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.
With just under a week to go until the election, I think it's a good time to assess where we are and what to expect.
Caveat: This analysis does not figure in possible unexpected 'black swan' events! As we've seen, literally anything can happen!
As I and others predicted, as we get closer to election day the public polling were going to tighten up considerably. This is no accident. The stuff showing Hillary Clinton 12 points plus ahead was always bogus and a political tactic to try and dampen enthusiasm and turnout for Trump. Having seen the rabid crowds Trump was drawing at his rallies and even more important, hearing what people were actually saying on the street it was obvious that tried and true tactic wasn't working this time out.
At this point the media commissioned public polls are merely trying to retain a scrap of credibility for next time by reflecting far more accurate numbers. It's interesting that polls like the L.A Times/USC and Investor's Business Daily that always showed Clinton and Trump fairly close together and even showed Trump ahead at times. They haven't changed anything like the degree of most of the others to show this 'tightening' effect.I'll mention some polling in this analysis just for giggles. but here's an excellent rule to follow this week:
Bottom line, ignore the polls, and that especially applies to exit polls and calls by the networks on Election Day.
Rest assured they will be skewed, both deliberately and simply because a lot of people will have very good reasons to keep their choice private given the bullying Hillary's supporters exhibit at every opportunity. Even putting a Trump sticker on your car is asking it to be vandalized and maybe worse. It's how the Left operates.
Believe nothing in terms of results until it's all over. And to be frank, perhaps not even then...
So. who's going to win?
It's impossible to say with certainty because this is not going to be an honest election. Evidence of blatant voter fraud has already been found in Texas, Indiana, Colorado and Florida, and it will certainly occur in California, Philadelphia and Detroit.
But there are several key items that will decide how the election is going to go:
Yes, there's going to be voter fraud. But Donald Trump has brought a number of people back into the game who haven't voted for years out of sheer disgust. Added to those numbers, we have over three and a half million self-declared Republicans sat 2012 out because they were not going to vote for yet another GOP product in Mitt Romney. If a substantial number of these two groups are going to show up at the polls, it's likely to out weigh the voter fraud numbers in some states. Three states in particular come to mind; Pennsylvania, Michigan and Colorado.If Trump flips any of them, (and in Colorado and Pennsylvania, things are pretty much all tied up, with Clinton's slight lead in the Keystone State well within the margin of error) it will be a good night for Trump. As with much of life, it depends on who shows up and whether there are enough of these unknown Trump supporters to offset the fraudulent votes. For voter fraud to successfully swing things, it has to be close so we'll see.
What happens with Black America and how they vote. Donald Trump has done something the GOP should have done years ago, actually going to the black community and directly addressing their problems, hopes and aspirations. Romney and McCain, unintentionally perhaps, insulted a decent amount of potential supporters by not only failing to do this but ignoring them completely in 2008 and 2012.
The Donald isn't ignoring them, he's actively courting them and talking about real problems and real solutions to people who bear the brunt of having to live with the effects of decisions made by the cabal in DC. How much of an effect this is going to have is impossible to guess, but all indications are that Trump will get more black support than any GOP presidential candidate in years. Yes, the majority of black voters will still vote to stay on the Democrat Plantation. But for the most part they're not all that excited with Hillary, who isn't offering them anything but the dysfunctional status quo. So black turnout for Hillary is probably going to be lower than it was in 2012, while Trump's black supporters are a lot more likely to turn out and vote, just like most Trump supporters. It's impossible to predict accurately but it might be enough to offset some of the voter fraud. I wouldn't be surprised to see Donald Trump getting between 20-30% of the black vote this year. If that number is somewhere between 25-30%, especially in the battleground states, I think we end up calling the Donald Mr. President.
Another variable is how high the 'shy Trump supporter' numbers really are. As I mentioned, a lot of Trump's supporters are off the grid poll-wise because they aren't 'likely voters.' They haven't seen anyone for awhile they actually wanted to vote for until now. And the numbers of even a lot of the ones on the grid can't be reliably estimated. Nor will they on Election Day in the exit votes. If some bozo with a microphone got in my way and asked me how I voted, my response would be limited to 'get lost' along with a descriptive noun. Ditto when it comes to pollsters calling on the phone. I'm going to tell someone who has my name, phone number and probably my address how I'm voting? That has to be even more true for this election than usual if you're black, Hispanic, female, gay, or live in some terminally Blue State.
And finally, the #NeverTrumper effect. There's polling evidence that a number of #NeverTrumpers have been having second thoughts as the election gets closer and they actually begin to smell what a Clinton Presidency is likely to be like. Even Rat Ryan finally succumbed and admitted he had voted for Trump as it became obvious that he was in serious danger of losing his seat, and I expect to see some similar conversions-or at least lip service - in the coming days. In more than a few states a defection of some Gary Johnson supporters would put Trump well ahead of Hillary in some surprising places. How many actual votes Trump might get (and Hillary might get from Jill Green)are another variable.
Donald Trump has managed to get this far while fighting off the Democrats, their blatantly partisan media, and the Republican establishment of his own party while being outspent 50-1. If he wins, it will be one of the biggest political upsets in history.
But then Trump is not your typical candidate in any sense, the majority of the electorate is in an angry, ugly mood and insurgency is in the air. And to paraphrase Michael Moore, it would be the biggest 'up yours' to our self-appointed Ruling Class ever, a class the American people increasingly see Hillary as representing. I wouldn't underestimate these sentiments.
