Monday, October 31, 2016

Will The Reopening Of Hillary's Email Case Matter? ^ | October 31, 2016 | Mark Davis 

Make no mistake. I am enjoying the revival of FBI interest in Hillary Clinton’s email skullduggery as much as anyone eager to prevent her presidency. But as we move toward the final week of the election, I have to ask: how much is this really going to matter?
My hope is that it matters greatly. I hope a few million Hillary voters have reached the snapping point and simply cannot support her any longer. And if they have, please understand that many may have voted already. If we learn nothing else from this chapter, can we please recognize the insanity of early voting? She may actually win by a margin of votes cast for her already, because we have allowed ourselves to marinate in the absurdity that convenience and greater turnout are the most important thing in an election.
But to return to the matter at hand. FBI Director James Comey is on a political rotisserie spit, grilled by the left after weeks of torching by the flames of conservative indignation. But do not draw a false equivalency in those outcries. Clinton opponents were properly incensed when he detailed a strong case for indicting her in that infamous July statement, only to fail to recommend charges. Today, his re-opening of the case smacks of a decision to actually pay attention to facts and evidence.
Hillary supporters are on solid enough ground when they observe the curiosity of Comey’s revelation of a re-opened case without much of a shred of specificity as to why. Under normal circumstances, perhaps investigators would have perused the relevant messages sufficiently to reveal a detailed rationale for additional investigation.
But these are not normal circumstances. The FBI did not learn of these additional emails last week. The ticking clock grew louder, increasing the possibility of a bombshell revelation shaking loose as its subject was preparing to take the oath of office, or even after she had. That would not have been a positive development for an FBI whose director was already wounded by charges of corruption.
So Comey sprang forth faster than he otherwise might have, leaving us with a story that is damaging to the frontrunner and useful to the pursuer. But how much? How many votes actually move as a result of this October surprise?
Political damage should always be measured in terms of supporters driven away. Benghazi, for example, has never hurt Hillary Clinton in any appreciable manner, because only conservatives care about it. Few, if any, who hold those offenses against her had any intention of voting for her anyway. Similarly, most of the people who considered the Billy Bush tapes a nuclear bomb were Trump-haters already. The only way for a story to sink teeth into a candidate is if it changes voting behavior.
Poll numbers had been tightening in recent days because attention was peeling away from sideshows and gravitating toward actual issues suggestive of the differences between a Trump and Clinton administration. It has always been a foggy matter to assess how much Hillary Clinton’s stunning levels of corruption were actually damaging her. It certainly did not restrain her from rising to poll leads that made many conclude the race was all but over.
But it’s not. And now it’s really not. It will be mid-week before we have wide data on how much this new FBI probe has hurt her. It may not hurt that much at all. If Donald Trump wins this thing, it will be because he strung together a final-week push full of message discipline and sharply-defined policy differences. It will not be because James Comey rediscovered his duty to act based on what investigators find.
For the new email story to be a factor, it will have to pry a wedge into an already identifiable enthusiasm gap. Enthusiasm alone does not lead to the presidency; ask Bernie Sanders, or Ron Paul. But in a campaign between candidates with roughly equivalent voter appeal, a close race can be tipped if supporters on one side are on fire with motivation while the others are more tepid.
For evidence, return to the last election. 2012 was completely winnable for Mitt Romney, but due to some factors that were his fault and some that were not, millions of Republicans simply found him under-inspiring. Simultaneously, Barack Obama did not ride the wave of enthusiasm that lofted him in 2008, but there was enough left in that tank to fuel him past Romney for a second term.
Perhaps next Tuesday is the flip side of that coin. On paper, Hillary Clinton brings an impressive enough candidacy in terms of biography and fundraising. But a meager set of campaign skills and an underbelly of trust issues, even among Democrats, has kept her from closing the deal.
And perhaps the underestimated enthusiasm this time belongs to Trump. After a year of coverage of his massive rallies, it may seem odd to call his appeal underestimated, but it surely is, by all the smart kids in the enclaves of the elites. Those rallies mean nothing, they say; Hillary has a far better ground game, more money, more experience in the trenches.
All true. And maybe this year, irrelevant. In the model of the Brexit vote, there is surely a hidden sliver of Trump appeal, fashioned from voters who avoid pollsters and various other traditional channels of publicizing their preference. It is impossible to know whether that will amount to one or five percent from state to state, but even if it’s in the middle there somewhere, throw in the wet blanket effect of this new FBI story, and the result is his campaign prospects brightening while hers dim.
Enough to make the difference November 8? Predictions are as foolish eight days out as they were eight months out. But it may not be the smartest thing for the Clinton campaign to insult the FBI director they loved mere weeks ago. And as they call for these new emails to be released, they know full well how unlikely that is. Their ploy to give off one last whiff of transparency is colossally outweighed by their behavior from the beginning of this tawdry tale.
The air is thick with anticipation that the Clinton camp plans a November surprise to distract us from the October bomb that just detonated. But one wonders, even if they still have something up their tattered sleeve, if it will be as direct an indicator of what kind of presidency awaits.

