Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

THE MEMO – WHAT IT SAYS AND FULL TEXT

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Share

HILLARY- OBAMA EMAILS: WHY HILLARY WASN’T INDICTED

Thursday, January 25th, 2018

 

Andrew McCarthy makes a very good case as to why Hillary wasn’t indicted.  Obama’s secret  emails, with him using a pseudonymous email account  to Hillary,  saved her.   All would of been forgotten if Hillary had won the presidency as had been assumed.  No wonder Hillary threw a fit when she lost because she knew the truth would eventually come out.  The chants of “lock her up”   when she appeared at Trump’s inauguration (I was there in the audience and it made me cringe too) must of made her blood run cold !   Nancy
Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted

New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.

By Andrew C. McCarthy — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.    — January 23, 2018

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point.

 

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., herehere, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
Share

CLINTON-OBAMA EMAILS: WHY HILLARY WASN’T INDICTED

Thursday, January 25th, 2018

 

Andrew McCarthy makes a very good case as to why Hillary wasn’t indicted.  Obama’s secret  emails, with him using a pseudonymous email account  to Hillary,  saved her.   All would of been forgotten if Hillary had won the presidency as had been assumed.  No wonder Hillary threw a fit when she lost because she knew the truth would eventually come out.  The chants of “lock her up”   when she appeared at Trump’s inauguration (I was there in the audience and it made me cringe too) must of made her blood run cold !   Nancy
Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted

New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.

By Andrew C. McCarthy — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.    — January 23, 2018
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point.

 

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., herehere, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
Share

ABEDIN FORWARDED STATE PASSWORDS TO YAHOO BEFORE IT WAS HACKED BY FOREIGN AGENTS

Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018

 

THE DAILY CALLER

Abedin Forwarded State Passwords To Yahoo Before It Was Hacked By Foreign Agents

by Luke Rosiak    January 1, 2018

Huma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.

Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with high-level correspondence in Clinton’s State Department was impacted by one or more of a series of breaches — at least one of which was perpetrated by a “state-sponsored actor.”

The U.S. later charged Russian intelligence agent Igor Sushchin with hacking 500 million Yahoo email accounts. The initial hack occurred in 2014 and allowed his associates to access accounts into 2015 and 2016 by using forged cookies. Sushchin also worked for the Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital, which paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a June 2010 speech in Moscow.

A separate hack in 2013 compromised three billion accounts across multiple Yahoo properties, and the culprit is still unclear. “All Yahoo user accounts were affected by the August 2013 theft,” the company said in a statement.

Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, regularly forwarded work emails to her personal humamabedin@yahoo.comaddress. “She would use these accounts if her (State) account was down or if she needed to print an email or document. Abedin further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print,” an FBI report says.

Abedin sent passwords for her government laptop to her Yahoo account on Aug. 24, 2009, an email released by the State Department in September 2017 shows.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

 

Share

“OBAMA’S ENFORCER: ERIC HOLDER’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT”

Saturday, December 16th, 2017

 

The co-author of the book mentioned in the article below,  “Obama’s Enforcer:  Eric Holder’s Justice Department”,  is Hans A. von Spakovsky who will be guest speaker at ICON in Chapel Hill on Tuesday, April 17, 2018.  Season tickets for all of ICON’s lectures are now available at www.iconlectureseries.com     Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A TALE OF TWO CULTURES
– – Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute and a director of Citizens for the Republic.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote a whole book on corruption in the Holder Justice Department called “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told the authors Mr. Holder had: racialized and radicalized the division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics.

“Prospect of New Special Counsel Rattles Justice” was the scary front-page headline on a recent, worried edition of The Washington Post. The faux fuss was caused by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ suggestion that after weighing recommendations from senior prosecutors, he might appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal.

The key facts of that deal, for those whose attention has been wholly absorbed by the all-day coverage of the corruption trial of Sen. Bob Menendez (New Jersey Democrat, of course), are: First, Russian interests gave the Clinton Foundation $145 million dollars; second, paid (now finally, not after Harvey Weinstein but only after Roy Moore) disgraced former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a short speech on tying shoelaces; following which, third, the sale of Uranium One to the Russians was cleared by the State Department then run by (now mostly disgraced for covering shamelessly for the now finally and fully disgraced said Bill ClintonHillary Clinton.

It’s true that eight other government agencies also had to approve the sale, but does anyone really think that either a low-level bureaucrat, a mid-level Democratic appointee, or a possible future Democratic candidate for any office in the land (even canine collector) would have crossed the Democratic Party’s very own Wicked Witch of the West?

Democratic Louis Renaults, who are rattled at what they claim is politicization of the Justice Department, should turn the clock back (any conservative can show them how) to the Eric Holder Justice Department days for a master class on politicizing.

John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote a whole book on corruption in the Holder Justice Department called “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told the authors Mr. Holder had: racialized and radicalized the division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics.

People may differ on what kind of actions they think rise to the level of politicization. That is not only inevitable, but increasingly likely in our increasingly polarized political world.

The real issue, slouching slowly toward our conscientiousness, is: Can two major cultures coexist in our democracy? In any democracy?

American politics has always been rambunctious. One need only read accounts of some of America’s early political campaigns to get a sense of the permanence of political hyperbole — doing business as mudslinging.