We'll know how all this plays out in about a week.
It's a foregone conclusion that a majority of the secular, non-religious Jewish vote will go to Mrs. Clinton for reasons I've explored already here. So I found the reactions of two well known and highly regarded Rabbis, both with secular educations as well as religious ones to be of interest.
First here's Rabbi Dov Fischer Esq*., who has served two three-year terms on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America during the past seven years, is a professor of the law of Torts and of Civil Procedure at two major Southern California law schools and is The Rabbi of Young Israel in Orange County, California. Here's what he had to say:
I am an Orthodox rabbi. I am also an attorney and an adjunct professor of law. I clerked 20 years ago for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Boggs, one of the most brilliant minds I ever have known in any of my walks of life, soon thereafter served as chief judge of the Sixth Circuit.
Of course, I am disgusted by the stories that dominate the election campaign. I am disgusted as a law professor, an attorney, a father of daughters, and as a rabbi. Women making accusations that they have been sexually abused — Paula Corbin Jones who received an $850,000 settlement from Bill Clinton; Kathleen Willey who went to Bill Clinton in the White House, desperate for a job after her husband killed himself; Juanita Broaddrick, a Clinton volunteer who insists he raped her; the new list of women whose names I am only now learning who say that Donald Trump groped or kissed them against their will. The abused women whose reputations and lives were destroyed by Hillary Clinton, as she defended her husband’s public profile after each “bimbo eruption.” Hillary referred to victims as “looney tunes” and worse, her team including the likes of James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal characterized them as “trailer trash,” and Hillary most infamously ruined the life of 12-year-old Kathy Shelton, raped by a 41-year-old whom Hillary was required to defend. There was nothing wrong in Hillary defending—every accused criminal deserves a good defense. But Hillary destroyed the girl in the process and proceeded years later laughing about that case and regaling an interviewer with anecdotes of that tragedy.
All of it disgusts me. So I have decided that on November 8 I am not going to vote for Clinton or Trump. Instead, I am going to vote for the federal judiciary. Along the way, I also am going to vote for an authentic economic recovery that will include repatriating trillions of dollars back home, for a stronger American footprint in the world, for a border that will protect Mexico from free-flowing American weapons that feed their drug cartels and that will protect America from the influx of potential terrorists and murderous drugs that now easily can pour through our porous borders.
I am going to vote for a process that restores civil harmony in the inner cities by restoring respect for law enforcement even as we begin to address legitimate concerns that responsible African Americans have raised about bias. I am going to vote against sanctuary cities. I am going to vote for a stronger military that, after the past eight years, we now unfortunately will need to protect from Iranian terror exports and North Korean adventurism.
I am going to vote for an end to bullying and ceaselessly blaming and threatening Israel, our strongest and only truly reliable ally in the Middle East, the only country in that region that truly shares America’s deepest values. And I am going to vote to stem the perilous slide away from America’s traditional social core values of hard work, self-help, trust in G-d, respect for religion’s central place in our lives, and the sanctity of life.
If we do not have a robust rebound from the terrible recession of nearly a decade ago, let it not be because I voted based on some filthy talk that a candidate spoke 11 years ago. Let young Americans in our inner cities not continue to die in an endless spiral of gang violence because a tape recorded braggart childishly impressed a gullible young news journalist. And how sad it is to see men—Hillary’s male enablers like John Podesta, Rob Mook, Bill Clinton, and others no less cynical on the other side—preying on women’s legitimate and decent values by trying to sway voting blocs one way or the other based on issues other than the life-and-death concerns on today’s table.
How will we explain to our sons or grandsons who one day would be sent overseas to fight to stop an enriched Iran—nuclear-enriched, hundreds of billions enriched—when America’s continued weakness and failure to stand strong now ultimately will leave us with no choice but to fight later? Shall we tell them: “Well, you see, we did not elect the candidate who would have stood stronger because 11 years earlier he was recorded saying the most disgusting things as he bragged on a bus to an impressionable journalist?”
Then, here's Rabbi Mendel Kessin, who has a PHD in psychology, practices privately and is widely regarded as one of America's most eminent Torah scholars. His bio is here:
Rav Kessin also approaches this with the insight you'd expect of a Torah Gadolim of his eminence. You vote to keep the singularly corrupt, dishonest and incompetent leader out of the White House, not because of a 11 year old illegally recorded and illegally released tape with locker room talk on it followed by some conveniently timed unproven allegations.
One more thing. If you're female, have daughters, are gay or Jewish,voting for Hillary is suicidal.
f you really care about women you will vote for Donald Trump instead of a candidate with serious ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who has pledged to bring in thousands of unvettable Muslim 'refugees' from the most misogynist, Jew hating, gay hating countries on earth.
if you want to see how that works out, just take a look at Europe, with its wave of sexual assaults,gay bashing and Jews afraid to walk the streets. Sweden, where rape used to be almost unheard of is now the rape capitol of the world, Amsterdam, once the most gay friendly city in the world now has gay bashing incidents on a regular basis. Jews have been advised by several EU governments NOT to go out wearing kippot, Jewish stars or anything else that clearly identifies them as Jews, and attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions have skyrocketed. In Germany, Do a search on the gang rapes in Cologne and elsewhere since Merkel imported a million 'refugees' into Germany. Or the Muslim sex grooming gangs in the UK who made money raping and 'turning out' young minor British girls as young as twelve for prostitution.