No Prison Time for Hillary If… ^ | October 31, 2016 | Wayne Allyn Root 

This time it’s bad. The FBI has Hillary dead to rights. She’s been caught in a “Dikileaks scandal.” Weiner did her in. Who knew?
How bad is it? It’s so bad that the FBI Director made the decision to announce this investigation 11 days before a presidential election. It’s that bad. Even Carl Bernstein has come to the same conclusion- he says this could not have happened unless the FBI has uncovered a bombshell against Hillary.
How bad is it? A reporter for The Chicago Tribune just asked her to step down for the good of the nation.
How bad is it? Wikileaks promises a shocking bombshell this week that makes this scandal pale by comparison.
Remember John Gotti- the so-called ‘Teflon Don.” The government tried to nail him for years, with no success. They needed his best friend and partner in crime to turn on him to finally nail Gotti. When Sammy "the bull" Gravano testified against Gotti, it was over. Gotti went to prison for life.
Well Hillary has a Sammy "the Bull" Gravano in her life. It’s Huma Abedin. Huma is her chief of staff, girl Friday and BFF. If Huma turns, it’s all over for Hillary. Like Gotti, she could spend the rest of her life in prison- because the email violations are only the tip of the iceberg.
Huma knows all the dirt. Huma knows the secret machinations of The Clinton Foundation. She knows dates, times, bribe amounts, from whom and what the people who bribed the Clintons got in return. Huma knows everything.
And Huma is between a rock and a hard place- otherwise known as Anthony Weiner (excuse the pun). Because Huma is in divorce proceedings with Anthony Weiner. I'm betting that Huma had no idea Weiner was making copies of all of her and Hillary's emails- as leverage in the divorce proceedings.
When the FBI raided Weiner's home and grabbed his computer, they got it all. I'm betting Hillary and Huma were blind-sided.
Weiner is fighting for his life. What's his future? Who will ever hire him, for anything? How will he survive financially? So Weiner has no choice- he will turn against Huma and Hillary to save his own skin. He faces many years in prison for sex crimes against a minor. His only “get out of jail card” is to turn "states evidence" against Huma and Hillary.
Then Huma’s only choice is to turn against Hillary. Or face decades in prison.
So Hillary has only a couple of “outs” here…and she has to move fast. Or she will spend the rest of her life in prison (at worst), or fighting off investigations, trials and federal government RICO suits from now until the day she dies (at best).
Hillary out #1: Go to Obama and demand a pardon, or threaten to take Obama down with her.
Hillary option #2: Here’s the remarkable one- Hillary’s best friend and only "out" here may be…
Donald Trump.
What if Obama is angry? What if Obama turns Hillary’s pardon request down and wishes her good luck alone in the world. What if he orders every friend in government and the Democratic Party to stay away from Hillary? What if he orders every government agency to go after her with everything they’ve got?
Then Hillary has only one place to turn…only one hand to play. She can go to Donald and concede the election. Drop out today. Announce to voters she is no longer seeking the office of president of the United States. In return she gets a pardon from the new President Donald Trump.
That’s her hand at this point.
Let's see how Hillary plays it.

