calling a press conference, went over all the reasons Hillary Clinton should have been charged and then finessed it by saying that he would recommend no charges be filed.

While that caused a firestorm at the time in many quarters, Democrats acted as though Comey deserved the Medal of Honor. They lauded his ethics, praised him to the hilt and the Media rejoiced.

Then last week, FBI Director Comey suddenly announced that the FBI was opening a new investigation on the Clinton e-mails.

You see, Clinton shadow Huma Abedin has told the FBI that she had turned over all of her e-mails and all of her devices. Apparently she didn't, and a new batch of 650,000 emails were found on a laptop belonging to - wait for it - Abedin's hubby, none other than the infamous Anthony Weiner!

 

Here's the New York Times bewailing the sad news but unable to avoid reporting it, because everyone else was:

Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case -- one federal official said they numbered in the thousands -- potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

Comey's letter to Chaffetz said:

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation … I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

Aiyeee! I have a feeling that Weiner, with nothing left to lose told the FBI what he had and cut a deal.

Of course, no sooner had Comey announced this then he went from being a Democrat hero to someone who was a law breaker, who was 'endangering the election process,' 'unethical.' and a disgrace. Apparently, Comey announced this even though he was ordered not to by the Obama department of Justice and Loretta Lynch.

I have to admit to a nasty laugh or three as I watch the same people who applauded Comey when he interfered in an election by getting Clinton off the hook now want him burnt at the stake:



 Trey Gowdy a distinguished ex-prosecutor is entirely correct, of course. Hillary Clinton made the decisions that led to this state of affairs, and for her or her creatures to blame anyone else is just ridiculous, just an attempt at the old shell game to get people's attention diverted.




So why did Comey do this? And why now?

Since the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails and the Clinton Foundation were deliberately stonewalled and set aside by the Obama Justice Department , there's been a major morale problem at the Bureau according to various sources. Comey understandably had lost the respect of many of the agents, there are quite a few resignation letters on his desk and it's at the point where, reportedly, a number of people won't even return his greetings and limit their interaction with him as much as possible. Reportedly, even his wife was disappointed in him and kept urging him to admit he was wrong when he said Hillary shouldn't be charged.

This was perhaps a way of trying to recover a little self respect and mollify folks he works with by actually pursuing an investigation. Certainly he's not doing it to win friends and influence people having alienated most of DC.

Another reason is that having seen the reeking criminality of the Clintons up close, he might actually have had some pang of conscience over what her becoming president might actually mean for America. People who work in law and law enforcement have, typically, an inordinate respect for the law, what it means, how it works and what it does. The idea of seeing an unrepentant criminal like Hillary Clinton become president might have been just too much for James Comey to stomach.

So what effect is all this going to have? What's likely to happen?

In spite of what the media is saying, Hillary Clinton's huge drop in the polls was already a fact before this came out. Like James Comey, apparently a lot of people are doing some serious thinking about whether they really want Hillary Clinton in the White House with all that entails. This latest revelation won't help, of course, but the Wikileaks releases, Mrs. Clinton's conduct during the campaign, total disgust at the ridiculously partisan media and a desire for real change have all had an effect. This last item just cements what was already apparent.

Comey could be fired by President Obama, but at this point that might almost be a relief for him. Like Anthony Weiner, James Comey has nothing left to lose. It would also give even more credence to Mrs. Clinton's having a lot to hide if it appeared he were being punished merely for doing his job. The optics wouldn't look good. But don't be surprised if Comey 'resigns' after the election during Obama's lame duck period..and if I were him, I would seriously watch my six. These are ruthless and very vindictive people he's dealing with here.

That said, don't expect anything serious to come of this. It's already a known fact that President Obama lied openly about not knowing about Mrs. Clinton's illegal e-mail setup and even sent her e-mails on it, which is exactly why he invoked executive privilege on any emails using the alias he created. But if Mrs. Clinton looks like she's going to be convicted of anything, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried, can cut a deal and implicate him.

If he's elected, President Trump might very well decide to walk back his pledge to investigate Hillary completely since he has to know where that's going to end up leading. While both these vampires rate a stake in the heart, perhaps just getting them off America's neck and concentrating on fixing the massive damage they did might be more constructive than putting them in orange jump suits as guests of the Federal government, as justified as that would be.

One Group Of Black Voters Trump Will Carry By 100%

On September 16th,Donald Trump became the first presidential candidate ever to visit Miami's Little Haiti community in a town hall setting. If you're moved by Donald Trump in front of a cheering crowd of 20,000 people, just watch him in a small , intimate setting here. Caveat...the video below had some glitches and interference at some very significant points. I'm told it was caused by reporters unplugging their equipment and exiting en masse as soon as some of the speakers stated talking about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation and how they literally raped Haiti and stole millions of dollars in aid money after the horrendous 2010 earthquake, a story I've covered before.

The vast majority of Haitians both back in Haiti and here in America loathe the Clintons and here's what the community in Little Haiti had to say about that and other subjects to Donald Trump.



The Haitians have largely been a community that resembles some of the European immigrants we took in back in the early part of the twentieth century.As a group they are very much into education, and coming from Haiti, a place where simply making a living is a major test of self-reliance, a number of them have started successful small businesses once they recovered from their shock at the opportunities available in America.

