Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

VIDEO – WE FIGHT – DONALD TRUMPS SPEECH TO THE NATION

Wednesday, April 11th, 2018

 

Thanks to Beverly Frassinelli for sharing this inspiring video  of a speech Donald Trump gave on October 13, 2016   Also, thanks to Beverly for sharing her prayer with us  ” May God be with him and our country in this time of peril from America’s enemies from within.”  Nancy

VIDEO –  WE FIGHT  – SPEECH BY DONALD TRUMP
TEXT OF SPEECH

We Fight…

On October 13th 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump delivered a speech that defines this moment in our nation’s history. Part of that speech was put to a video. The entire transcript of that speech is below.

.

Transcript ] […] Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.

The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.

The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.

For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat.

 

This is not simply another 4-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not We The People reclaim control over our government.

(more…)

Share

THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FBI

Wednesday, March 14th, 2018

 

IMPRIMIS

The Politicization of the FBI

February 2018 • Volume 47, Number 2

Joseph E. diGenova  Former U.S. Attorney


Joseph E. diGenovaJoseph E. diGenova is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, LLP. He received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and his J.D. from Georgetown University. He has served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel of the United States, Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee).


 

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 25, 2018, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. 

Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.

(more…)

Share

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
Search All Posts
Categories