Immigration Officer: Border Deluge of Illegal Aliens ‘Is The Worst We’ve Ever Seen’ ^ | 10/30/2016 | Julia Hahn 

The flood of illegal aliens pouring across the southern border has become a “crisis situation” and is even worse than the record 2014 border surge, says an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer from El Paso, Texas with more than ten years of service to the agency.

The ICE agency has no room to house the arriving surge, so many illegals are being released into American communities where they disappear “into the wind never to be seen by us again,” the agent said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Orange pantsuit looks good on Hillary!

Toronto Sun ^ | Oct. 30, 2016 | Mike Strobel 

Hillary Clinton would look tres chic in an orange pantsuit!
Last week, I wrote Donald Trump needed a miracle to beat the cagey Ms. Clinton — and the FBI promptly obliged.

On Sunday, an ABC/Washington Post poll, among the first since feds reopened the Clinton e-mail scandal, shows Clinton and Trump in a dead heat with nine days to go, 46% to 45%.
Fully one-third of those polled say they are less likely to vote for Clinton because of the FBI probe.
That squealing you hear is the effete elites scrambling for the fire extinguishers. Liberal CNN trotted them out Sunday to wail and gnash at the awful unfairness of the past few days.
At one point, the network convened a panel on media bias — consisting entirely of Clinton campaigners. Good grief. (In fairness, anchors Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer usually go after both candidates with equanimity.)
But back to that orange pantsuit.
Does Hillary remind you of anybody? Other than your hectoring, busybody aunt, I mean.
Exactly. Martha Stewart.
The homemaker queen was jailed five months for shenanigans, obstructing justice and misleading the FBI. Ring a bell?
Martha’s shenanigans were about stocks, Hillary’s involve state secrets, but otherwise, if I were Clinton, I’d practise mopping floors and lining up for showers.
Orange pantsuit? She already has one in her closet. She has trotted it out before, including, believe it or not, at a 2015 press conference about her e-mails.
As every delinquent schoolboy knows, inmates wear orange suits to thwart escape.
If you spot an orange pantsuit strolling down the street, lock your doors and call police. Even if it’s not Hillary.
Luckily, Bill Clinton’s better half looks pretty good in orange.
Hillary wore a silky orange pantsuit at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. It looks far more glamorous than last year’s press conference number. Perhaps Hill can wear it to the prison Christmas gala.
The FBI’s new cache of e-mails involve fallen congressman/perv Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, who happens to be Hillary’s longtime confidante and campaign vice-chair.
Feds are not saying how Clinton is connected, but it can’t be good. Trickles of evidence quickly turn into a flood. You could ask Richard Nixon if he were alive.
If Hillary does follow Martha Stewart’s footsteps, she will have plenty of time to stare out through the bars and muse on what the hell happened
In a way, I feel sorry for her, like I felt sorry for Bonnie Parker. Bill and Hill may be the most corrupt couple since Bonnie and Clyde — but her timing sucks.
The White House is practically in Hillary’s clutches, so close she can taste it, the polls say she’s a shoo-in — when suddenly she is swept away like a pantsuited Marie Antoinette in a worldwide rebellion against the effete elite.
The British Brexit vote was part of that wave. So is the surge of Iceland’s anti-establishment and anti-corruption Pirate Party. And so is the rise of Trump, a billionaire boor railing against the media and other Washington elites.
The rebels’ motto, with middle finger raised, is: Effete THIS, elites! We’re tired of you entitled yobs telling us how to live our lives.
But it ain’t over ’til the pants lady sings. Millions of Americans have already voted at advance polls — before the FBI bombshell — and they could swing a close election. Plus, anything could happen in this wacky campaign’s last week before the election.
Plenty of time to run down to Hillary’s fave, Ralph Lauren. I hear there’s two-for-one on orange pantsuits.