And they'll be voting for Donald Trump. Perhaps when he's president, he really will appoint a special prosecutor and investigate what was done to Haiti by the Clintons. I hope he does.

It takes a special breed of people - and I use the term loosely - to exploit human misery for personal profit the way the Clintons did in Haiti.

WIKILeaks : Top Dem Donors Awarded Ambassadorships, Federal Posts

Pay to Play indeed! WikiLeaks Strikes again.

Aside from ambassadorships to strategic foreign countries given to people who knew nothing about them, key federal posts like assistant attorney general and FTC chairman were put up for auction to the highest bidder...



(h/t Gateway Pundit)



You might remember the ridiculous spectacle some of the 'ambassadors' made during their senate confirmation hearings...




More about these clowns at the link...and all of them got confirmed by the Senate.

John Kerry Used Taxpayer Funds to Finance His Daughter's Six Figure Income And 'Expenses'

 

Here's yet another example of how our self appointed Ruling Class plunders the country.

Our Secretary of State John Kerry funneled millions of taxpayer dollar to his daughter's non profit, which pays her over $140,000 per year salary in edition to various expenses - travel,car, phone, fundraising, the usual assortment:

The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.

Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group — now called Seed Global Health — with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.

Seed secured a four-year extension in September 2015, again without competition. This time, the Peace Corps gave the nonprofit $6.4 million provided by the Department of State while John Kerry was secretary of state.

Seed also received almost $1 million from a modification to the first award, as well as from Department of State funds the group secured outside the Peace Corps. {...}


It's also clear that Kerry and government officials colluded to launch the program and make sure that that Seed would get the contract and no one else's non-profit would be considered.

“Vanessa, Buck, and Sarah are meeting with Ambassador Goosby on the morning of 9/16/11 to discuss next steps for the GHSP,” said a memo from September 16, 2011 — one year before Seed received its first award. “Conversations with OGAC leadership confirm that Ambassador Goosby is very supportive of the initial proposal.”

The memo was referring to Peace Corps Directors Buck Buckingham and Sarah Morgenthau and Ambassador Eric Goosby, who then headed the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) — the State Department office that later funded GHSP.


A meeting one month later unveiled the strategy to send tax dollars to Seed.
“The public funding to start the GHSP is secured, it will come from OGAC through [Peace Corps] to support core HQ and field based activities, and to develop a sub-agreement to provide support to the foundation for contributions for their work in this partnership,” minutes from a Nov. 18, 2011, meeting said. The “foundation” refers to Seed, which was then called the Foundation for Global Health Service.

Officials in that meeting also assured Kerry that she would not have to compete with other groups for Department of State funds.

“Buck obtained clarity of the mechanism by which federal money will be provided to” Seed, the minutes said. “The process can be fast tracked and non-competed through a specific grant mechanism.”

 Seed got its first award less than a year later. And the Peace Corps later provided another nearly $900,000, claiming it underestimated the program’s expenses, especially travel and salary costs.

The only person listed as getting a salary according to the nonprofit’s 990 tax form filed after that $900,000 was provided  is Dr. Vanessa Kerry — over $140,000 for a reported 30 hours per week.

The $6.4 million extension - also provided without competition- was given in spite of  Peace Corps rules that  contracts could not extend beyond five years.  While there were a few voices saying that this was a violation of the Peace Corp's rules, ultimately they were overruled and the decision was made they would “go forward with sole-source option if mandated by OGAC,” minutes from a July 17, 2014 meeting said. Of course, it was mandated.

So the extension was awarded without competition on Sept. 10, 2015. And the  Peace Corps violated its five-year policy by giving Seed seven years of non-competitively awarded funding.

Of course, State Department spokesman John Kirby issued a statement that Secretary Kerry had nothing to do with the large amount of funding and special treatment his daughter's non-profit got.

I'm sure Kirby's defense of his boss can be believed. Not.

In spite of the cronyism involved, Seed isn't the Clinton Foundation. It actually does try to do some good.  It offers medical professionals like doctors and nurses student debt forgiveness in exchange for their agreeing to work as volunteers in Africa. But the insider, non-competing rule bending nature of how this was done? Corrupt to the core.


Whatever good Seed accomplishes, the downside that the media rarely reports are the number of Peace Corps and medical volunteers in Africa who get robbed, raped, assaulted, kidnapped for ransom and murdered every year, especially women. A lot of these countries have a Muslim component and infidels are fair game.

You have to wonder if Seed fills in it's potential volunteers on that grim detail before they go overseas. From what several sources have said, the Peace Corps itself tends to gloss over it.

Tim Kaine: Muslim Brotherhood Ties, Communist Groupie, And Grifter

Now that there's a fair amount of noise about Mrs. Clinton being forced to drop out of the race (remember just a short time ago when her campaign was threatening the media not to make an issue out of her health?)there's been some speculation about Tim Kaine, her running mate taking over the top slot.

He's escaped much scrutiny thus far, so let's take a look at him, shall we? it isn't a pretty sight, believe me.

First of all, when you do some research, you find out that Kaine was quite the Sandinista groupie at one time and has publicly never regretted it. The reverse, in fact.

