Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
|Register||FAQ||Pictures||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Time to Criminalize Tyranny
Time to Criminalize Tyranny
Some say that Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted to foster "reconciliation." The reality is that if we allow liberals to constantly misuse government power and break the law with no consequences, they will never stop.
By Tom Trinko
Some people are calling for "reconciliation" after Trump's election. Some even say that Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted.
The reality is that if we allow liberals to constantly misuse government power and break the law with no consequences, they will never stop. Like little children, they need a spanking to keep them in line.
President Trump should set up a special prosecutor to dig up all the government workers, from Hillary on down, who used government power to further tyranny.
People like Lois Lerner, who used the full power of the IRS to silence voices that disagreed with her political leanings, should not just be able to retire and collect a pension.
So long as liberals know they can misuse the power of government and get away with it, they will continue to wage war against the American people while being paid by the American people.
Hillary has to be tried for her pay for play schemes and her imperilment of national security. It's un-American for one set of laws to apply to citizens, like the Marine (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...clintons-case/) who was thrown out of the Corps because he sent a classified message on unclassified email in order to save lives, and another to people who are in power.
In 2008, a liberal Ohio government employee illegally searched government records for information on "Joe the Plumber," who had embarrassed Obama. She was suspended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro...e_Wurzelbacher) for two months but not fired. When sued, her legal fees were paid for by the taxpayers of Ohio. While Ohio passed a law requiring firing as a consequence of such actions, her getting off so easily clearly emboldened others in the federal government to misuse their governmental authority for Obama.
In addition to misusing government power to attack conservatives, liberals in government are constantly abusing their authority by covering up illegal actions by liberals.
During the Obama years, we've seen case after case of the government either ignoring court orders or congressional requests or slow-rolling them, saying they'll produce (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...-2020-election) all of Hillary's emails by 2020, for example. If the government employees involved knew they faced immediate firing for such behavior, it would be much harder for corrupt politicians like Obama to get their minions to abuse government power.
We can't drain the swamp if all the alligators have life preservers and "get out of jail free" cards.
We need to strike fear in the hearts of all government workers. They need to know that if they intentionally abuse their power, they face serious negative consequences – just as citizens know that if they break the law, they face consequences.
Clearly, government workers can exercise their First Amendment rights, and it's no crime to support the Democratic Party. But violating their oath of office has to have consequences; otherwise, innocent people will continue to be crushed by the behemoth state that liberals have created.
We can't let liberal government employees be above the law and unanswerable to anyone for their actions.
That may sound harsh, but the reality is that today Americans are afraid of their government because it's impossible for any but the richest people to win a fight with government workers run amok.
If the IRS shows up at your door because you expressed conservative opinions, you're essentially doomed. So honest priests and ministers who have political views consistent with Christian teaching are afraid to speak out.
But at the same time, liberal preachers know they can openly advocate for liberals like Obama or Hillary because the government won't prosecute them.
Similarly, Catholic nuns have had to expend a huge amount of money fighting for their First Amendment right to not support abortion while the liberal government workers who are attacking them get paid with taxpayer dollars.
It's a double standard because conservatives who go against the liberal line are in danger of losing their jobs.
Scooter Libby was prosecuted for having a bad memory, and the prosecutor intentionally concealed exculpatory evidence. But Libby was a conservative.
That reflects the reality that if a conservative is perceived as abusing government power by liberals, he will be viciously attacked and prosecuted. But a liberal actually pleading the 5th knows that he will not suffer any adverse consequences.
That has to change. Every government worker should be constantly aware that if he abuses his power and citizens complain, he can be fired and prosecuted.
The first step in draining the swamp is making it clear that anyone who misuses his government authority, conservative or liberal, will lose his job. Without that, the swamp will be like the Augean stables, and we'll never be able to drain it.
Today we live in a tyranny because the people are afraid of the government. We need to change that so that the government is afraid of the people in order to restore the America the Founders left us.
Be Wary of Democrats Bearing Gifts
Be Wary of Democrats Bearing Gifts
Even if the Clintons never see the inside of a court of law, revelations about their criminal undertakings will convict them in the court of public opinion.
By J. Robert Smith
Donald Trump wins a smashing victory on Tuesday, and the aftermath is all lovey-dovey. The Wicked Witch of the West Hillary makes a gracious concession speech. President Barack Obama extends an olive branch to Trump. Meanwhile, Soros-backed leftist agitators (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sor...ts-revolution/) agitate the campus snowflakes, twenty-something basement dwellers, and alternative music wannabes to take to the streets. The election results are causing tantrums. But the universal, thundering condemnation by Democrats of their spoiled brats’ brigades gives heart. No? No thumping condemnation across the Democratic Party? No mainstream media outcry? That should give you a hint to real feelings.