History Repeats: A Nixonian Cover-up in the Home Stretch of the Campaign

National Review ^ | 10/30/16 | John Fund 

Someday, we might learn the truth, but not if Hillary can help it. Richard Nixon’s 1972 campaign for president involved trying to conceal the truth about Watergate until after voters went to the polls. “The early part of the Watergate cover-up was actually successful,” noted a report from the National Constitution Center. Running against a gaffe-ridden, disorganized challenger whom he was able to vastly outspend, Nixon pulled out a victory, but the cover-up unraveled and the country went through two years of turmoil. If Hillary wins, will her cover-up unravel and leave her a weakened president hounded by critics?
No one is suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal is exactly like Watergate, but the parallels are certainly there. Indeed, Hillary began her public career as a House staffer on the committee that voted to impeach Nixon. Sam Tanenhaus, former editor of the New York Times Book Review, recently noted in Bloomberg:
If Hillary’s armor seems plated with Nixonian grievance, it is because, just like him, she feels outnumbered and defenseless. Nixon drew up lists of liberal “enemies,” Hillary closely tracks the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” . . . Hillary’s tasks for [the Watergate committee’s chief counsel] included drafting a memo on the inner workings of Nixon’s White House, its hidden grids of power and buried lines of authority, who reported to whom. The exercise gave Hillary “an intimate view of a president practicing the dark art of Washington politics, doing whatever necessary to maintain his grip on power,” Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., wrote in Her Way, a biography published in June 2007, five months after Hillary announced her first try for the nomination.
The parallels between Nixon and Hillary continue. Nixon set up an elaborate system to capture the flow of daily communication through tape recordings. Hillary’s obsession with control led her to use a private server. Nixon was suspicious of the bureaucracy and tightly limited information to just a few zealous aides. Hillary bypassed the State Department’s IT specialists and also relied on a few loyalists.
Even Bob Woodward, one of two Washington Post reporters who were key in uncovering Watergate, last year compared Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal to Richard Nixon’s tapes, noting the same penchant for stonewalling.
During the 1972 campaign, Nixon launched an all-out effort to minimize Watergate. His press secretary, Ron Ziegler, dismissed the event as “a third-rate burglary attempt.” Nixon himself called it a “very bizarre incident.” Anyone who suggested that all of the facts weren’t known was dismissed by Nixon as partisan or delusional. But Nixon’s cover-up had limits. He never destroyed his audio tapes, a decision that eventually led to his downfall. Hillary has used BleachBit in an attempt to permanently destroy her e-mails. Apparently, some of them have been recovered by the FBI, and it’s possible others will be found in the cache of e-mails on the computer shared by Hillary aide Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
What if the Hillary cover-up works, and she gains the presidency?
In a June 2015 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Hillary Milhous Clinton,” Evan Thomas, a former Newsweek editor and the author of a 2015 Nixon biography, wrote:
There is every reason to believe that President Hillary Clinton would spend her presidency lashing out at her enemies as she ducks small scandals and possibly large ones. She would be aggrieved and dodgy. That is not to say that she would wind up like Nixon — threatened with impeachment and driven from office — but it does suggest how she would deal with the inevitable rocky times ahead.
The country paid a stiff price for ignoring doubts about Nixon and reelecting him to the presidency in 1972. There was enough evidence for them to be deeply concerned about how he would continue to perform in office. There is certainly ample evidence for all of us to worry about what a return of the Clintons to the White House would mean for the country. As I noted in a recent Fox News column, U.S. intelligence officials believe it’s likely that Hillary Clinton’s private server was hacked by foreign entities, as the e-mail of her aides John Podesta and Sidney Blumenthal certainly were. I note that “we have to acknowledge the danger that Hillary Clinton could be the target of international blackmail in the White House.” After all, Bill Clinton’s X-rated telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky were captured by the U.K., China, and Israel, and at least one blackmail attempt was reportedly made in 1998.
Hillary certainly shares Richard Nixon’s penchant for secrecy and dishonesty and an obsession with enemies, and the WikiLeaks revelations show that even her closest aides are appalled at her bad instincts and her habit of digging in her heels, blaming others, and refusing to course-correct until it’s essentially forced upon her. If Hillary is elected, will be have to go through another “long national nightmare,” the memorable phrase Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, used to describe the consequences of Nixon’s cover-up? — John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

The FBI’s Clinton Foundation Probe

National Review ^ | 10/30/16 | Rich Lowry 

This Wall Street Journal story is such a blockbuster in every way that arguably the most significant news comes in the 14th (!) paragraph:

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case. The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe [a top FBI official whose wife got huge donations from Terry McAuliffe for a Virginia political race] in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

It isn’t unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundation show the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president.