Even Pravda on the Hudson presented a sanitized version of Kaine's
life transforming "mission" trip to Latin America in 1980. What this story leaves out, of course, is Kaine's wholesale embrace of the Sandinistas and radical 'liberation theology', something even Pope Francis has disavowed.

What it was, of course, was a Soviet disinformation plan to use radical elements to infiltrate the Catholic Church and bring Catholic Latin American countries under the Soviet thumb. The highest ranking Soviet defector, General Ion Pacepa has openly admitted that he participated in this.

Liberation theology became a big deal among certain Jesuits, some of whom were actually expelled from Latin American countries after being arrested for fomenting communist revolution and for gunrunning. This happened while Kaine was on his mission, and one extremely radical American-born Jesuit who was actually expelled from the order was Father Jim Carney. That's the priest Pravda-on-the-Hudson tells us Kaine sought out as his mentor, without, of course, much info on who Father Carney actually was.

Carney was a full-blown communist apparatchnik. In 1983, Carney was part of a 96-man unit that invaded Honduras to violently export the Sandinista Communist 'revolution'* there too, using Cuban and Nicaraguan trained guerillas led by Jose Reyes Mata, one of the murderous Che Guevara's officers n Bolivia.

Honduran troops fortunately intercepted the communist guerrillas,and Reyes Mata was captured and killed, along with Carney. Kaine wrote publicly at that time, blaming America his death. The idea of the Sandinistas brutalizing and enslaving the Honduran people as they had in Nicaragua didn't bother him one bit. He was, as they say, a true believer.

And he still is. Today, his mentor in Liberation theology is someone who most people consider Carney's successor, Father Melo, who favors Soviet-style collectivism and land distribution.

Then, there's Tim Kaine's Muslim Brotherhood ties.

As governor of Virginia, Kaine appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission, spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist suspect and took donations from well-known Islamist groups.

In 2007, Governor Kaine appointed Dr. Esam Omeish, the president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), one of the Muslim Brotherhood's front groups here in America.

Omeish also served for two years on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which the Justice Department also labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which was basically a money laundering scam for Hamas. Omeish would be in jail if it wasn't for President Obama and former attorney general Eric Holder.

Kaine was forced to fire him, but only after heavy pressure from Virginia delegates and the press when online videos of Omeish surfaced showing him accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians and exhorting Muslims to “the jihad way.”

This is by no means Kaine's only tie to Islamists. In September 2011, Kaine spoke at a “Candidates Night” dinner organized by the New Dominion PAC that presented a Lifetime Achievement Award for Jamal Barzinji, a prominent figure in America's Muslim Brotherhood who almost was prosecuted for material aid to terrorism until the Obama Administration let him off the hook like Omeish and the other Islamists.

Barzinji has played a major role in nearly every Brotherhood front in the U.S. and was vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which is a name my readers might recognize. Barzinji's group was closely allied to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian who was convicted by the Bush Administration under the RICO statutes for conspiracy to commit aid to terrorism among other things.

Barzinji's IIIT also donated money to Kaine's campaign, giving him $10,000 in 2011 via the New Dominion PAC, the organization that held the event honoring Barzinji that Kaine spoke at. The Barzinji-tied New Dominion PAC also donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign.

This  PAC has very strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Democratic Party in Virginia,  and gave Kaine and others almost $257,000 in donations. Barzinji’s grandson served in Governor McAuliffe’s administration before becoming the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Muslim-American community.

 Another $4,300 donated to Kaine’s Senate campaign in 2011-2012 came from officials of the aforementioned Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another $3,500 came from Hisham Al-Talib, a leader from Barzinji’s IIIT organization.

This likely explains why Tim Kaine was a leader in trying to dis-invite Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu from speaking to a joint session of Congress in March of 2015 and boycotted the speech like a lot of other Democrats when he was unsuccessful. it's about what you can expect when a politician cheerfully takes money from Islamist groups and appoints a Hamas ally to a high state position.

Finally, we get to Tim Kaine's real qualification as Hillary's Mini-Me, his appetite for using his position to feather his nest.

As Lieutenant Governor and Governor, Kaine reportedly “took advantage of the state’s lax gift laws to receive,” among other things, “an $18,000 Caribbean vacation, $5,500 in clothes and a trip to watch George Mason University play in the NCAA basketball Final Four during his years as lieutenant governor and governor.” The report found that Kaine “reported more than $160,000 in gifts from 2001 to 2009, mostly for travel to and from political events and conferences.”

This is the same sort of thing Republican governor Bob McDonnell was indicted form but Kaine apparently was able to use his connections to skate on.

So now you know a lot about who Tim Kaine is. It's easy to see why Clinton picked him...but the political rationale, that he can carry Virginia for her is something he may not be able to swing. He's not particularly well thought of in a lot of circles there, even with Northern Virginia loaded with fellow Democrat feeders at the Obama Administration's trough in DC.

I'll finish up by saying that there's very little chance of Mrs. Clinton dropping out of the race if she's still breathing. Her presidency has already been sold at lucrative prices to numerous donors foreign and domestic who expect favorable treatment on the come for their Clinton Foundation donations, speaking gigs for her disreputable husband and campaign contributions.