Hillary’s and Barack’s magnanimity can’t be hooey, say the right-proper elites. The mainstream media (the propaganda organ - http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...gandists_.html of the Democratic Party, lest we fail to remind) praised both for their post-election swellness, albeit without the MSM’s typical ebullience. Republicans did so as well, because a lot of Republicans aren’t terribly street-smart.
Realists have serious doubts about Barack’s and Hillary’s sincerity. Yep, there’s still some decorum left in America, and both had to abide it on Wednesday -- and Barack with Trump at the White House on Thursday. Very shortly, though, Donald Trump, demeaned but days ago as a loutish orange-haired hotel and casino builder and operator with illusions of Putin, will have the power to unleash hell on both. Both must have bouts of cold sweats with the thought. Could the hell being visited upon Clinton and Obama factor into their niceness toward The Donald?
Rudy Giuliani – Trump’s top choice for attorney general (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2867317) -- is rumored to be a bulldog. There’s word on the street that he took down the NYC mob in the 80s. There are rumblings around DC that Barack has been advised by Trump’s agents not to pardon Hillary.
Hillary, in particular, but Barack, too, has dirty hands. Something about private servers, highly classified information being exchange over said servers, lying, and such. Barack, the fortunate son, probably skates. Hillary may not be so fortunate, she having spent her adult life scooping up poop behind her compulsively horny and dishonest hubby. Oh, and having to clean up her own mountain of poop, too.
Unless Barack pardons her, defying the warnings. That’s a distinct possibility, but how would that play as part of Barack’s legacy (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...s-her-obama/)? Isn’t pardoning Hillary tantamount to an admission of a lot of wrongdoing on her part? Pardoned without any indictments (yes, multiple in Hillary’s case)? Heck, without one grand jury being convened. Without convictions? Smells like a fix. That might just be the conclusion drawn by the public and future historians.
If Barack fixes Hillary, he’d have to fix Bill, too. But just fixing it for the two Arkansas grifters isn’t enough. There are, perhaps, a couple of dozen lesser personages who are accessories to Hillary’s and Bill’s crimes, high and low. That big web spun from Hillary’s violations of national security and the Clintons’ play-to-pay mega scheme -- branded drolly the “Clinton Foundation” -- has ensnared a lot of people, mostly Democrats.
Hillary and Bill set free by Barack the Benevolent might not sit well with many of those lesser personages implicated. A bunch may not share John Podesta’s Goebbels-like fealty to the glue factory-destined Clintons.
The Clintons living the remainder of their seedy existences in luxury and narassitic indifference at Chappaqua and Orgy Island might rankle pardon-deprived minions, particularly when they find themselves in the crosshairs of a special prosecutor. Kitchen duty at maximum, medium, and minimum security pens doesn’t quite have the charms of a Jeffrey Epstein bacchanal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_654674.html). Many will sing like canaries, turning state’s evidence for reduced sentences, thereby doing in bigger fish among their comrades. The affair will have the eerie reminiscence of the Donner Party (http://www.historicmysteries.com/don...y-cannibalism/).
What of Huma, Hillary’s joined-at-the-hip “aide?” No pardon for her. How much will Hillary be willing to pony-up and raise to lawyer-up Huma? But even the best most highly paid, high-powered attorneys can’t guarantee Huma walking. Her erstwhile nothing-to-lose perv husband, Tony Weiner, may now be driving a few nails in Huma’s legal coffin. Huma may rue the day she fashioned the chains that conjoined her to Tony and confined her in the Clintons’ dungeon.
Nonetheless, even if the Clintons never see the inside of a court of law, moreover a jailhouse, the revelations and testimony from the help about the Clintons’ criminal undertakings will convict them in the court of public opinion. Historians will one day rank both in the annals of ignominy a thousand rungs lower than Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold combined. As Trump might say, the Clintons are “bad hombres.”
Of course, it’s going to be up to President Trump to kick off the legal festivities. Donald Trump, if anything, is a man of his own mind. His mind needs to continue to bend toward justice. Not malice, not revenge -- justice.