Yes, you read that right: the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation. The story goes on to detail how the investigation has been tearing the bureau apart and creating a rift between the FBI and DOJ:
In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.
Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter. Read the whole thing. Maybe twice.

Report: DOJ Tried Repeatedly To Kill FBI’s Clinton Foundation Investigation!

The Daily Caller ^ | 10/30/16 | Chuck Ross 

Senior-level Justice Department officials pushed back heavily on an ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, according to a bombshell report from The Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper laid out numerous examples, based on law enforcement sources, of senior DOJ officials intervening to quash the probe.
Prosecutors with the U.S. attorneys office in the Eastern District of New York — which Loretta Lynch led before taking over as attorney general last year — refused to allow FBI investigators probing the Clinton family charity to review emails found on devices turned over this year by two of Clinton’s lawyers during the separate investigation into the mishandling of classified information on Clinton’s private email system.
The rationale, according to The Journal, was that the devices were covered by partial immunity and limited-use agreements that the Clinton lawyers — Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — agreed to with the DOJ. Information recovered from the laptops could only be used in the email investigation and not in others.
As part of the immunity agreement, the FBI and Justice Department agreed to destroy Mills’ and Samuelson’s devices, a revelation that sparked outrage from congressional Republicans when it was announced earlier this month.
The Journal’s report largely confirms reporting in August from The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Richard Pollock that the FBI and several U.S. attorneys offices were conducting an unorthodox, joint investigation into the Clinton Foundation. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: FBI-US Attorneys Conducting Joint Probe Of Clinton Foundation)
CNN reported at around the same time that a Clinton Foundation probe was tabled by the Justice Department. Pollock’s report and the new piece from The Journal undermine CNN’s reporting.
While the investigation has gone forward, the Justice Department has stymied the investigation at several turns, according to The Journal.
The DOJ refused to grant the FBI the power to issue subpoenas or conduct formal interviews. It also refused to convene a grand jury to weigh evidence in the case.
More pushback occurred in August, when a senior DOJ official contacted the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, to voice his displeasure that New York field office agents were continuing the investigation even though the DOJ had declined to provide investigative support.
The official was “very pissed off” that the FBI was continuing its efforts, according to The Journal.
The call occurred on Aug. 12, a day after CNN reported details of FBI-DOJ discord over whether to investigate the Clinton Foundation. It was also a day after Pollock reported that an investigation was underway.
McCabe figures prominently in The Journal’s reporting and in the overlapping Clintonworld investigations.
It was revealed last week that McCabe’s wife, Jill, received nearly $470,000 in contributions to a Virginia state senate campaign last year from Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s super PAC.
McAuliffe is a close Clinton ally and is the subject of a separate FBI investigation.
According to The Journal, McCabe refocused the Clinton Foundation investigation a week after FBI director James Comey announced in early July that he would recommend to the Justice Department that charges not be filed against Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails.
The charity probe would be led by the FBI’s New York office with help from the Little Rock office, according to The Journal. FBI field offices in Los Angeles and Washington were also involved in the Clinton Foundation investigation.
The Los Angeles office subpoenaed bank records related to the Clinton Foundation after obtaining information during a separate public corruption case. The office in Washington was investigating McAuliffe’s financial relationships from before he joined the Clinton Foundation as a board member.
After Comey’s announcement on the Clinton email investigation in July, McCabe decided that the Washington FBI office would focus on the separate McAuliffe matter. He recused himself from that investigation because of the donations his wife received from McAuliffe’s super PAC in 2015.
While the FBI has insisted that McCabe is not compromised in any of the investigations — the email probe, the Clinton Foundation, or the McAuliffe matter — The Journal reports that some agents believe he has issued “stand down” orders in the Clinton Foundation inquiry.
That claim came from FBI agents lower on the chain of command from senior-level officials. Still other sources denied that McCabe issued a “stand down” order. They asserted that McCabe ordered investigators to continue on their investigative path.
McCabe’s Aug. 12 phone conversation with the senior DOJ official would seem to suggest that he supported the investigation.
“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe asked the DOJ official, according to a Journal source who was familiar with the conversation.
“Of course not,” the official reportedly said, after a brief pause.
The new report also details a presentation that FBI officials made to the Justice Department in February to lay out the case against the Clinton Foundation.
Some of the Journal’s sources said that the DOJ’s career public integrity prosecutors did not believe that the case was strong.
“Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case,” The Journal reported.
DOJ officials told the FBI at the meeting additional investigative tools — subpoenas, interviews or a grand jury — would not be authorized.