If she loses, that's one thing. It's an investment that didn't come off. But if she drops out, they're going to be knocking on the Clinton's door wanting their money back and the interaction is going to get extremely unpleasant when they find out she can't give the money back, either because it's already been spent or because it's locked up in the Foundation. She has to continue.





* The Sandinistas were founded by KGB operative Carlos Fonseca

Loretta Lynch Makes It Official...Case Closed

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made it official...all charges regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation is to be closed with no charges.


Which means Mr. Bill is off the hook as well, because that  included the investigation into the criminal collusion between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and large donors including foreign countries who had business pending before the State Department...

Well,that didn't take long did it?

 

The obvious corruption involved is bad enough. But what's worse is that most of Hillary Clinton's supporters don't seem to care.

When Justice Just Is Not

"Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..." -Mick Jagger,Sympathy For The Devil

"Injustice in the end produces independence" - Voltaire


Well, you can't say I didn't call this one. We no longer live in a country where justice for all means anything.

Hillary Clinton is now officially above the law.

Today FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI would recommend that even though Mrs. Clinton clearly broke the law, she should not face prosecution on criminal charges. And his acrobatics in doing so were something to behold. To summarize, here's what he said:

• He spent the first fifteen minutes or so talking about about how Mrs Clinton broke the law with her private servers, negligently handled classified information including e-mails labeled 'top secret', the highest classification, that she should have known better, that no person in her position should have compromised America's security in that way, that foreign intel services from countries hostile to the U.S. may very likely have hacked her unprotected server.

• That about 800 emails Mrs. Clinton sent to her unprotected private servers contained information that was classified or highly classified at the time they were sent, and another 2000 were up-classified after they were sent. That included eight “Top Secret” chains, 36 with “Secret” information and eight more that were “Confidential.” .

• That the 30,000 work-related emails Mrs. Clinton refused to turn over to the FBI that were deleted illegally by her lawyers on her orders not only violates federal law and the legal agreement Mrs. Clinton signed when she became secretary of state but criminal laws on obstruction of justice

• After spending the first part of his announcement spelling out exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be indicted, Comey dropped the bomb- in spite of her blatant law-breaking, Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, because there's no evidence she intended to compromise national security.

• And to cap it all off, he said that while they will likely recommend criminal prosecution in the future for exactly what Mrs. Clinton did, they won't recommend that Mrs. Clinton be prosecuted.

Let's look at how many hoops Comey was made to jump through here.

For starters, he had to rewrite Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18). Notice what I've emphasized:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Well, based on what James Comey had to say, Mrs. Clinton blatantly violated federal law here. And we haven't even gotten to the Records Management Act by Federal Agencies, 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31.

She clearly violated § 3101, Records management by agency heads by deleting the e-mails and by, as Huma Abedin admitted under oath, destroying her legally required calendar of meetings and appointments.

§ 3105 - Safeguards, which mandates that the head of a federal agency must establish safeguards against the loss or destruction of federal records, and that 'records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated (accessed by people who shouldn't have them) or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301–3314 of this title.'

And § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records, which speaks for itself.

Mrs. Clinton also likely perjured herself before congress during the Benghazi hearings based on what the FBI director had to say today.

So how did Comey justify saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges? Well, first of all he lied and said he couldn't find any legal precedents. I suppose he never heard of Scooter Libbey, General David Petraeus, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, Edward Snowden and Jonathan Pollard, just to name a few.

And second, he tried to use an old lawyer's trick. He brought up the supposed lack of intent as a reason not to charge Mrs. Clinton in an attempt to divert us from the actual issue, which was criminal negligence.

If a drunk driver runs into another vehicle and kills or injures someone, obviously he or she never intended to do so. Few if any people do, yet they are prosecuted just the same. The laws I've cited above have nothing to do with intent, but with the gross negligence which even James Comey admitted Hillary Clinton was guilty of. That's why congress criminalized gross negligence when it comes to classified material and other official documents.

And intent? Even if it mattered (which it doesn't in this case), illegally destroying e-mails, putting together illegal private servers in the first place, and as even Comey admitted, failing to turn over a number of e-mails when required to certainly looks like intent, at least in my universe.

And James Comey knows this very well. So why the bizarre performance today? Why not just say that based on his investigation, there was no grounds to prosecute instead of spending a quarter of an hour telling the nation exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted before telling us he had no intention of recommending that course of action? Besides, shouldn’t the FBI let the prosecutor decide that without tainting their reputation? Why not just turn over the evidence and usurp the Department of Justice's function?

It's really not that difficult to figure out, at least the way I see it.

The fix was obviously in for some time, and James Comey was fully aware of it. I'm not sure what kind of horse's head the Obama Administration and the Clintons put in Comey's bed to get him on board, but it must have been substantial. And to add to that, he was likely told that even if he did recommend prosecution, Loretta Lynch was going to see to it that it never went anywhere. So why destroy himself for nothing?

 

Meanwhile, he probably felt he had to make at least some attempt to try to redeem his own honor and that of the FBI, so he actually conducted an investigation to keep his agents' morale up... and to send a message to the American people that regardless of the decision he was forced to make, Hillary Clinton really was guilty as charged. That, I think, is why he took the time to essentially make the case for indicting her before swallowing the bitter pill at the end. I'm guessing a bit here, but I wouldn't be surprised if that part of Comey's act was not exactly in the script and he might end up resigning after a few months so as not to make it look too obvious.