That's the kind of hell Hilary wants to import here, and she's said so openly. To vote for it is indeed suicidal.
*(Full disclosure...I know Rav Fischer slightly in an online sense and he's as razor sharp an individual as you'd care to meet)
As I predicted when this all started, Trump's biggest problem isn't going to be the Democrats, but friendly fire from the rear.
Their hatred and opposition to Trump always came down to three issues..his being an outsider not of the political establishment, his opposition to globalization and his opposition to open borders and the supply of plentiful cheap labor it provides.
For years, the party elites had wailed about the party's need to make the tent bigger, to reach out to minority voters and conservative crossover Democrats. Trump has done all that, but as usual, it turns out they were lying to us. What they really wanted was some certified GOP product, one of their own who could creditably mislead the peasants until the election was over and it was business as usual again.
Trump was something they should have foreseen would arise after they received historic majorities in both houses of congress and ignored the very people who voted for them in favor of aiding and abetting Barack Obama's policies, enjoying the perks of office and fattening their own wallets.
Originally, they saw Trump's campaign as a joke or a publicity stunt, something to mock. But after Sarah Palin (whom they can't buy off and still fear) endorsed The Donald, they went into full attack mode flooded the GOP establishment candidates with money and unleashed their paid punditry in a frenzy of neverTrumper hatred.
It didn't work, and they're still too cottoned off from reality to understand why. In the end they spent almost half a billion dollars trying to knock Trump out of the primary race and failed miserably.
The hatred they have for Trump and what he represents is mirrored by their hatred for those tiresome peasants, the party's base. Trump's success against all odds has made it necessary for them to drop their cover and reveal themselves for the swine they really are.
The events of this last week are unconscionable.
Billy Bush, Hillary supporter George W,Bush's nephew handed over a 12 year old tape of what amounted to a private locker room conversation between him and Donald Trump, to the Washington Post who released it. And as we now see, Paul Ryan apparatchnik Dan Senor appears to have had a hand in getting this to the Post as well as advising them on how to use it for maximum effect afterwards. He would never have done that without Ryan's approval.
Immediately after tape's release, a slew of Republicans (many of whom were never supporting Trump anyway) jumped on the Democrat media bandwagon,helping to obscure the very real corruption' lies and greed of the Clintons in favor of demonizing Donald Trump and making that the headline story.
A number of them 'unendorsed' him, and there was open discussion about forcing him off the ticket. They were only waiting for him to be massacred at what was largely a rigged, pre-scripted 'debate' where exactly as I surmised, Mrs. Clinton had the questions in advance. The odious neverTrumpers were suddenly invigorated.
But as we all know, a funny thing happened on the way to Trump's political funeral. The script didn't go as planned, Trump triumphed and all the cooked polls and desperate punditry to the contrary couldn't change what the American people saw that night - the Clintons stripped bare and exposed for exactly what and who they are, a cancer in American politics and policy only concerned with gaining power and enriching themselves to the nation's detriment and expense.
And this puts these Republican and their paid shills in a dilemma. What to do? After jumping off the Trump train, they can't very well get back on, and for a number of them up for re-election, that could present problems, since Trump has a lot of popular support.
Some of them are simply keeping a low profile hoping this all goes away,but others, many of whom have done everything they can to derail Donald Trump are doubling down, particularly in the punditocracy.
The Trump movement is essentially a rebellion against the established order, and like our Forefathers, we now have our own class of Tories to deal with.
The lie they tell themselves is that after Trump's defeated, they will take over and rebuild the Republican Party, blaming Trump's loss on 'the trumpkins' or whatever other derogatory name they want to make up. Wat they're really saying is that it's the voter's fault, damn them. How dare they? But that aside, let's look at their prospects for 'rebuilding' shall we?
Out of a total of 31,183,841 votes cast in the GOP nominating campaign, the establishment, pro-globalist candidates combined garnered a grand total of around 26% of that number. Ted Cruz, who at least talked a good game about illegal migration while accepting the open border lobby's cash on the sly behind the scenes got 7,822,100 votes, or 25.1 percent.
And Trump? He set a record for primary votes - 14,015,993 votes, or 44.9 percent.
Does anyone think the people who voted against globalism, cronyism and open borders are going to go quietly back into the GOP fold and back the next establishment product? No, the vast majority will be gone for good, depend on it. They've been screwed for the last time.
These clowns with their fantasies are going to be trying to 'rebuild' the GOP with 30% or less of the current GOP electorate. And in terms of national politics, it will be worthless.
A president Hillary Clinton will see to that. She will appoint leftist judges galore, overturn Citizen's United, castrate the Second Amendment, destroy any vestige of voter ID laws,and use the IRS to target select GOP donors. She will use the FEC to hamstring and eventually eliminate conservative media and enforce the kind of speech codes already prevalent in the EU. Any criticism or even discussion of Islamism, Islamic terrorism or sharia will be illegal. Just ask Geert WIlders.
She will legalize millions of Democrat voting illegal aliens and boatloads of Muslim 'refugees' and continue to plant them in Red states, essentially turning them blue by using the Federal government to change the electorate. This is exactly what was done in California, so the model's already there.