Even so, perhaps, but only perhaps, we think the administration of justice should be different. It would be satisfying to blame the high-octane politicization of the courts on Sen. Edward Kennedy’s unspeakable campaign in 1987 against Robert Bork’s confirmation to be a justice on the Supreme Court. In fact, the uber-politicization of the courts began years earlier, perhaps in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion. That decision was simply legislation from the bench; divisive then, divisive now. And more legislation, and more divisiveness, came with the Supreme Court’s decisions legalizing sodomy, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and marriage between homosexuals, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

But now the party’s over, for the left. And you can see why they’re worried. There are 18 vacancies on the Courts of Appeal and 127 in the Federal District Courts. The Senate has already confirmed 12 of President Trump’s nominees. He may fill most of the remaining vacancies during his first term, and will certainly fill them all if he gets a second term. Because the judges serve for life, their influence will be felt for decades to come.

But there are still two cultures. One lives according to traditional Western Civ. morality, the other pushes a feel-good cocktail of new-age practices; one believes in limited government, the other that government power should reign supreme. And the struggle will continue. The leftist side has been most prominently represented by the Clintons, though it does look now as if their day, finally, is passing. It’s passing because of Hillary’s defeat, and because of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, and that of so many of the left-wing cinematic glitterati whose behavior was just like his and, just like his, known to the rest of the denizens of the glitterati galaxy — including, undoubtedly, the Clintons.

Is it any wonder the Deplorables say, “Lock her up”?

Lock her up, indeed. Tempting. Better, probably — more fun, certainly — to put one of those ankle bracelets on her and on Bill, and sentence them to stay close to each other, always. Till death do them part.

A better slogan might be: “Lock her up — and give culture a chance.” But the rattled writers of scary headlines know that traditional Western Civ. culture may now get a chance even if she stays free.

• Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute and a director of Citizens for the Republic.

 

Share

MUELLER, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI AREN’T HELPING THE LAWMAKERS’ PROBE

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Obstruction of Congress

Mueller, the Justice Department and the FBI aren’t helping the lawmakers’ probe.

Share

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

 

Where does  Jeff Sessions stand, as the new Director of  the Justice Department,  in all of this stonewalling that the Dept of Justice is doing? ( See link below of Jeff Sessions before Congress)  The smell of this whole investigation is nauseating !    Nancy
   www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w0pQWsHQmk  –  Heated exchange between Jeff Sessions and Jim Jordan of  Congress
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mueller’s Credibility Problem

The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

(more…)

Share

HILLARY CLINTON, THE DNC AND THE LAW

Wednesday, November 29th, 2017

 

The co-author of this article is Hans von Spakovsky who will be ICON’s guest speaker on Tuesday, April 17, 2018 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  The subject of his talk is “What Do We Really Know About Voter Fraud”.  Tickets are available online at www.iconlectureseries.com   Season tickets for 2018 are also now available.  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the Law

Did their arrangement violate legal limits on coordination between a candidate and a party?

November 13, 2017
by Cleta Mitchell and Hans von Spakovsky   Ms. Mitchell is a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP who practices federal campaign finance law. Mr. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
 

Donna Brazile has confirmed Bernie Sanders’s worst suspicions. Ms. Brazile, who served as interim chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the fall 2016 campaign, says in a new book that during the primaries, the DNC was controlled by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Ms. Brazile claims the arrangement was “not illegal,” but that is far from clear.

Ms. Brazile reports that when she arrived on the job in July 2016, Gary Gensler, the campaign’s chief financial officer, told her the DNC was fully under the control of the campaign. In September 2015, 10 months before Mrs. Clinton’s nomination, the party had moved its bank account to the same bank in New York used by the Clinton campaign and created a joint fundraising committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, whose treasurer, bank account, and control were vested in the campaign.

Then, in an August 2015 memorandum of understanding, the DNC essentially handed over its operations to the Clinton campaign for the next 15 months.

The purpose of joint fundraising committees is to allow more than one entity to collaborate in raising money and share in the costs. Each participant is subject to federal contribution limits. When the party itself is a participant, its committee (in this case the DNC) normally handles accounting and financial controls. Not here. The Hillary Victory Fund was controlled by the Clinton campaign, with a campaign employee as treasurer and the fund’s bank account established at the Clinton campaign’s bank. According to Federal Election Commission reports, the Hillary Victory Fund has raised more than $526 million.

The DNC asserted its “neutrality” by also entering into a joint fundraising committee with the Sanders campaign. It raised a total of $1,000. And the Bernie Victory Committee treasurer was the DNC’s designee.

(more…)

Share

IMPORTANT – INTERVIEW WITH SARA CARTER RE OBAMA/CLINTON RUSSIAN COLLUSION

Wednesday, October 25th, 2017

 

This is a very important audio interview that Gadi Adelman, a counter terrorism expert,  just sent of his Israeli Talk Radio interview with Sara Carter of Circa News    – www.circa.com/staff/sara-carter – BIO OF SARA CARTER
(She is an absolutely  fascinating and accomplished woman and award winning investigative journalist)   Nancy  P.S. WARNING –   I’m flying home tomorrow and have an unbelievable back log of articles to send out !!! 
INTERVIEW WITH SARA CARTER




“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Lan astaslem (لن استسلم‎)
“I will never surrender/I will never submit”.

Share

CLINTON COVER-UP BY THE SAME PEOPLE INVESTIGATING TRUMP

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

 

The Clinton Cover-Up Has Been Orchestrated By The Same People Investigating Trump

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. 
  Fox Business  – 
Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.
But there’s more.  It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”
The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter).  Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
The corrupt scheme is said to have been financed by the Russians through bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.
Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years.  Until now.
Clinton Corruption and Racketeering?
Share
Search All Posts
Categories