So the meeting between our Attorney General and Bill Clinton was simply to get the final details and the timing straightened out. And it's no coincidence that two days after her meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation,which is supposedly being investigated over all those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it.That isn't going to go anywhere either, and never mind that our attorney general met with a potential witness to both investigations. After all, this was a situation where there was a home brew server with classified information in Bill Clinton's basement at the Clinton Foundation. And a back up in somebody's bathroom somewhere.



Needless to say, that investigation of the Clinton Foundation will also fade into the woodwork.

So, where do we go from here?

Mrs. Clinton and her execrable media allies will of course celebrate this as a victory and an exoneration, although even a few of the usual suspects appear to be having some doubts.

As for the other side, I've already heard some of the pious outrage and while I don't disagree with most of it, I have to admit that it surprises me, just a little. We've been ruled by these criminal swine for almost eight years now, and they've amply demonstrated their contempt for us, our country's laws and our Constitution. They no longer even feel the need to attempt to hide it anymore. The Obama Administration is probably the most lawless in our history,and they've gotten away with it countless times, even with 'Republicans' controlling congress. Did anyone expect something different this time? Really?

A lot is going to depend on how the American people react to this, just four months away from an election. Given how common it has become lately to lie to pollsters, we probably won't know until after November when the votes are counted.

There may actually be a silver lining here. It's just possible that enough people may have gotten to the point where they're disgusted enough to no longer even to consider putting this corrupt snake in office. And it's less likely but not impossible that the GOP establishment who have been scheming to sabotage Donald Trump either at the convention or during the campaign are going to finally wake up and realize exactly what a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be like.

Comey himself gave us a good indication of that during his performance today:

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

The #nevertrumpers and the GOP establishment had better pay close attention, get their brains together and understand that in a Clinton Administration, they're going to be targeted like never before for the least possible 'infraction' of any laws, whether they actually did anything illegal or not.

As for Donald Trump and whomever his running mate is, they now have some fresh, redolent substance in recent public memory behind the label 'Crooked Hillary.' They need to remind the American public about that at every opportunity. We'll soon see if we keep our Republic.

And here's another thought on the matter.

When those in power engage in this any means to an end Alinskyite hustle, they never stop to think of the message it sends, and how it could backfire.

While it has sometimes been imperfectly administered in practice, America has always been based on the ideal that everyone is equal before the law. Take away that expectation and you lay the seeds not just for contempt for the law but for those whom claim to govern legally. And historically, that has led to some unanticipated consequences for the ruling classes.

Welcome To The Left's Carny Show

Ever been to a real live carnival and watched the barkers lure the rubes in? The basic premise is always one of illusion, which means distracting people from reality with the promise of something special to see or the winning of a prize playing one of the 'games of chance' while taking them for as much as you can. Let's go to the carny show and have some fun, shall we?

Step right up! Here's your chance and we have some great  exhibits.

Here's exhibit number one....Donald Trump's phony charity, especially towards veterans.

He didn't raise any $6 million, and he held on to the money he did raise for too long, right? He lied! He only raised $5.6 million, including $1 million he kicked in himself.

Look over here, not at that other booth housing the Clinton Foundation exhibit.Trust me, folks, there's nothing you want to see there!

Oh, OK let's take a look anyway if you really feel you must. Aw, c'mon...do we really need to watch  what Mr. Trump and a certain Marine combat vet have to say?



Oh my...let's make sure we cut the Marine out when we show this on CNN, m'kay? Just leave in the part about him bullying a reporter and calling him a sleaze. Yeah, that's the story.

Oh and you don't want to look at this part of the Clinton exhibit either....well if you must, you must. Yeah, these are just boring figures from Form 990 charities use to report their figures. Trust me, it's...well, OK. Some guy named Don Surber put this stuff together...damned bloggers.

The [Clinton] foundation’s latest Form 990 shows that as of December 31, 2014, Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and their hedge fund son-in-law sat on $439,505,295 in assets. That's pretty good for a "non-profit."

In 2014, they received $24,313,685 in contributions and $113,957,283 in grants, including government grants.

That $439 million in assets is 17 times larger than that $25 million hedge fund that son-in-law ran into the ground by hedging on Greek debt. That $439 million represents a hefty investment fee for some person or company lucky enough to land the account.

The foundation spent $248,221,698 in 2014:

$95,887,139 on salaries and benefits.

$20,786,529 on travel.

$17,249,876 on professional and consulting services.

$14,200,147 on conferences and events.

$14,196,240 on UNITAID commodities expense

$13,519,824 on meetings and training.

Et cetera. Oh and $33,692,599 was spent on direct program expenditures. Sure, this is all legal, but as a charity, this is not on the up and up. The Clintons used this as a way to launder foreign donations (which would be illegal if they were campaign donations) to finance her campaign in absentia.

See, I told you it was boring. It wasn't ? But hey, LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP'S FOUNDATION!

His latest Form 990 as of 2012 shows $1,259,851 in income, all from Trump. $1,712,089 in disbursements to various charities, and a total of $1,717,293, in assets. Looky at all the expenses! What's this $5,305? Oh, just the audit cost, and Trump paid for it himself based on the figures? Sounds fishy to me. Like I said, this is real news, not the stuff about the Clinton Foundation. Just forget about that, OK?