New York Times Dismissed Trump Claims of FBI Revolt As ‘Baseless’...until NOW! ^ | 30 Oct 2016 

A new report by the Wall Street Journal describes high tensions within the Federal Bureau of Investigation over investigations of Hillary Clinton — a claim the New York Times once described as “baseless.”
Now, however, evidence appears to be emerging to support Trump’s claim.
According to the Journal report, the number of emails the FBI wants to search on Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer is 650,000. It is not clear how many of the 650,000 emails involve Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton; how many of those e-mails are work-related; or how many of them may have contained classified information.
The FBI is apparently awaiting for a warrant to search the computer for emails relating to the Clinton investigation. Currently it only has a warrant to search for child pornography, the Journal reports.
The report also confirms that the FBI has been investigating the Clinton foundation — and internal disagreements about how to proceed.
Some of those disagreements, according to sources cited by the Journal, revolve around FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, received nearly $500,000 in campaign funds from Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary For Prison banner at World Series!

Fact-checking John Gregg: Planned Parenthood Does NOT Do Mammograms!

Indiana Right to Life ^ | October 26, 2016 | Indiana Right to Life 

It’s a tired lie. It’s been repeated by politicians, celebrities and admirers of the abortion giant, Planned Parenthood. The fact is, saying Planned Parenthood does mammograms does not make it so.

Last night at the Indiana Gubernatorial Debate, abortion came up (video here, question begins at 30:13). Democrat John Gregg defended his support for taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood, citing mammograms as a reason they deserve our tax dollars.

Let’s be clear: Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms.

Even Planned Parenthood’s head, Cecile Richards, was forced to admit this fact at a Congressional hearing in 2015.

So, Planned Parenthood does no mammograms, but instead they do abortions. Lots of them. More than 320,000 abortions per year, in fact. That’s 320,000 individuals who will never vote, need a mammogram or get to take their first breath.

John Gregg, you need to set the record straight. Be forthright with Indiana voters. Tell them, Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms.

And for repeating this tired lie, we should add you to this montage: video on link

17 Counts of Illegal Coordination Exposed: Pro-Clinton Super PAC Implicated!

The Citizens Audit ^ | Oct 24, 2016 | Andrew Kerr 

Facts are facts. Look no further than the public record to uncover massive violations of Campaign Finance law by the Clinton Campaign and her Super PACs.

Be wary of any pro-Clinton comments you find on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and elsewhere on the internet. The truth is that many of those comments are not authentic – the people behind those comments are being paid to make those posts.
The organization funding those comments is Correct the Record, a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC that has spent millions of dollars funding a digital task force to “push-back” and “correct” Hillary Clinton’s record on social media.
What’s worse is that, even though Correct the Record is a Super PAC, they openly coordinate with Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The Super PAC claims it can legally coordinate with Clinton due to loopholes in our Campaign Finance laws.
The only problem is that the loopholes they’re claiming are completely invalid.  Correct the Record has provided well over $6 million worth of illegal in-kind contributions to the Clinton Campaign.

For those who don’t know what an in-kind contribution is, we’ve explained the concept in full here.  Here’s a summary:
An in-kind contribution is when a Super PAC does something at the behest of a Political Candidate.
  • If a Political Candidate asks a Super PAC to complete a task,
  • And the Super PAC spends money accomplishing that task,
  • The money spent accomplishing that task is considered an in-kind contribution to the Political Candidate.
Super PACs are prohibited from providing in-kind contributions to Political Candidates.  To do so would constitute illegal coordination.