In the coming days, many will be the whispers in Trump’s ear with the same message: “For the sake of the nation, let’s just move on.” But justice unrequited would leave a huge agenda item unaddressed. Leniency for the Clintons and their henchmen sweeps justice under the nation’s rug. It’s vital that the rule of law not be trampled. There can’t be two standards of justice in America, one for elites and the other for Joes and Janes. Pursuing justice isn’t a distraction; it’s an imperative.
For those of us who back Trump, we’re confident that his campaign declarations will translate into presidential action. His attorney general -- be that Rudy or someone else -- spearheading investigations and indictments would play too partisan. But a special prosecutor -- a professional of stellar, fierce reputation, amply resourced -- is the ticket. Let the facts and evidence lead to findings and decisions. Americans will abide indictments or exonerations honestly and diligently arrived at.
It’s always wise to be wary of politicians bearing gifts. When they’re Democrats, that goes double.
Last edited by Paparock; 11-12-2016 at 03:57 PM..
Indict Hillary Clinton
Indict Hillary Clinton
President Trump should keep his promise to incarcerate this fugitive from justice.
By Daniel John Sobieski
While Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” was marching to the polls pitchforks and torches in hand to deny her access to the presidency and a new revenue source for the Clinton Foundation, Scooter Libby got his law license back and was reinstated to the bar (http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/sc...rt-of-appeals/) by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff when he was charged with obstruction of an investigation into the “outing” of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Plame was in fact a desk jockey at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, not a secret agent in harm’s way. As Investor’s Business Daily noted (http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...-seals-name/):
Remember the alleged outing of the already known CIA officer and desk jockey Valerie Plame? We were told then that the Vanity Fair cover girl's 15 minutes of fame jeopardized our national security even if everybody already knew who she was.
"Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, went to jail because his memory of events and who said what to whom regarding Plame differed from the recollections of others, particularly news reporters.
Libby in fact did not out Plame who was not a covert operative. Hillary Clinton, whose faulty memory caused her to say to the FBI she couldn’t recall some 39 times, did in fact endanger the lives of foreign operatives in her “carelessness”, as FBI Director James Comey put it, regarding classified emails.
Scooter Libby’s “crimes” included making “false” statements to the FBI in the case of the alleged “outing” of well-known CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame. If anyone has made false statements to the FBI, it is one Hillary Rodham Clinton. Saying you don’t recall more than three dozen times (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...fbi-interview/) doesn’t past the Pinocchio test.
Plame was as noted a well-known desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Hillary’s lies and reckless carelessness included the transmission of emails containing the names of actual CIA operatives in the field involved in clandestine operations. As the New York Post reported (http://nypost.com/2016/02/01/hillary...t-my-emails/):
Hillary Clinton’s e-mails included the names of CIA officers serving overseas and foreigners who are on the spy agency’s payroll -- potentially endangering their lives, it was reported Monday.
“It’s a death sentence,” a senior intelligence-community official told the Observer. “If we’re lucky, only [foreign] agents, not our officers, will get killed because of this.”
The paper said the intelligence community is in panic mode trying to determine which agents may have been compromised.
CIA officials assume foreign agencies intercepted unencrypted e-mails stored on Clinton’s. home server while she was secretary of state.
So why was Libby convicted and Hillary Clinton not even indicted? In an interesting historical footnote, Comey, who falsely claimed no serious prosecutor would take the case of Hillary Clinton, was among those who found sufficient evidence to prosecute and convict Libby. Comey, it appears, has even more explaining to do. As the Daily Caller reports (http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/sc...-of-appeals/):
Washington D.C.-based former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova believes the Libby decision is a “terrible blow” to FBI Director James Comey, who announced Sunday that the agency had no new conclusions on Hillary Clinton and her private server from the 650,000 new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
“Scooter Libby was restored to the practice of law by the DC court of appeals because they believed that Scooter Libby presented evidence that his original trial had been corrupted by false testimony. And that false testimony was coerced by Jim Comey’s friend Patrick Fitzgerald and Comey was part of the team to destroy the vice president of the United States and it didn’t happen,” DiGenova said.
He added,” It’s such a smack in the face to Jim Comey. Comey and Fitzgerald tried to frame Scooter Libby, and they did….”
The evidence against Hillary is damning, and the line of prosecutors willing to take the case would encircle the FBI building in Washington, D.C. Judge Michael Mikasey, former attorney general under President George W. Bush, listed the charges that Hillary Clinton could face on Fax Radio’s “Kilmeade and Friends (http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/03/03/...tter)<b>:”</b>
We are looking at a range of things, everything from the misdemeanor that was charged against General Petraeus, which is putting classified information in an unprotected, classified setting, that’s a misdemeanor. Then there is destroying government records. Then there is taking information related to the national defense and treating it with gross negligence such as it becomes disclosed. And finally, there is obstruction of justice.”