Let's go to the next exhibit...hey, the bogus Trump University! What a scandal huh? Donald Trump fleecing all those poor people, no wonder he's being sued. No, don't go back to the Clinton exhibit. You don't need to know about CGI University and the Clintons, it's nothing important. trust me. No one's interested in that. No one important, anyway.

And no, please don't go back there behind the curtain! OK, so the Trump University thing is a little exaggerated. Quiet down, let's keep this between ourselves and I'll level with you, OK?

Turns out this got started after Trump refused to donate to New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's campaign in spite of repeated 'suggestions.' It's just a coincidence, honest that Trump was slapped with a $40 million law suit by Schneiderman after that against Trump University in 2013 charging fraud. Would I lie? Now who did donate to Schneiderman were some lawyers from a law firm named Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The next step was a U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel who certified a class action suit and selected two law firms, long time Democrat bundlers and contributors and both heavy Clinton donors to find plaintiffs and represent the class action case against Trump University. The two firms were - wait for it - Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP.

Did I mention that Judge Curiel was a long time Democrat activist and an Obama appointee, one of those judges Democrat majority leader Senator Harry Reid shoved through via the nuclear option? Oh, you knew that, really?

Well, I'll tell you, once those lawyers started trolling for plaintiffs, a whole crowd of folks responded wanting to be part of the suit. OK, OK, gimmee a break, so yeah, it was only six plaintiffs, and the judge allowed three of them to withdraw from the class action after they panicked and realized that rather than the easy payday the lawyers told them about they could be liable for costs instead.

The main plaintiff, a yoga instructor named Tarla Makaeff wanted out as well, and believe it or not, Judge Curiel has ruled that after six years of litigation, she can leave because the judge says her deposition for her lawyers is sufficient for Trump's lawyers to defend the case ...no cross examination, no deposition by Trump's attorneys, no nothing.

But let's move on, because here's our main exhibit - Donald Trump the bigot!



Oh Yeah! How dare he insinuate that Judge Curiel might not give him a fair trial just because of the judges ethnicity! All the judge did was to rule that a plaintiff Trump's lawyers have built their case on need not be deposed or cross examined by them, and to unilaterally decide to unseal court documents 'by mistake' without redacting them for personal information at the request of The Washington Post, including plaintiff accusations against Trump University.

Everybody knows how impartial judges are, right? OK, this judge has made a few errors that would probably lead to a reversal on appeal of any verdict he delivers, but we're all only human, aren't we?

Oh, the La Raza thing. You heard about that huh? Well you know, it's just a civil rights group. In Spanish, it means 'the people' that's all.

Oh you ummm, speak Spanish. And you say 'the people' in Spanish would be 'la gente' or 'el pueblo' which means literally the town, and is also used to mean 'the community.' OK, so La Raza means the race. So what?

OK,OK...so it's not a civil rights group, not really. So maybe Judge Curiel, aside from being a very leftist Democrat is a long time pro-Amnesty and pro open borders activist. That doesn't mean he isn't impartial. What difference does that make. Just look at Judge Vaughn Walker in California on same sex marriage. Wasn't he impar...bad example, forget I said that.

But look at Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, remember how she said that a wise Latina would...better forget about that one too.

So what you're telling me essentially is this...that what Donald Trump is saying is that Judge Curiel is likely to be biased against him and not treat him fairly because the judge is a rabid, partisan Democrat and Trump is the Republican nominee in an election year? And because the judge is very leftist Latino who is against border control and an end to illegal migration? Is that it?

Who ever heard of such a crackpot idea? That's crazy talk!

You know, you really annoy me. We spent a lot of time and money putting this show together and you go and ruin it for everybody. Get out and don't come back.

No refunds either, read the sign. Racists!

How The Clintons Exploited Disaster In Haiti For Profit

In January of 2010, Haiti, already one of the world's poorest countries was hit with a massive earthquake that devastated it, followed by a horrendous cholera epidemic.

While a number of people (and countries, including a certain so-called 'racist, apartheid state' went to succor the Haitians out of humane motives, there were others who saw the disaster as an opportunity for sheer profit and exploitation.

The Wall Street Journal's  Mary Anastasia O'Grady has a superb column on how Bill Clinton was put in charge of all USAid and UN relief to Haiti thanks to the influence of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and how he used that position to channel millions into the Clinton Foundation:

Peter Schweizer’s new book, “ Clinton Cash,” has stirred up media and public interest partly by making the point that most of the dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton have been with poor countries with a weak rule of law. The U.S. legislation cited above singles out Haiti.

There could hardly be a better example of Clinton machinations undermining development. Congress is partly to blame and now seeks to make amends.

The U.S. Founding Fathers went out of their way to establish a republic guided by the rule of law and not the rule of men. If there is a singular principle that has set the U.S. apart from countries south of the Rio Grande it’s the checks and balances that protect against caudillo power.

Yet in the aftermath of the January 2010 earthquake, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Obama administration and Congress gave Bill Clinton carte blanche in handling hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to Haiti for recovery and reconstruction. This translated into enormous political power for the former president in the poorest country in the hemisphere, making him a de facto cacique.