The Republican Party will become even more of a joke than it already is, talking to itself and only surfacing at election time as a comic villain to keep the illusion of democracy going. In short, there won't be a Republican Party for our modern day Tories to rebuild.
Whether Mrs. Clinton is allowed to do this to our Republic or Donald Trump, against the odds is elected, make no mistake. We are going to remember that these creatures chose sides against us and against our country. We will not forget.
The nearest thing I can compare this to is Richard Nixon's famous Checkers speech, when he ran as Eisenhower's running mate in 1952. It involved the press, who hated Nixon with a passion, busting Nixon for a so-called 'slush fund' set up by his supporters to cover certain expenses. Lots of politicians then and now have exactly the same setup(today, they're called 'leadership PACs'). Nixon's was fairly modest and innocuous, but because it was Nixon, the press went nuts, Eisenhower pretty much left Nixon twisting in the wind and it was fully expected that Nixon's political life was over and he would be forced off the ticket.
Instead, Nixon went on national TV, leveled with the American people and made his case directly to them. The perception of Richard Nixon - and the polls - changed virtually over night, and all of a sudden there was Ike Eisenhower talking about how proud he was of his running mate and how glad he was to have him.
Don't expect the media polls to reflect this, but things have changed for Trump overnight as well. here are a few snippets and reactions...
This is Joe Scarborough and Mika on MSNBC talking about the debate. Neither are Trump fans, and I agree with both of them for a change. Scarborough is totally correct about the political impact of someone saying to Hillary's face what people have wanted to say to her for years, and Mika is totally right about the spineless nature of those Republicans who abandoned Trump over a locker room conversation.
Joe Scarborough seems to think no undecided voters were swayed, but below, Frank Luntz's focus group of undecided voters seems to contradict him:
Rudy Giuliani was predictably happy over last night's debate...
And here, gives us an interesting sidelight on how the Clintons tried to pressure the debate committee...
El Rushbo was actually astonished by how well Trump did...Trump exceeded his expectations.
unsuccessfully, I might add.
As an example of how the media is trying to spin this, here is CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer:
Ah hah hah! Trump never said he'd throw Hillary in jail. What he said is that he'd have his Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her myriad scandals. And it's not just the e-mails and her illegal private server, or her willful and knowing destruction of evidence which had already been subpoenaed, AKA obstruction of justice. There's also the open collusion between the DOJ, the White House, the FBI, and Hillary herself in the matter. And there's also her pay to play while Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation that deserve investigation. Mrs. Clinton's serial corruption is unique in American political life.
I acknowledge that in a way, this may be grandstanding on Trump's part because Obama would undoubtedly give Hillary a presidential pardon if Trump wins. But it needed to be said to underline for the American people exactly who Hillary Clinton is and what her record of 'public service' consists of.
A better term might be 'public servicing.'
Speaking of which, here's a CNN reporter caught on video coaching and steering their focus group:
The referee should have stopped it in the tenth. Punching at will, Donald Trump said, "Hillary used the power of her office to make $250 million. Why not put some money in? You made a lot of it while you were secretary of State? Why aren't you putting money into your own campaign? Just curious." Reeling and against the ropes, Clinton gasped that she supported ... the Second Amendment. It was a brilliant rhetorical device: under the rubric of campaign financing, Trump slipped in an allegation that Clinton corruptly enriched herself by using the power of her office for personal gain--and Clinton didn't even respond. That's a win by a knockout.
That's the decisive issue of the campaign: the corrupt machinations of a ruling elite that considers itself above the law, and the rage of the American people against the oligarchical ruling class that has pulled the ladder up behind it. Trump's bombshell below Clinton's waterline came at the end of the debate, well prepared by jabs at Clinton's erased emails and Bill's rapes. Trump used the "J" word--that is, jail. That was perhaps the evening's most important moment. This is not an election fought over competing policies but a struggle for legitimacy. A very large portion of the electorate (how large a portion we will discover next month) believes that its government is no longer legitimate, and that it has become the instrument of an entrenched rent-seeking oligarchy.
Here's the moment Spengler is talking about. Note the crowd reaction. Trump came up with a perfect encapsulation of Hillary Clinton's corruption in one terse sentence. All but the true believers know she should be wearing an orange jumpsuit right now:
Some of the rats might want to consider returning to the ship. Donald Trump came through pretty well tonight, mainly because the focus was on the issues. As long as issues are being discussed, Trump wins.
The moderators came out of the box with questions about Trump’s 2005 video, which many people expected to be the centerpiece of tonight’s debate. The effort flopped, I thought. Bill and Hillary Clinton took appropriate shots. After ten or fifteen minutes the conversation moved on to the issues.
Thereafter, the moderators tried to help Hillary, and Trump appropriately complained a couple of times. But he got his licks in. As always, he was sometimes incoherent, but more often than not, he made more sense than Hillary, who was in full Nurse Ratched mode.
Happily, immigration figured prominently. Shockingly, in the first debate the moderator never mentioned the topic. Tonight, it was discussed extensively. That is a big plus for Trump. The exchanges on foreign policy were inconclusive, of course, but in general I think Trump did better. And there was even talk about Obamacare, which is great for Trump and Republicans. [...}
In short, Trump won. In my opinion, he won big. We will see whether it matters.