There is the destruction of evidence under Congressional subpoena. As even Comey admitted, Hillary lied about sending and receiving classified material; about having only one device, and about turning over all her emails. If intent is needed, what is accidental about smashing devices with hammers or using Bleach Bit to render emails unrecoverable? If you need a motive for having a private server, which speaks to intent, the obvious purpose is to cover up the “pay to play” trail that leads from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation.
As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized (http://www.investors.com/Hillary-Cli...itorial+RSS%29), donations to the Clinton Foundation even played a factor in the refusal of Hillary Clinton’s State Department to designate Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a terrorist organization for two years:
Hillary's emails may be only the tip of an iceberg that could include Clinton Foundation donations to shield Boko Haram from being designated a terrorist group and her brother's involvement in a Haitian gold mine….
In interviews with the Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which seems more and more to be an unseemly mix of charitable work with the political and business interests of Clinton Foundation donors.
And then there's Hillary's strange dealings regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, which just recently pledged its allegiance to the ever-expanding Islamic State -- dubbed the "JV team" by President Obama, who has yet to make good on his pledge to degrade and destroy them.
Last May, we wondered why for two years on Hillary Clinton's watch the State Department refused to designate a Nigerian Islamist group as a terrorist organization. This group has murdered thousands as it wages a real war on women. As Josh Rogin at the Daily Beast reports, the Clinton State Department "refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011" after the group bombed the United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria…
How many of the more than 30,000 "personal" emails that Hillary deleted from her private account relate to these matters? Is that why she needed a private email server? We need to see that server. It might provide, er, a veritable gold mine of information.
This is but one example. The public corruption of Hilary and Bill Clinton was also on display in Colombia (http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...mbia_scam.html), Haiti, and other places. Hillary Clinton has endangered the lives of our foreign operatives, placed our national security at risk, lied to Congress, the FBI, and the American people, and used her public office to enrich herself and her family without benefit if a business or private sector job.
Various FBI offices are said to still be investigating the Clinton Foundation and we can only hope so. Comey doesn’t think there’s any fire under all that smoke but perhaps a Trump attorney general might think differently. We have hope in Trump’s own remarks in a presidential debate as reported by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/p...lection-2016):
About 20 minutes into the debate, Donald Trump delivered a menacing threat to Hillary Clinton. “If I win,” he warned, “I’m going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.” …
“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton observed.
“Because,” Mr. Trump replied “you’d be in jail.”
This is not a Third World country where leaders incarcerate their predecessors and opponents on a whim. But we are a nation of laws and Hillary Clinton has broken many of them. Her only accomplishment in public office has been to so far avoid prosecution. President Trump should keep his promise to incarcerate this fugitive from justice. The voters have denied Hillary Clinton the presidency. A Trump Justice Department should deny Hillary Clinton her freedom.
Last edited by Paparock; 11-12-2016 at 04:20 PM..
How to Handle Hillary's Crimes
How to Handle Hillary's Crimes
Will Donald Trump look back on Hillary Clinton's crimes as just water under the bridge? He must not.
By Bruce Walker
There is a danger that President Trump in January may look back on the rage most Americans felt at the clear criminality of Hillary and her toadies as water under the bridge and see the tactical advantage in putting all that raw sewage behind us. The lesson the left will draw from that is this: the left can persecute Scooter Libby, rig the prosecution of Ted Stevens, bedevil Tom Delay and Rick Perry, convict David Petraeus, and count on conservatives genially forgiving all the left's misdoings when they gain power.
If Trump does this out of a desire to begin his presidency with the false glow of leftist acceptance, he will rue that day when the left sees a chance to stick the stiletto into his ribs. There are several related problems with Hillary's use of a private email service, her pathological lying about it, her conspiracy to thwart justice and oversight with the minions who would do anything to protect her, and the patent corruption of the criminal justice system.
First, the men and women who risk their lives to acquire classified information and for whose protection tough laws have been enacted must see that these laws are enforced and that there are consequences for violating them. Once the brave men and women who put themselves on the line around the world in dangerous places believe that they are simply disposal units when domestic political interests are involved, then we will stop learning much of what we must learn to be safe.