Mr. Clinton loves to paint himself as a third-world redeemer, as he did in an interview in Africa with an NBC reporter that aired last week. The reporter asked about charges that the Clinton Foundation’s practice of pulling in big money from governments and wealthy donors during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state was a conflict of interest. Mr. Clinton countered that he’s helping the poor.

As an NBC narrator described Clinton Foundation activities, the former president and his daughter were shown fitting locals with hearing aids. Pravda could not have crafted a better piece of propaganda.

Yet peel back the veneer of “charity” and one finds that the Clinton way has inflicted egregious harm on the poor in developing nations because it has undermined respect for the rule of law that is so necessary for economic growth. If a former president of the U.S. flouts anti-corruption protocols, why should the locals get hung up on them?

Haitians learned about Mr. Clinton’s affinity for cronyism after he used the Marines to restore deposed Haitian strongman Jean Bertrand Aristide to power in 1994. As I have documented in this column, “friends of Bill” subsequently were awarded, in secret, a sweetheart deal from the state-owned monopoly phone company, Haiti Teleco, that gave them a substantial edge over the prevailing, mandated long-distance rates set by the Federal Communications Commission.

Within two weeks of Haiti’s January 2010 earthquake, the word had already gone out from the State Department that Bill Clinton would be in charge of U.S. reconstruction efforts. “That means,” one individual told me and I reported in a Jan. 25, 2010 column, “if you don’t have Clinton connections, you won’t be in the game.”

The “game,” as my source called it, meant securing hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts from the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development and grants from multilateral institutions like the InterAmerican Development Bank, which gets the bulk of its funding from the U.S.

The Clintons deny that Bill’s power over State’s purse was used to secure donations to the Clinton Foundation. But at least two contributors who gave more than $1 million as I described in a March 9 column, including the InterAmerican Development Bank, benefited from U.S. earthquake aid.

There’s a lot that didn’t get done. In the north of the country, the Clinton-proposed Caracol Industrial Park was supposed to feature some 40 buildings for apparel assembly supporting up to 65,000 jobs. It remains a mystery why there are still only three buildings in full operation and only 5,000 jobs, despite plenty of tenant interest.

Haitians are reluctant to criticize the Clintons publicly because of their power. “No one wants to be on the wrong side of the next president of the United States,” one Haitian told me during a visit I made to the country in December.

More at the link.

By the way, not all the Haitians were as quiet about this plundering as the person Ms. O'Grady spoke to. On several occasions, there have been massive protests over the billions in aid money and relief funds stolen via the Clinton Foundation while Mr. Bill was running things. And Congress is finally starting to look into this, although I doubt much will come of it in the end, unfortunately.





It takes a special class of people to exploit human misery for personal profit in this manner. No more need be said.

Hillary Won't Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donor$ - And Has Her Kid Lie For Her

The latest on the money laundering and commingling scam know as the Clinton Foundation passed the 'stranger than fiction' level a long time ago, but it's rapidly descending into it's own realm.

Mrs. Clinton is refusing to release the names and countries of origin of over 1,100 big money donors, many of whom gave money via the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation established by Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and whose company received State department approval of a huge uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan tat ended up with control of over 20% of America's uranium mines and stockpiles passing to Russian control. And that also resulted in massive cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation, including donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million that were previously not disclosed.

What's especially ironic is that this came after the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House in 2008 promising to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. The MOU specifically mentions the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” the former name of the charity as part of the Clinton Foundation covered by the agreement.

Guess what? They never revealed any of those donors, and Mrs. Clinton is refusing to do so now:

Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.

On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”

Except, whoopsie:

Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."

CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."

And then, there's this little item:

While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.

However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.

More from Sean Davis at The Federalist:

The donations were routed through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), or CGEPartnership, a Canadian charitable organization. That organization then effectively bundled the foreign donations and sent them along to the Clinton Foundation itself, and it did all of this without ever disclosing the individual foreign sources of the income.

If that sounds to you like more of a laundering operation than a charitable organization, that’s because it certainly looks like more of a laundering operation than a charitable organization. In this case, however, rather than taking cash from blatantly illegal activities (as far as we know) and then cleaning it up by running it through legitimate businesses before it ends up at its final destination, the Clinton Foundation mops up cash from wealthy foreigners, bundles it within a larger organization to hide the money’s original source, and then funnels the cash from that legitimate charity right into the Clinton Foundation coffers. [...]

Multiple Canadian tax and privacy law experts contacted by The Federalist, the Washington Post, and BloombergPolitics said there was no such blanket prohibition on public disclosure of charitable donor identities. While Canada does include a ban on the release of donor information in the course of commercial activity, it specifically exempts fundraising from that definition. And because the public disclosure of a donor’s name doesn’t include any transaction or consideration, it’s not considered to be commercial activity.

“Federal law prohibits disclosure related to commercial activity: things like selling, renting, or bartering of a list. Fundraising is not a covered activity under PIPEDA, the federal privacy law,” Adam Aptowitzer, a Canadian charitable organization attorney, told The Federalist.

And the money quote: If you look holistically at the entire scheme’s setup, at the massive flow of foreign cash, at the refusal to disclose donors, at the secret (and now destroyed) private e-mail servers, at the blatantly bogus excuses, at the falsified tax returns, everything about it suddenly makes a lot more sense...In its current form, the Clinton Foundation is a charity in the same way La Cosa Nostra was an Italian soup kitchen. 