Is this something of a biased roundup? Well, maybe. But no more biased than what's going on at CNN,The WAPO, Memeorandum or Real Clear Politics right now. One thing I did do was to quote people who are admittedly not Trump fans but who seemed to have changed their minds after last night. And annihilate one of today's common talking points by the Clinton media, an outright lie about Trump saying he'd put Hillary in jail if he wins.
(photo courtesy of WikiCommons, Flickr and Gage Skidmore)
Here's what's likely coming in tonight's debate.
This is Mrs. Clinton's last chance to put away Donald Trump, since the last debate will be 'moderated' by Democrat Chris Wallace, who works for Fox and can be expected to at least provide a modicum of fairness.
Tonight's debate will be 'moderated' by Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz, both very partisan Democrats. And they will both be striving to avoid winding up like Matt Lauer. Ms. Raddatz, you might remember was the 'moderator' for the 2012 Vice Presidential debate where she leaned heavily on Paul Ryan while allowing Joe Biden to behave like an eight-year-old who'd missed a few days' dose of Ritalin.
It's a town hall type event, which will feature selected undecided voters asking Trump and Hillary questions. It goes without saying that just like the last debate, Mrs. Clinton will have received all the questions in advance, and will know which questions she'll be getting and which one's Trumps getting, so she can have carefully prepared and rehearsed answers to the former and suitable one line zingers to the latter. She will also be wearing her little earpiece again so she can receive backstage reminders and remember her lines.
And she will be jacked up on enough drugs to allow her to last for 90 minutes. She dropped out of site for almost a week after the last one, so she could dry out.
Trump's questioners will likely underline the Democrat talking points, and they won't be undecided at all. Mrs. Clinton's questioners will be partisan Democrats.
Trump's microphone will likely be tampered with again so the audience can't hear him and cheer in response. Any applause he happens toget will be quickly shushed by the 'moderators' while any applause Mrs. Clinton gets will be allowed to continue, just like last time with Lester Holt. Trump will be challenged and interrupted frequently, while Mrs. Clinton will not.
Here's how Trump wins if he's learned from the first debate. He has to ignore the agenda that has been set up and calmly but clearly attack Mrs. Clinton where's she's vulnerable; on the e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation, her enabling of her sexual predator of a husband, and her repeated lies to the American people. He will, if he's smart ignore the 'moderator's' attempts to shush him and have some nice one line zingers of his own to respond to Mrs. Clinton. If he gets questioned about the twelve year old illegally leaked 'sex' conversation, he should respond that he's already addressed that, and compared to the problems facing the country and compared to Mrs. Clinton's history on women and her plan to allow thousands of unvetted Muslims into America, this is a non-issue.
In other words, he has to upset the carefully planned script Mrs. Clinton and the 'moderators' have arranged, go off script and tie things to his own talking points and agenda at every opportunity.
If he does that, he's going to win in spite of the odds. As I pointed out earlier, he actually did a lot better in the first debate than the media's cooked polls indicated.
I actually live blogged the whole thing (yes, once again I watch this stuff so you don't have too) but this was such a travesty I'll just go over the main points.
The minute Hillary walked out with that manic smile, my comment at 6:06 PM (all times PST) was 'boy, did they shoot her full of drugs.' I'm not kidding in the least. I know a bit about such things. I'd guess B-12 combined with a Dexedrine cocktail, perhaps with some cortisone shots to keep her knees from buckling for 90 minutes. They'll play hell trying to get her to sleep tonight without the aid of some serious downers like Seconal.
Expect her to be out of action for a few days.
Another thing I noticed (and I wasn't the only one) was how over prepared she was, with each answer spilling on without so much as an um or an err. After the third time this happened, I understood. She'd gotten the questions in advance from Lester Holt, who composed them, and had then spent serious time rehearsing. It was like watching
one of those old 'pull the ring and she talks' dolls.
As for Lester Holt, performed exactly as I said he would. Anyone watching the debates understood instantly that this was Holt and Hillary against the Donald.
His questions were pretty much out of the Clinton playbook worded in leftist prose about 'income inequality' 'climate change' and 'racial justice', with aggressive interrogations by Holt on Trump's tax returns, Trump's 'racist birtherism' Trump's business bankruptcies and other tidbits. I especially liked the one where he framed Clinton's tax plans as 'Mrs. Clinton wants to tax the wealthy, and you want to lower taxes on the wealthy.' Actually Trump's plan is for an across the board tax cut and he did a decent job explaining it once he was able to get past Holt's constant interruptions and snide comments. Actually, Holt interrupted Trump 58% more than he interrupted Hillary Clinton.
Funny thing, Lester Holt had no questions about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation or Hillary's e-mail scandal and her illegal private server. Even though one of his questions concerned cyber security, there were no followup questions on that little item! Lester Holt had indeed learned not to go there after what happened to Matt Lauer! The only mention was a comeback by Trump, who said he'd release his taxes when Mrs. Clinton released the 32,000 e-mails she deleted. It got a huge ovation from the audience which Lester Holt shushed as soon as he could. On the other hand, any applause for Mrs. Clinton was allowed to continue.
The only problem from Hillary's standpoint with Lester Holt's blatant partisan approach is that he overplayed his hand.He was so obvious about the whole thing that he actually helped Trump, who was perceived as the underdog fighting back against as rigged system, which has been one of Trump's campaign themes. Here was living proof, right in front of everyone. Social media is on fire about this.
