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.

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.

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.

The Real Story Behind The Clinton-Lynch Meeting

 

Here's the narrative we're being expected to believe...Bill Clinton and Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to run into each other at the Phoenix Arizona airport and had a friendly little chat for 30 or 40 minutes on AG Lynch's private plane about golf and grand kids.

That didn't pass the smell test with anyone but the most gullible true believers. For one thing, anyone familiar with the security arrangement involved in this sort of thing for ex-presidents and a standing Attorney General knows that this kind of meeting is arranged far in advance. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch may want the peasants disarmed and helpless, but they have 24-7 well armed security provided for them by the taxpayers wherever they go and whatever they do. Not only that, but even for private planes takeoff has to be coordinated and scheduled with the airport and kept to that schedule unless there's a major emergency or maintenance issue.

And it's also obvious that the agenda for this meeting was also planned in advance. Chatting about grand kids and golf doesn't take 30 or 40 minutes.And heart patients usually don't subject themselves to triple digit temperatures by choice unless it's something vital.

Even more interesting, our Attorney General meeting with Bill Clinton was highly inappropriate for reasons we'll discuss shortly, and both Clinton, as a disbarred lawyer and Lynch knew that. It's also worth noting that the only reason we know about this is because of a reporter working for a local ABC affiliate reported on this. Not only was this initially ignored by the Ready For Hillary media, but the FBI actually made a cordon around the plane and informed everyone that no photos, no pictures,and no cell phones were allowed, according to Christopher Sign of ABC 15 in Phoenix who broke the story.

In other words, Clinton, Lynch and their media allies did their best to keep this a secret meeting and would have succeeded except for one reporter at a local outlet. Why else have the FBI guarding the meeting order everyone not to make any records of the Lynch and Clinton getting together that might leak out?

 

So, what was on that agenda? What were they talking about?

To answer that question, you have to remember that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton go back aways. It was President Clinton whom picked her out of obscurity and made her a federal District Judge in 1999 just before he left office, and the Clintons and Loretta Lynch have known each other for some time...partners in crime, so to speak. To remotely think that the current FBI investigations weren't discussed is the height of naivete' and defies belief.

While we have no way of knowing exactly what was discussed, we can tell a great deal from the aftermath.

One lie being repeated over and over again in the 'ready for Hillary' media, including the New York Times, of course, is that Attorney General Lynch has now experienced a Road to Damascus moment, and that even though of course nothing illegal or improper was done, she really, really regrets having a chat with the former president. Or to put it more truthfully, she's sure sorry she got caught having a secret meeting with her patron.

So, just to show she's on the up and up, to quote pravda-on-the-Hudson, she's said "she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

Except that's not what she said at all.

Actually, what Loretta Lynch said is that' I FULLY EXPECT to accept their recommendations.' That can mean anything. She could decide (wink, wink) to simply continue to stonewall. She could, for instance, decide to accept some of the charges more easily defended by the Clintons in court and ignore others, something that could be determined by clandestine meetings with the Clintons and/or their legal team...especially since she will have full access to all the evidence against them in advance.

She will also be in charge of the prosecution, deciding which lawyers become prosecutors and how the case is prosecuted, which could mean a poorly prosecuted case as opposed to one designed to actually convict.

By not recusing herself, she remains in control and is letting us know that a deal has been cut between her and the Clintons...a Supreme Court nominations perhaps, a position as dean at a major law school, or simply cold cash. It could be anything.

Another little tidbit that the media is ignoring is that a mere two days after her secret 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. What's under investigation? 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. And whose being investigated? Not only Hillary's minions Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, but ex-president Bill Clinton, the head of the Foundation.

Yes, you got that right. We're not just talking about Mrs. Clinton. The head of America's Department of Justice, the chief law enforcement officer in the nation met secretly with bill Clinton, whose also under investigation by the FBI.

So we're talking about this evidence not being submitted until October 2018, about 22 months into Mrs. Clinton's presidency if she's elected.

And even if the motion isn't granted (unlikely since the judge involved is U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama appointee), just look at how the State Department has already been stonewalling:

Citizens United has sued for emails between a handful of State Department officials and people at the Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm, Teneo Consulting, which has ties to the Clintons.

Among other errors, State officials said than an initial test looking at just 300 emails, which was used to calculate the amount of time necessary to process the emails, neglected to include keyword searches of the messages. Instead, they only searched the “To” and “From” lines of the messages, which failed to catch many emails.

State Department officials also “inadvertently” labeled some email attachments as irrelevant to the open records request, without checking them to make sure.

No wonder their initial estimate that only 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged by State Department figures with the Clinton Foundation has now changed to “34,116 potentially responsive documents.”

Any honest attorney general would have appointed a special prosecutor long ago, and certainly would NEVER have met with someone who's under a criminal investigation. That's not what we're dealing with here.

What we'll see is a long period of stalls and legal gymnastics for the next four months until after the election, when Loretta Lynch will either decide that the evidence is 'insufficient to prosecute' or will file a motion of disinclination to prosecute, just like Eric Holder did to protect CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups from being prosecuted for money laundering and material aid to terrorism.

Don't expect much to come of this. The fix is in.

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!