Funding a digital task force to “correct” dissenting voices is just a small portion of Correct the Record’s activities.
Campaign Legal Center recently submitted an exhaustive 52-page FEC complaint detailing the litany of publicly reported illegal in-kind contributions provided by the Super PAC.  All of the examples listed below were funded and executed by Correct the Record at the request or suggestion of the Clinton Campaign:
  1. Provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund “talking-point tutorials and media-training classes” for Clinton surrogates.
  2. Contracted with an expert “who specializes in coaching people for television interviews” to lead the on-camera media training.
  3. Paid“trackers” to “discreetly record the public events” of Clinton’s Democratic rivals, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.
  4. Paid staff to conduct “opposition research” and circulate research memos to reporters portraying Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, as “extreme”.
  5. Paid staff to produce and circulate memos to reporters “detailing Republicans’ stance on prescription drugs” on the same day Clinton announced her health care policy.
  6. Produced videos to portray Clinton in a positive light for the “Let’s Talk Hillary” project, in addition to costs associated with pitching the video interviews to reporters, and the costs to launch a website to promote the project.
  7. Staffed a “30-person war room” to defend Clinton during hearings before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, to blast reporters with “46 research-fueled press releases, fact-checks, reports, videos, and other multimedia releases during the hearing,” and to distribute a 140-page “opposition research book to a variety of media outlets that impugns the character of Republicans on the committee”.
  8. Commissioned a private polling firm to conduct polls that showed Clinton winning a Democratic Debate in December.
  9. Paid staff to contact reporters “by email and phone to offer ‘off the record’ story pitches”.
  10. Paid staff to produce and circulate “a campaign ad” and other materials to state reporters ahead of the Democratic caucus in Nevada.
  11. $1 million in expenditures to fund “Barrier Breakers 2016”, a “digital task force” to “engage in online messaging for Secretary Clinton”.
  12. Produced “a 40-minute video” highlighting Trump’s “struggles with the truth,” which was announced via a conference call with reporters.
  13. Produced “a weekly roundup highlighting Trump’s new lies, the false claims he has repeated, and the latest reports from The Washington Post and Politifactdebunking his statements”.
  14. Paid a consulting firm “to help oversee an aggressive surrogate booking program, connecting regional and national surrogates with radio and television news outlets across the country in support of Hillary Clinton”.
  15. Produced and distributed “an extensive prebuttal” memo to reporters in advance of a Trump speech, followed by “peppering reporters’ inboxes with emails at the rate of about one every four minutes during the time Trump was speaking”.
  16. Paid staff to “develop relationships with Republicans” and “sleuth out confidential information from the Trump campaign,” and to distribute that information to reporters.
  17. Paid for professional media production, travel expenses, and personnel time to create “a video testimonial series featuring women and men telling stories about those taken advantage of, offended by, or otherwise hurt by Donald Trump,” and to create a new website to house those videos.
Correct the Record has done all of this at the request or suggestion of the Clinton Campaign.  Over $6 Million worth of illegal in-kind contributions have influenced our public election process, without so much as a peep from the Media nor our Government.

Here’s the bottom line: facts are facts. The Wikileaks emails, the Project Veritas tapes, and the Public Record are all telling the same story – the Clinton Campaign is blatantly violating campaign finance law by illegally coordinating with her Super PACs. It’s practically undeniable at this point.
The validity of our Democracy is at risk when activities like this go ignored. How can anybody think it’s okay for a Super PAC to coordinate with a Political Campaign like this? When will enough be enough?

Congressman asks deputy FBI director for documents on wife's Virginia Senate campaign!

The Virginian-Pilot ^ | Oct 28, 2016 | Patrick Wilson 

The chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight committee is asking FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to turn over documents.

 Terry McAuliffe funding (a slush fund) for Andrew, to assure sufficient lubricant for services of And's FBI sector’s wash of clan Clinton, as directed from afar, by Jim and indirectly, Loretta.

While Andrew had charge of the Washington field office, he and Terry met in March of 15 and Terry's people passed the cash. McCabes met with McAuliffe about the "Senate run", cash cover on March 7, 2015, five days after Clinton’s private email server spilled. The FBI opened it's investigation of Clinton’s email use late in July 2015, Andrew was promoted as Comey's deputy director on July 30, 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

If Trump gave this speech tonight, it would guarantee him the presidency!

 by MagillaX

Speech to be given prime time, to a small audience somber tone important to not ad lib.