Second, if the Department of Justice and the leadership of the FBI have proven willing to twist justice for political ends, then these folks are much worse than just "bad cops." If they walk away from this with their reputations intact and no sanctions for the very serious collection of crimes that would go with conspiring to exonerate the guilty, then our criminal justice system at the highest level can no longer be trusted.
Third, if Trump cannot be tough with these folks, then his own credibility will inevitably begin to corrode among those very Americans who trusted him to "drain the swamp." While that may not affect his presidency today or tomorrow, it will definitely begin to erode that trust over time, and when he needs it most, many conservatives will have to wonder if they can trust him.
Does this mean that Trump should reopen the criminal investigation by Jim "Inspector Clouseau" Comey and convene grand juries to interrogate the suspects? Well, if Obama issues a general pardon, then no crimes will be prosecutable for offenses committed before the pardon, and Obama may well do just that.
But what our nation requires is not so much criminal convictions as slobbering confessions of wrongdoing before the nation by miscreants who infested Hillary's organization and the Justice Department. In gaining this vital purgative, President Trump and the Republican Congress have several key weapons.
Trump ought to offer a general pardon to everyone involved in these scandals, given the following. (1) Each person, under oath and penalty of perjury, must offer complete written confessions of all bad conduct the individual committed or knew about. (2) The individual pardoned testifies before a joint congressional investigative committed and, because of the pardon, cannot take the Fifth Amendment – here, as with the sworn statement, any false or misleading testimony would be cause for instantly seeking indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice. (3) Every one of these unsavory characters who is also an attorney (which is to say, almost all of them) must submit, at a minimum, to a public reprimand and in egregious cases with suspension of his license to practice law. (4) Those holdouts who angrily protest their innocence even as everyone around them provides details of bad deeds, including many we will just have learned about, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
What might happen with this approach? Well, those suspects involved may decide to get together and work up a common front to stonewall. If that happens, then the very meetings and discussions are a new and serious felony, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that is true even if nothing planned was itself technically illegal. The panoply of the FBI – wiretaps, informers, etc. – could be quite properly used to prove this criminal conspiracy. What would happen is the small fry, first, at least, would crack, and then those fissures would creep up through the whole rotten structure.
So what if, knowing this, these folks confess their grave wrongdoings before the nation? The left would probably never try this sort of shenanigans again, and the left would pay a dear political price for its corruption of the federal criminal justice system, which is what we really want.
To pardon or not to pardon?
By Dan Jones
November 17, 2016
Hillary can’t be sleeping very well these days as several unpleasant possibilities darken her future. President Obama may pardon her, or he may not. If not, President Trump will dominate her nightmares once again. Will he pardon her, or will he let the investigations run their course?
Here are my predictions.
President Obama will not pardon Hillary Clinton, in conformity with his oft-repeated insistence that she did not knowingly do anything wrong and that she certainly did not jeopardize national security, and hence she has done nothing that needs pardoning. These statements, made for the purpose of absolving his administration of scandal and promoting Hillary’s campaign, may not reflect the president’s real opinions. But they do align with “no foul, therefore no pardon.”
A deeper reason for not pardoning her is that he’s mad as hell. He revealed some of his anger early in his first press conference after the election, when he pointed out that if you want to win Iowa, you’ve got to campaign in Iowa. This was a direct dig at Hillary. He thinks she blew it, so badly that even his and Michelle’s efforts to campaign for her were a waste of time. Combine this with his apparent genuine dislike for the “you’re likeable enough” lady, and what must have been his justifiable outrage upon learning of Clinton Foundation deal-making, and you have all the ingredients for sweet revenge.
The greatest factor weighing against an Obama pardon, however, is what it would do to that for which he most dearly yearns: his legacy. It’s hard enough for Obama to insist, as he has frequently done, that the election was less a repudiation of his policies than a desire by some folks to “shake things up.” It’s harder still to admit that he appointed a miscreant to the office of secretary of state who jeopardized national security under his watch and with his witless (i.e., email) participation. No, it’s far better to suck it up and carry on with the fiction. So Hillary has little to fear, in my opinion, until the inauguration.
What will President Trump do? He said on Sixty Minutes that he didn’t want anything bad to happen to them (Hillary and Bill) and that “these are good people.” Also, he is properly reluctant, I think, to prosecute political opponents.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has often expressed his belief that the Clintons and their foundation violated important laws. He has also inveighed against a “rigged” justice system that allows powerful people to get away with things that would send ordinary Americans to prison. He has created a constituency for this point of view, and it demands action.