The Clinton E-Mail Scandal And How It Will End

The media are doing their best to keep it very much under the wire, but the Clinton e-mail scandal has been heating up to the point it can't be ignored much longer.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III just made an absolutely damning  report to the intelligence committees in the House and Senate to the effect that in addition to 1,340 emails designated “classified” stored on her private home brew server, Mrs. Clinton actually had emails on her server that contained intelligence from “special access programs,” which is “a level of classification beyond even ‘top secret’.”

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

'Special Access' is highly restricted to 'need to know' high level persons  because exposure of the intelligence could reveal the source. That could derail an entire method of intel collection, or put an important source in mortal danger. Even the very news that Mrs. Clinton was doing this on an unsecured private server  almost certainly damaged U.S. intelligence collection. Would you provide intel to the U.S. if you found out Mrs. Clinton had been risking your life in this fashion just to pad her corrupt foundation with a few more dishonest dollars, or hide some of her more questionable doings? Would you even remotely consider it?

And yes, the information was definitely hacked.

 Mrs. Clinton at this point is probably  guilty of many breeches of State Department policy as well as outright felonies according to the federal laws covering these matters...for instance, to cite  18 US Code 107:

"Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation Generally: Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. ... and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

There's also 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information and quite possibly 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information.

The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the guilt for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. Maximum sentence is a fine and ten years in prison.

That's especially interesting since (a) it could involve Mrs. Clinton's close associates Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and (b) it's now come out that Mrs. Clinton had a second private server, not the one in Chappaqua, but another satellite server located at the Clinton Family Foundation. Since whatever was on Hillary's server was thus accessible by Bill Clinton and other people at the Clinton Foundation, and since both contained data and documents top secret and higher in classification, whomever accessed this data could likewise be indicted and prosecuted. We also have to wonder whether this satellite server in the Clinton Foundation was used to traffick intel and classified information to foreign powers or other interested customers for 'donations.' Would that surprise anyone, knowing what we know now?

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. Given the stonewalling and probable perjury based on Mrs. Clinton's various statements before congressional committees, this could easily apply. Even more damaging, it's now been proven that dozens of senior State Department officials knew about Mrs. Clinton's illegal private server and not only covered up for her but openly lied to groups requesting lawful and legitimate  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compliance. 

According to this law if it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, that accused can be convicted of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The all important  mens rea (proof of intent) is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

There's a lot more, but I think you get the picture. I merely want to point out how deep the investigations have already gone and what's been discovered, since the media would rather you didn't know.

So moving on, where is this likely to end up?

As I said before on these pages,the FBI and the Justice Department work for President Obama. That the Justice department under the president's carefully chosen racialist Attorney General Loretta Lynch would certainly  go along in simply ignoring all this. But the FBI is a different matter. Whatever their flaws, the FBI has a culture of being incorruptible, of having no tolerance for lawbreaking no matter who's involved.

James Comey, the current head of the Bureau has a long history of the same sort of ethics. He helped prosecute the Gambino crime family, was the lead prosecutor in the case concerning the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and served as assistant attorney general during the Bush administration. He even stood up to President Bush and was willing to resign after he was pressured as acting Attorney General (John Ashcroft had been hospitalized) to "certify" the legality of certain aspects of the NSA surveillance program at that time.

As bad as this scandal is getting, I'm fairly certain that Comey and the FBI will recommend prosecution to Obama's Attorney General. And I  doubt that letting Mrs Clinton slide on this blatant lawbreaking wouldn't be met by resignations from James Comey and a number of other FBI personnel. That would shine a spotlight on all this that would not benefit Mrs. Clinton's political ambitions at all.

While President Barack Hussein Obama has no love for the Clintons and would undoubtedly giggle uncontrollably at the idea of one or both Clintons doing the perp walk, he likewise has problems with the scenario of her being  prosecuted. Can you imagine what could happen if Mrs. Clinton were indicted and decided to trade immunity for everything she knows about Fast and Furious, Benghazi and numerous other scandals she has to have been privy to? Just imagine if she once heard the president bragging about how he was using the IRS as a political weapon! There may even be things the renowned Clinton opposition research uncovered about Barack Obama as long ago as 2008 that this president would rather the American public remains ignorant about. At this point, he's not facing re-election but has his legacy to consider, and Mrs. Clinton could do quite a bit to destroy that were she so inclined.

But if he has the Department of Justice ignore this, President Obama risks spotlighting this in a way that further tarnishes what is already the worst presidency in U.S. history in a way not even some of the True Believers will be able to stomach. And it also risks reminding the electorate at a crucial time who Hillary Clinton is, to the point that she gets beat like a gong come election time.

But if he allows her to be prosecuted, he's playing with dynamite that could explode in his face painfully as she deals for her freedom. Not only that, but he has to deal with Bernie Sanders as the nominee, who isn't under his control at this point and who would likely get slaughtered in the general election.

What to do?

So I'm going to make a prediction here. President Obama will not prosecute her, but will have a Mob-style sit down and  make a deal with the Clintons. If Mrs. Clinton ends her campaign and maintains omerta, he will issue her a full pardon for any wrongdoing she might have done "in recognition of her long record of dedicated public service." She'll keep her ill-gotten gains and stay out of jail provided she ends her campaign and keeps her mouth shut.

Once she ends her campaign, the Bernie Sanders problem will be dealt with by having Joe Biden declare his candidacy with the full backing of the White House, Hillary's endorsement and the support of the Democrat super-delegates.

Watch and see if that's not how things turn out.

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?