I would like to take this moment and talk very seriously with the American people. This election period we are faced with a very serious point in American history, as we make the decision on who will lead our country for the next four years. I ask the American people to consider carefully your selection for President.

Choosing a candidate under federal investigation for serious crimes and misdemeanors will place our country into a constitutional crisis and hinder the effectiveness of our government for the next several years. This choice for president is now become more important than who is chosen.

I hope I earned your trust to be your choice but if you still are not with me I ask you choose one of the other candidates who are not under investigation for criminal activity which will allow us to escape this constitutional crisis.

I also respectfully ask that President Obama avoid pardoning Secretary Clinton. Pardoning Secretary Clinton will de-legitimize our justice system in this country. It is imperative the American people have confidence in our rule of law.

I also call for an independent prosecutor be appointed to oversee the investigation of Secretary Clinton so the American people can be confident of political impartiality.

I would like to finish with these closing comments to the American people. I assure you I will always place the well being of our country ahead of mine and will work together with all political parties for the welfare and the integrity of our government and the health of our democracy will always be my foremost concern.

Thank you good night and may God bless this great country.

World's first bionic eye to give millions the chance of seeing again! ^ | Ben Spencer Medical Correspondent For The Daily Mail 

Scientists are on the brink of restoring sight to the blind by sending moving images directly to the brain.
In a world-first, surgeons have implanted a visual stimulator chip in the brain of a 30-year-old woman.
The patient, who has been totally blind for seven years, saw coloured flashes, lines and spots when signals were sent to her brain from a computer.
Her doctors are now planning to send footage from a tiny video camera to the brain, which could provide the world’s first bionic eye and restore sight to millions.
The technology bypasses the eyes, meaning it has the potential to restore sight even to those who have lost an eye or become blinded by cancer.
During six weeks of testing, the patient has consistently seen the exact signals the scientists sent to her visual cortex, the section of the brain which usually receives images from the optic nerve.
Doctors at the University of California Los Angeles are awaiting permission from US regulators to connect the system to a camera, worn in a pair of glasses, which they hope will send moving images directly to the brain.
Dr Nader Pouratian, who performed the operation, said: ‘The moment she saw colour for the first time was a very emotional experience. It touched us all very deeply as human beings. Based on these results, this system has the potential to restore sight to the blind.’
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/SocietyNews/Current Events

Federal authorities reportedly battled over direction of Clinton email investigation ^ 

For months, FBI field offices in Washington Los Angeles, Little Rock, Ark., and New York had been gathering information about the Clinton Foundation and other possible public corruption cases and one tied to McAuliffe. The Journal reported that a presentation of their finding to the Justice Department in February didn’t go well.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one person in the meeting said.

Some said that the Justice Department immediately started off skeptical about the whole thing, while others believe the FBI didn’t present enough compelling information about the Clinton Foundation to justify an intensified investigation. FBI officials maintained that they were in their right to pursue more aggressive techniques, while Justice Department officials said they wouldn’t authorities such matters.
Further down the FBI chain of command, agents painted a darker image. They told the Journal they were ultimately told to “stand down” and weren’t allowed to take a more aggressive pursuit and they heard that the order was coming straight from McCabe himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Clinton loses popularity edge in tight race with Trump, new Post-ABC Tracking Poll finds!

Washington Post ^ | October 31 at 7:00 AM | By Scott Clement and Emily Guskin 

Registered voters see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in a nearly identical negative light, mirroring a persistently close split in overall vote preference in a new Washington Post-ABC News Tracking Poll.

Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters have an unfavorable impression of Clinton (59 percent), and an identical percentage see Trump negatively. Nearly half of registered voters, 47 percent, have a "strongly unfavorable" view of Clinton and Trump alike.

(please see link for full Article)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

WHo's that?


A Milllion


I Voted!


Rate Hikes


...some gave all!


Mooshell speaks




Gun Free Zone


Socialist Professors


They are that stupid!


Her first Halloween


Bend Down!


Ignorant Voters


Leading the march!






Soros controlled




Look Alike






Clear to me now!