I predict that President Trump will instruct his Justice Department to continue to vigorously investigate the machinations of the Clinton Foundation, and ultimately to issue a detailed Comey-like public statement on their findings. And then – if the Clintons are found to have committed violations of law, and after the public has been advised of the extent and details of their lawbreaking – President Trump will pardon them.
Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas A.G.: Hillary's worst nightmare?
Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas A.G.: Hillary's worst nightmare?
If Donald Trump is looking for a way to keep his "you'd be in jail" promise to prosecute Hillary, he may just have found one.
November 18, 2016
The blog for the Arkansas Times is reporting (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog...ith-trump-team) that our attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, is in New York meeting with Trump transition planners. Rutledge, a diminutive fireball conservative elected two years ago, is quoted:
"My interest is in helping the Trump administration," Rutledge told reporters as she arrived for meetings at Trump Tower in New York. "Whether that's continuing on as the attorney general of Arkansas or (working) in the administration, then my ears are open."
It's the first of those two options, "staying on in Arkansas," that sets my antennae tingling for the simple reason that Rutledge is one of two state attorneys general in the country who have undisputed standing to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The other state is New York, but their thoroughly politicized Democrat attorney general would never lift a hand against the Clintons, no matter how outrageous their corruption. Both A.G.s have standing by virtue of the physical location of Clinton Foundation offices within their borders.
Rutledge could do a great service for both her own considerable political ambitions and the Trump administration by accepting the Trump's Justice Department's help on the hot-potato investigation and prosecution of Clinton Foundation corruption. Trump could quietly lend Rutledge's own limited investigatory resources the far greater capabilities of federal agencies to build a lock-tight racketeering case against the Clintons and then quietly fade from the scene before Rutledge (soon to become the world's most famous state attorney general and a household name) announces the indictments.
Think about it for a moment: Trump could mollify those demanding his promised Clinton investigation by saying it is ongoing and that as president and chief judicial officer, he cannot comment further, all while having his Justice Department and the FBI quietly continue their own investigations into Clinton's obvious security violations. But, and it's a big but, by receding into the background, Trump could fade the heat from angry Democrats that he is persecuting his political opponents. And if Rutledge brought in some quick convictions or plea deals from some of the lower-hanging fruit on the foundation staff, all eyes would be on her from that point on until she could either indict or, in a highly unlikely move, clear the Clintons.
If Rutledge were to gain convictions against the Clintons, most of the bloodlust on the right would likely be sated with even minimal state sentences. Moreover, Trump would have fulfilled his vow, through a state surrogate, to prosecute Crooked Hillary, and A.G. Rutledge would be world-famous, likely the federal attorney general in a second Trump term, then Arkansas governor, senator, U.S. Supreme Court...who knows where that kind of fame, the woman who nailed the Clintons, could take her? And wouldn't it be so fitting that the Clintons should get their comeuppance back here in Arkansas, where their decades-long career of corruption began?
Anyone think perhaps Donald's thinking the same way I am?
Last edited by Paparock; 11-18-2016 at 07:17 PM..
The unrepentant: Hillary, libya, and history
THE UNREPENTANT: HILLARY, LIBYA, AND HISTORY
The debacle that will really haunt Clinton's legacy.
By Gary C. Gambill and Teri Blumenfeld
Reprinted from the American Spectator.
Although Hillary Clinton lost her bid for the White House in part because of lingering public resentment over the 2012 terror attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, history will judge her even more harshly for her decisive role in the preceding U.S.-led military intervention in Libya.
In fact, then-Secretary of State Clinton was instrumental at three critical junctures in convincing President Obama to green-light and escalate the war to oust Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi.
First was her decisive role in the initial U.S. decision to lead a NATO air campaign in Libya. Under intense pressure from European and Arab governments to stop Qaddafi's forces from stamping out the incipient rebellion, Obama administration officials were deeply divided. Those opposing intervention included Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Those in favor included Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice.
Although Secretary Clinton ostensibly took no position at first, she worked to pave the way for the intervention Power and Rice were urging by brokering an Arab League resolution calling for an internationally enforced no-fly zone. With that in hand on March 12, she flew to Paris to meet with European officials and Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, after which she pressed Obama heavily to intervene. Gates later said that Clinton's advocacy "put the president on the 51 side" of a "51-49" decision to intervene.