Viewer polls from Time Magazine, Drudge and even CNBC showed Trump winning the debate handily and they weren't the only ones. Even Slate showed Trump winning. Needless to say, as I predicted the legacy media is already trying to spin this as a Clinton win, but it's going to be very difficult:
People might forget what you say, but never how you made them feel. Based on that, Trump won handily.
Of course, the 'fact checking' will go on. For instance, Trump was also entirely correct when he said murders had increased in 2016 in spite of the in the tank Politifact's efforts to lie about it. Talk about pants on fire!
Expect a lot more of this. But people simply aren't fooled by the Clinton media as easily as they used to be.
Mrs. Clinton also did herself no favors ranting on about the 'incipient racism' in white society and especially among the police. I guess even when a black cop shoots a black man coming at him with a gun after being told repeatedly to drop his weapon, that's white racism too.
Trump also scored because of his obviously superior knowledge of how business and economics works and with a little exchange he had with Lester Holt about Stop and Frisk. When Holt stated incorrectly that it was 'unconstitutional,' Trump correctly replied that this was a ruling from one judge who was actually removed from the case and that New York's cop hating Mayor De Blasio had chosen to quash what would have likely been a successful appeal.
Trump did make one error I need to mention and he's not the only one. Barack Obama might brag about ending the Iraq War and people may talk about the vacuum this created but both are dead wrong. George W.Bush was the man who signed the disposition of forces agreement with Iraqi leader al-Maliki which called for all U.S. forces to be withdrawn from the Shi'ite dictatorship Bush created there, one of the stupidest things an American president has ever done. It laid the groundwork for Iran to flourish without the checkmate of Saddam Hussein's army right across the Gulf. But Obama can take no credit of blame for pulling our troops out of Iraq.
Of course Obama and Hillary can definitely be charged with having a major role in creating ISIS (which started in Syria as jihadist elements of the Syrian Free Army Obama funded armed and trained, not in Iraq) and destabilizing the entire Middle East with his illegal war in Libya, but that's a different question.
Again, this wasn't even a semblance of a debate. In a real debate, one of the participants can say the moon is made of green cheese and it's not the moderator's job to 'fact check' the speaker but but her opponent's to rebut her. Especially when the 'fact checking' is done in advance and aimed at one candidate and one only.
A final takeaway has to do with the overall demeanor of the candidates. As I predicted both Hillary and her minion Lester Holt tried their best to insult, demean and bait trump hoping to make him lose his cool. He refused to rise to the bait and kept things civil, which surprised a lot of people. He looked presidential compared to Mrs. Clinton's genuinely smug, nasty demeanor. The only time he really let fly a little is when Mrs. Clinton started bragging about her experience and Trump countered by saying something to the effect that it was all bad experience and failure, which again got an ovation Holt did his best to shush.
I honestly don't think Trump realized the extent the media was prepared to go to to try and take him down. They failed, but the Donald is a quick learner. And yes, Trump made a decision to avoid landing what could have been knockout blows in favor of appearing more likeable and presidential. For instance, when Hillary and Lester Holt were painting him as a sexist, it would have been no trouble at all for him to start referring to Hillary's sexual predator of a husband and Hillary's enabling of it. But as Trump tells it, he saw Chelsea in the audience and decided to let it pass because he felt it wasn't the right thing to do. Like Hillary's corruption and weakness on cyber security, most people already know this anyway, so I think that was a smart decision on his part first time out.
Trump fooled me too on this one. At times, I was like Bundini or Angelo Dundee, yelling 'Champ! Get off the ropes! Don't let them pound you like that, mention the Clinton Foundation!'
But like Mohammed Ali, The Donald chose to hold some of his fire and let Crooked Hillary and her media shill beat themselves, rope a dope style. Smart move, and expect him to be even more impressive next time out.
(photo courtesy of WikiCommons, Flickr and Gage Skidmore)
It's definitely on tonight, and while we can't predict exactly how it will go, here are some things I'm pretty sure you can take for granted:
You'll frequently be under the impression Trump is debating 'moderator' Lester Holt rather than Mrs. Clinton.
Matt Lauer was the moderator of the Commander in Chief forum and Lester Holt had to have noticed the gang stomping Matt Lauer got from his peers as well as his employer simply for asking Mrs. Clinton a few questions about her e-mail scandal. It didn't matter that this was something obviously relevant in a forum on national security. Not only did he make her look bad, but he actually had a semblance of fairness when questioning Donald Trump.
No matter how this comes out, Hillary Clinton will be extolled as the Winner by the media afterwards.
Donald Trump, you see, will actually be going three on one here against Mrs. Clinton, the media and the moderator. Unless it's a major blowout, they will call it for Clinton and manipulate the polls to do their best to 'prove' she won.
Expect a fair amount of attempts to insult Trump and get him to lose his cool. 'Nuff said.
Expect the debate rules to be broken if it favors Mrs. Clinton regardless of the rules. If she has one of her infamous coughing fits, expect Lester Holt to go to a station break or commercial, Expect him to allow her to filibuster and not answer questions whenever its remotely possible without being challenged. Expect her to be allowed to try to talk over Trump without being restrained by the 'moderator.'
And expect the exact opposite treatment for Donald Trump.
And unless there's a major gotcha moment, expect this debate to have little impact on the election.