Especially since after 'expenses' only around - wait for it- only 10% or less of the swag was actually spent on anything that could remotely be called 'charity' per the Clinton Foundation's 2013 tax returns.

The Canadian outlet isn't the only Clinton Foundation 'subsidiary' around either. For instance, there's one in Sweden whose primary purpose is fundraising that was registered in 2010 will Hillary Clinton was still secretary of state.They took in $66M Swedish Krona ($8M US) during Hillary's last year in office.And there's another on in the UK whose primary function is fundraising.

 But wait, there's more.

The Clintons have stooped to a new low, drafting their daughter to lie for them in public. Even NPR wouldn't swallow this one:

Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, sought to tamp down new allegations that rich foreign donors had influenced her mother while she was secretary of state by noting that an international anti-corruption group had endorsed the foundation's disclosure practices.

 "What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent," said the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the foundation, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. "Even though Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations, we'll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis."

 The problem with that, though, is Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation. It did award Hillary Clinton its 2012 TI-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for "recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy," Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, told NPR. (The organization put out a fuller statement Monday.)

"I am very honored to be here and delighted to be supporting the work of Transparency International-USA," Clinton said on March 22, 2012. She added, "Corruption and the lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government."
She never mentioned the Clinton foundation, and Dumas' organization is focused on promoting government transparency.

"We do not do an examination or any ranking of foundations," said Dumas, who noted that Chelsea Clinton may have simply made an innocent mistake.

It had to have been. I mean, have you ever known any of the Clintons to lie?

How To Make Millions Off 'Public Service' -The Corrupt Clinton Cash Machine

 My old editor at Breitbart Peter Schweizer has a new book coming out May 5 entitled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

My review copy will be arriving shortly, so I haven't read it yet. But the New York Times has, and it's good enough that even Pravda-on-the Hudson had to pay it grudging attention,admitting, "He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons."

That's no news to anyone who has read Peter's other books on crony capitalism, which target pigs at the trough in both parties.

The subject of this particular book is a detailed 186 page investigation of how the U.S State Department would grant favors to foreign entities in exchange for high-dollar speaking fees and donations paid directly to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

As I pointed out previously, foundations are one of the most egregious scams to hide and shelter income and avoid taxation for the super rich:

 Now, foundations are interesting creatures. As Jane Fonda shows us , if the foundation has 501(c) status (and the Clinton Foundation certainly does), they can be used as a place to park income so it isn't taxed and can be used for various 'expenses'..or even invested, tax free. Why else do you think that most of the super-wealthy in America like the Clintons have such foundations?

Another thing about foundations that's interesting is that according to the IRS rules, they're allowed to pay salaries and 'administrative costs' (pretty much anything you can think of) with any portion of the donor money, something that has attracted a lot of prominent politicians. Ex-president Jimmy Carter's Peace Foundation, for example provides a very nice income for him courtesy of his anti-Israel Arab friends. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is another prime example of how 'foundations' , 'libraries' and 'centers' can be used as cash cows by their 'owners'.

And here's the kicker about Hillary's 'charitable donation'. Anything the wealthy 'donor' to such a foundation donates likewise becomes a deduction against whatever taxes they might owe the IRS. So if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually did 'donate' all that money to the Clinton Foundation, she got paid two ways..first by reducing her taxable income significantly to lower her taxes and second by acquiring a huge deduction to leverage against the taxes on her other income. And since her husband 'owns' the Clinton Foundation, the money stayed in the family.

Both The New York Times, of all people, and The New York Post had some disturbing things to say about where the huge sums of money the Clinton Foundation collects were spent...and the Clinton Foundation's infrequent audits.

The Clinton Foundation's mission statement ought to be a tipoff:

"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Or as I would translate it, 'We actively pursue fundraising from governments, private enterprise and our well connected friends for various nebulous causes. Yeah, we got a few good things going on, a few programs we can point to, some conferences and some meetings so we have the slideshow as a marketing tool, but essentially, our real object is fundraising and covering our substantial expenses.'

Don't be surprised if some those 'expenses' end up being in kind, cash contributions to Hillary's 2016 campaign that not only evade McCain-Feingold but allow 'donors to get a nice tax deduction to a 501 C in the bargain. It's a dodge, just like the huge $14 million advance Democrat donor-owned Simon & Schuster ponied up for Hillary's failed book. Hillary will pocket the cash and Sumner Redstone and his friends will recoup it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers after they deduct it as a loss against their other income.

Among other countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,and the UAE have given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Somehow, I doubt they did it without expecting something in return, which is probably the subject of some of those e-mails Mrs. Clinton doesn't want congress looking at. According to the Times:

His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

"In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes."

I don't know if Peter Schweizer's new book will mention it, but we also still don't know what happened to that $6 billion in State Department funds that mysteriously disappeared, mostly while Mrs. Clinton was in charge.

I'm certain the Clinton's opo squad and the ex-Clintonistas  in the media will do their best to spin this and cover it up. And I doubt that this by itself will derail her campaign. But the information is out there, and no one can say they weren't told.

You can pre-order the book here.