So what if the Obama administration had allowed regime forces to win? Qaddafi's Libya was no democracy, but it was an occasional partner in the war on terror and its human rights record was steadily improving. Indeed, one of the reasons radical Islamists were so well poised to seize control of the revolt is that Qaddafi (unlike other Arab dictators) had freed the large majority of them from his prisons.
There's little reason to believe that Libya would have faced a humanitarian catastrophe if Qaddafi's forces had pacified the revolt. Their subsequent recapture of Zuwiyah and other towns in early March had not produced mass civilian casualties. Sensationalist reports of mass rapes, mercenaries, and protester-murdering helicopters that animated calls for intervention in the early weeks of the war were later debunked.
Second, Clinton was influential in pressing for and publicly legitimating the administration's shift from protecting civilians to overthrowing Qaddafi. This was not "mission creep" — it was decided before the first bomb fell.
While Obama was very reluctant to green-light this escalation, Clinton was less concerned that "every step puts you on a slippery slope," recalled then-White House Mideast advisor Dennis B. Ross, paraphrasing her view as "we can't fail in this."
Although U.S. officials maintained throughout that the NATO intervention was strictly intended to protect civilians, Gates later acknowledged this was "fiction." NATO interpreted UNSCR 1973 to be an open-ended mandate to pummel Qaddafi's forces until "the regime has verifiably withdrawn to bases all military forces." In other words, until the regime accepts military defeat and loss of power.
Though unwilling to give up power completely and unconditionally, Qaddafi continually appealed for cease-fires and dialogue throughout the war, via such intermediaries as retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic, Turkey, Greece, Malta, the African Union, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. "Come France, Italy, UK, America. Come, we will negotiate with you. Why are you attacking us?" the Libyan leader pleaded in an April 30 televised address.
There's no reason to believe that Qaddafi and secular rebel groups couldn't have agreed on a "pacted transition" to democracy that allowed regime elites some temporary role in government, as Islamist forces had not reached anywhere near their peak strength in the late spring of 2011. At least three senior State Department officials expressed misgivings about overthrowing Qaddafi — Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, Assistant Secretary of State Philip H. Gordon, and Jeremy Shapiro.
But the Libyan leader's pleas were ignored. When the last NATO air strike of the war hit the dictator's personal convoy as he attempted to flee his encircled hometown for exile abroad in October, leading to his capture and ad hoc execution, Clinton exclaimed giddily, "We came, we saw, he died."
Jibril and other Libyan secularists might still have gained military superiority on the ground were it not for a third fateful American mistake.
With Qaddafi's forces holding their ground despite weeks of NATO airstrikes, Washington approved and facilitated a massive Qatari arms lift that largely bypassed the secular National Transitional Council (NTC) in favor of radical Islamists.
Those involved in this fiasco haven't revealed much about it in contemporaneous emails or subsequent congressional testimony, but it's clear that Clinton was an early advocate of covertly funneling arms into Libya and personally oversaw official communications with the Qataris throughout.
Owing to the combined impact of Secretary Clinton's three errors in judgment, Libya today is a central logistical and operational hub for ISIS and other violent Islamist groups across North Africa and the Middle East.
Nevertheless, she continues to deny responsibility for the war to oust Qaddafi. "The decision was the president's. Did I do the due diligence? Did I talk to everybody I could talk to? Did I visit every capitol and then report back to the president?" she said on the campaign trail last April. "Yes, I did. That's what a secretary of state does. But at the end of the day, those are the decisions that are made by the president."
History doesn't cut the unrepentant any breaks.
View the article with many highlighted links here> http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2648...gary-c-gambill
How the new attorney general should pursue the clinton foundation
HOW THE NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD PURSUE THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
Hillary shouldn't be let off the hook.
By Lloyd Billingsley
“We don’t want to become a country where we have political vindictiveness after an election,” said Rudy Giuliani in a November 14 appearance on C-SPAN with Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker. But according to the former New York mayor, there was a bit more to it.
“We also don’t want to be a country of unequal protection in the law. A lot of that has to do with what I don’t know, which is how bad are the things involved in the Clinton Foundation investigation? How beyond the pale are they?”
The Attorney General, said Giuliani, four days before Trump selected Senator Jeff Sessions for the post, “should sit down and study sit down and study it and give him a present, give him a reasoned balance of things.” If the AG finds “there is something there, it should be an independent counsel that investigates it. I think that should be a detailed, reasoned study of the FBI investigation that I believe is in the New York office of the FBI.”
As Sen. Sessions is surely aware, much has emerged about how bad things were, and are, with the Clinton Foundation, and that it all went far beyond the pale. And the whole thing was an example of unequal protection under the law.