I could be wrong about that last one, but we'll see.
😂😂😂 Hillary Clinton rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. Less than 300 people for her boring speech!😅😅😅#Trumppic.twitter.com/fdmtzDBoR8
With Hillary Clinton out of the way, President Barack Hussein Obama decided to leave the White House to spend hours helping the limping Clinton while major issues (or more likely,improving his golf game) go untouched in Washington instead of having her running mate or her disreputable husband do it. After Obama flew to Philadelphia for a Clinton rally and fundraiser where co-chairs wrote a $100,000 check, Donald Trump issued an absolutely killer response:
SHOULDN’T YOU BE AT WORK?
President Obama Would Rather Campaign For Hillary Clinton Than Solve Major Problems Facing The Country
Today President Obama Will Be Campaigning For Clinton In Pennsylvania. “President Barack Obama will hit the campaign trail Tuesday to rally support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, a state that has served as a firewall for her party in the past six general elections but is now viewed as competitive.” (Kevin Freking And Kathleen Hennessey, “Obama Hits Campaign Trail For Clinton In Philadelphia,” The Associated Press, 9/13/16)
PROBLEM ONE: Obamacare Is In “Deep Trouble,” With Premiums Rising And Large Insurers Pulling Out Of Exchanges. “Obamacare is in deep trouble. The exchanges created by Barack Obama’s signature achievement are attracting millions fewer customers than predicted. The makeup of the system’s risk pool is older, sicker and costlier than anticipated. Some of the largest insurers in the nation have pulled out of the exchanges. Premiums are going up and expected to jump right before November’s election. Perhaps more burdensome, deductibles have soared so high that some Americans who purchased coverage through the system are essentially self-financing their care.” (Byron York, “Byron York: Obamacare Is Failing. Why Isn’t Donald Trump Talking About It?,” Washington Examiner, 8/28/16)
PROBLEM TWO: This Weekend Iran Threatened To Shoot Down Two Navy Aircraft Flying In International Airspace. “Iran threatened to shoot down two US Navy aircraft over the weekend as they were flying just inside the Strait of Hormuz, a US defense official said. The EP-3 and P-8 planes were in international airspace but ‘near Iranian airspace.’” (Barbara Starr, “US Official: Navy Aircraft Threatened With Shoot Down By Iran,” CNN, 9/12/16)
PROBLEM THREE: Last Week North Korea Tested Their “Potentially Most Powerful” Nuclear Weapon, Which State Media Said Could Be Mounted On A Ballistic Missile. “North Korea said it has hit the button on its fifth and potentially most powerful nuclear test Friday morning, claiming to have successfully tested a nuclear warhead. State media said the warhead could be mounted on ballistic rockets and would enable North Korea to produce ‘a variety of smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear warheads of higher strike power.’” (Katie Hunt And KJ Kwon, “North Korea Claims Successful Test Of Nuclear Warhead,” CNN, 9/9/16)
PROBLEM FOUR: Last Month The U.S. GDP For The Second Quarter Was Revised Down To A 1.1 Percent Annualized Rate. “America’s economic growth was even weaker than previously believed in the second quarter of the year, as the country’s gross domestic product ticked up an underwhelming 1.1 percent in April, May and June. U.S. GDP was revised down slightly from a previously reported 1.2 percent annualized rate, according to a report published Friday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.” (Andrew Soergel, “GDP Sinks Lower Despite Spending Uptick,” US News, 8/26/16)
PROBLEM FIVE: The September 2 Jobs Report “Whiffed On Market Expectations,” Showing An Increase Of Just 151,000 Nonfarm Jobs In The Month Of August. “August traditionally has been a difficult month for jobs numbers, and 2016 proved no exception, likely putting the Federal Reserve on hold for a rate hike anytime soon. Nonfarm payrolls increased just 151,000 for the month, extending the futility August has experienced over the years. This is now the 10th time in the past 13 years the month whiffed on market expectations.” (Jeff Cox, “US Created 151,000 Jobs In August Vs. 180,000 Jobs Expected,” CNBC, 9/2/16)
Guess what! Hillary Clinton is the recipient of an official endorsement from the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Clan!
Mrs. Clinton, of course, just started running an ad linking Donald Trump with the Klu Klux Klan, and yesterday, in a speech in Reno, Nevada she openly accused him of being a racist.
But as it turns out, the Klan favors Mrs. Clinton! Here's the Grand Dragon Will Quigg endorsing her candidacy at 2:17
Notice he also has a nice line in Holocaust denial...c'mon you lefty Jews, vote Democrat!
Come to think of it, Hillary was also quite friendly with former Klan Kleagle turned Senator Robert Byrd. Like a lot of Democrats.
Let's get something straight here. I don't think Hillary Clinton is a secret Klan member. But it's fascinating that the media was willing to totally lie about former Klansman David Duke endorsing Donald Trump and make a major headline story out of it while ignoring this item completely.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was interviewed on “Fox & Friends” this morning and had some interesting things to say about upcoming information yet to be released on Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
When co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Assange what he thought the most shocking thing that he had found out about Hillary Clinton was, he replied:
“Well, I think the most interesting and serious relate to upcoming publications we have."