The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, was using a pseudonym to communicate with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the private, unsecured server she kept in her house. “It is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information,” wrote Andrew McCarthy in National Review. “That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.”
That’s why FBI director James Comey, with a record of doing favors for the Clintons, said that no reasonable prosecutor could possibly bring charges. Rudy Giuliani, Joseph DiGenova, Andrew Napolitano and others countered that, given the clear breaches of the law, no reasonable prosecutor would refrain from bringing charges.
The President of the United States said he only learned about the private server at “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.” Since he communicated through the server himself, this was a complete lie. The president also said of Hillary Clinton: “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America's national security.”
What the outgoing president says is often the exact opposite of the truth, as with that bit about keeping the health plan you like. So all parties have good grounds to believe that Secretary Clinton did in fact jeopardize national security, and more evidence emerged in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Business Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
The untold story centers on the Clinton Foundation, which is not primarily a charitable organization. Schweizer cites the late Christopher Hitchens, hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, who wondered why third word oligarchs didn’t donate their money to charities in their own countries “rather than distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence peddler.”
Canadian high-roller Frank Giustra put his chips on Clinton, because “He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.” Schweizer charts one of Giustra’s Canadian associates, Ian Telfer, who controls the Fernwood Foundation. While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Fernwood contributed more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation, which does not list Fernwood as a donor.
Telfer is also chairman of Uranium One, a Canadian company that controls a large share of U.S. uranium assets. In 2010, Uranium One negotiated a deal to be purchased by a “private” subsidiary of Russia’s state nuclear agency. As Schweizer notes, this proved troubling to a bipartisan group of congressmen, who believed that Russia could not be trusted to allocate U.S. uranium consistent with U.S. interests.
That was not the view of Hillary Clinton. The secretary of state served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Hillary could have blocked the deal or kicked it up to the president, forcing the president to make the final call, but she did neither. On Oct. 22, 2010, CFIUS approved the Russian purchase of Uranium One, transferring half of America’s projected uranium production to a private company controlled by a Russian government agency.
That is the major caper in Clinton Cash, followed by the frantic efforts of Hillary Clinton and her handlers to bleach out more than 30,000 emails under congressional subpoena, smash devices, and lie about it repeatedly. It’s far beyond the pale, and Attorney General Sessions, in line with what president-elect Donald Trump said during the campaign, should appoint a special prosecutor who will conduct a detailed, reasonable study of the FBI investigation.
The special prosecutor should leave no stone unturned and consider no one above the law. That includes a former First Lady and Secretary of State and the current President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. As Rudy Guiliani said, “We don’t want to be a country of unequal protection in the law.” It’s not who we are.
DC Court of Appeals re-opens search for deleted Hillary emails – this time with grand
DC Court of Appeals re-opens search for deleted Hillary emails – this time with grand juries and subpoenas, if necessary
By Thomas Lifson
Happy New Year, Hillary Clinton. I hope you enjoy being the subject of a probe by A.G.-designate Jeff Sessions, and whatever grand jury probes and subpoenas he sees fit to use in seeking recovery of all those emails you deleted and BleachBitted in an effort to eradicate any evidence of their contents.
You can now plan out your 2017 calendar with time left for grand jury testimony, thanks to a ruling from D.C. Court of Appeals judge Stephen Williams. His ruling reversed a lower court decision that halted FOIA lawsuits by Judicial Watch and Cause of Action that had sought Justice Department probes into the possible existence of records of the deleted emails. A Reuters (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp) dispatch explains:
While the State Department and National Archives took steps to recover the emails from Clinton's tenure, they did not ask the U.S. attorney general to take enforcement action. Two conservative groups filed lawsuits to force their hand.
A district judge in January ruled the suits brought by Judicial Watch and Cause of Action moot, saying State and the National Archives made a "sustained effort" to recover and preserve Clinton's records.
But Williams said the two agencies should have done more, according to the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Since the agencies neither asked the attorney general for help nor showed such enforcement action could not uncover new emails, the case was not moot.
"The Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder - e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General - might not bear more still," Williams wrote. "Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot."
This formal action of declaring the case not moot thus opens the door, just in time for the Trump administration Justice Department, to formal law enforcement investigation of the hiding of Hillary’s email.
Happy New Year! You can look forward to a busy and exciting time ahead. And there is still time to binge-watch Orange is the New Black. You lucky girl.
Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 01:02 AM..