“A variety of different types,” he continued. “But a lot of information that we have already published, I mean it may not be that apparent to most people who are sort of not specializing in your politics and national security.” Here's the interview:
The latest Trump molehill pumped up by the media to obscure the Clinton mountains involves one of the speakers the Democrats had at their convention, Khizr Khan and his wife, to attack Donald Trump, a Pakistani Muslim couple who lost their unfortunately lost their son, a decorated vet, in Iraq in 2004.
The talking point of Mr. Khan's speech was,of course Donald Trump's 'racism' in wanting to 'ban all Muslims from America.' Of course, all Trump has proposed is extreme vetting on immigrants from certain countries ad a temporary ban until we figure out policy, but hey, why go with the truth when a lie works so well and the media will cover for you? Just ask Hillary Clinton!
Mr. Kahn claimed that 'if Donald Trump were president my son would never have come to America' which given some facts we'll look at later, might or might not have been true. And he invited Donald Trump to 'read the Constitution. If he doesn't have one, I will lend him my copy.'
Actually there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits America from refusing anyone entry under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for whatever reason. And the sensible precautions Donald Trump is proposing make far more sense to me then our current policies of amnesty for unvetted Muslims from ISIS infested areas and lying about it to the American people.
Now, I have nothing personal against the Khans and I feel for their loss, but you know, it would have been far more moving if the Clinton campaign had one of the four Benghazi mothers speak at their convention. Oh, wait...when Benghazi mom Pat Smith appeared at the Republican convention, the Democrats laughed at her and smeared her. The PBS talking heads covering the convention even turned down the volume on her and talked over her speech as she described how Hillary Clinton lied to her about the cause of her son's death.
Hey, respect for a dead hero's mom, right? Not unless it fits in with the Left's agenda, thank you.
Now, I think Trump should have ignored Khan's attack on him. After all it's Dem politics as usual. But he unfortunately stuck his foot in it. Someone really needs to explain to him that anything he says or does is going to be deliberately misconstrued and twisted by the media. And that he also needs to stay out of silly twitter wars back and forth, and avoid interviews with hardliners owned by the Clintons masquerading as 'journalists' and 'newsmen' like George Stephanopoulos.
But given that (we'll pretend he's Mrs. Clinton for an instant and ignore the silly 'sacrifices' brouhahah), much of what he said was true.
For instance, it's perfectly true that Hillary's votes and later conduct that helped send the Khan's son to his death in 2004 along with a lot of others, particularly the games she, Joe Biden, a certain Senator Obama and Harry Reid played with funding that cost the lives of our troops.(See former Sec Def Bob Gates' book for details. He's pretty open about how livid he was hearing how they laughed about doing it& deliberately just for the politics when he served in the Obama Administration). And it was the Obama Administration's policies that made their sacrifices in vain.
It's also true that as Trump tweeted, "This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!"
In that context, Mr. Kahn's remarks on how terrorism has nothing to do with Islam also raise some questions in my mind. The Qu'ran, the Hadiths, the Sunna and certain recent events say something very different.
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.
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. {...}
“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. [...]
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.
Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.” 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.”
Those flaws are enormous (much more here) but this certainly does shed a little light on the matter, no? It certainly seems likes the real reason Khizr Khan was so outspoken against Donald Trump has to do with the fact that Khan largely makes his living via shoving unvetted Muslim migration through a leaky visa for sale loophole.
And just as an aside, Mr. Khan, when he's not brandishing the Constitution for the cameras apparently has a real fetish for the very unconstitutional sharia law ! That, along with the above facts does seem to cast some real doubt on the sincerity of what he had to say.
Finally, I have to ask, how much, really, did this have to do with his son? As painful as the loss was and as heroic as is son likely was, why cheapen that for the sake of partisan politics? And why put his wife through that? If she really was as ill as they say, with high blood pressure, this could have easily brought on a stroke. Was it worth the risk just to help get Hillary elected?
In the end, what we have here, once again, is the Democrat media pouncing on Trump's admittedly clumsy phrasing while ignoring the back story, as well as the serial lies, corruption and malfeasance of their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE: Well, what do you know! Now that it's been exposed that Khizr Khan has a law firm that
financially benefits from moving unvetted Muslim migration into America through a major loophole in our immigration laws, Breitbart reports that he's deleted his website from the internet! Here's a screenshot of what it looked like before he tried camouflaging his real interest in all this. Obviously it was never about his son at all. It was a political ploy that just happened to coflate Khan's livelihood with what he needs to keep the cash coming in - Hillary's election and a continued flow of unvetted Muslims.
The website is now gone from the Internet, and instead sends anyone who clicks on the link to his website to a page where he parked the URL until the heat dies down, run by GoDaddy.
It's notable that the entire Democrat media jumped on this without once checking out anything about Khan's affiliations, previous writings on sharia or how he personally profits from unvetted Muslim migration.
And just for giggles, here's Mike Pence doing a superb job of handling an obvious Hillary plant:
In Mrs. Clinton, we have someone who damaged national security to try and hide her own greed and corruption, someone who helped set the entire Middle East on fire, someone who willingly lied to the American people and to the grieving families of the four Benghazi dead that she left to perish when they could have been rescued. And she lied to their families literally in front of their loved one's coffins.
"There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world."
This from President Barack Hussein Obama, who while running his mouth about 'the troops' from time to time has serially treated our military and our veterans with cavalierdisrespect throughout his entire presidency. And who is he endorsing as someone he thinks is fit for the office of president?
