Thursday, November 3, 2016

BREAKING: Obama Was Notified Six Different Times When Hillary Changed Email Address – Lied to Press

gatewaypundit.com ^ | 11/3/16 | Jim Hoft 

In March Barack Obama told CBS News he heard about Hillary Clinton’s private emails through news reports.
snip
And then there’s this… Catherine Herridge on FOX News reported this morning that the Obama White House was notified six different times when Hillary Clinton changed her email address.
Hillary’s assistant Huma Abedin disclosed this information during FBI testimony.
Catherine Herridge: One of the key things we’ve learned in the FBI interviews known as 302s came from Clinton aide Huma Abedin. She told the FBI investigators that every time Hillary Clinton’s personal address changed they would update the White House so the president could continue receiving Hillary Clinton’s emails on his high security devices including his Blackberry.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

GOP official holds up handcuffs for Clinton during MSNBC interview

The Hill ^ | 11/3/2016 | Paulina Firozi 

(Video at link)

A state Republican party leader brought a pair of handcuffs to an MSNBC interview Thursday, arguing Hillary Clinton could appear in them on inauguration day.
Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of North Carolina’s GOP, argued Republicans in his state don't have a "suppression vote problem" but Clinton’s supporters “have a depression problem."
"The Democrats have a depression problem. You know why? It’s very simple. Their candidate, if elected, could have these on election day," he said, holding up the handcuffs.
“Hillary Clinton inauguration jewelry,” Woodhouse added.
“Is this the kind of rhetoric you want to be seeing five days out from an election? You’re holding up handcuffs on our air here,” MSNBC's Hallie Jackson responded, commenting on the "props."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Fox News ^ | November 3, 2016 | Gregg Jarrett 

Americans who lived through the nightmares of both the Watergate and Lewinsky scandals recall vividly how every day seemed to produce new evidence of wrongdoing. The drip, drip of deceptions and lies finally overflowed into a cascading pool of criminality and disgust.

The first scandal culminated in Articles of Impeachment. The other an impeachment trial. Is America now hurtling toward the same political abyss? It looks like it. So, fasten your seat belts and brace for impact.
Sources tell Fox News’s Bret Baier that the FBI has uncovered an “avalanche of evidence” in the Clinton Foundation investigation.
Agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” calling it a “very high priority.”
Armed with newly discovered email evidence and additional documents revealed by WikiLeaks, these sources say that agents will likely try to get Huma Abedin and others to cooperate in an effort to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.
It is a stunning development. But that’s how avalanches happen. Suddenly, you’re buried before you know it.
If this is true, and if Clinton is elected president in a few days but thereafter indicted, several scenarios could unfold.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Has Clinton Topped Nixon?

National Review ^ | 11/3/16 | Victor Davis Hanson 

The former secretary of state has been exposed as a ruthless politician following a playbook similar to Tricky Dick’s.

Another day, another Hillary Clinton bombshell disclosure.
This time the scandal comes from disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer, bringing more suggestions of Clinton’s sloppy attitude about U.S. intelligence law. Meanwhile, seemingly every day WikiLeaks produces more evidence of the Clinton Foundation leveraging the Clinton State Department for pay-for-play profiteering.
At this point, Clinton has trumped former president Richard Nixon’s skullduggery — but without the offset of Nixon’s foreign-policy accomplishments.
Even before the most recent scandals, Clinton’s campaign had an eerie resemblance to the Nixon playbook.
Compare the election of 2016 to the election of 1972. The favored Nixon re-election juggernaut (dubbed CREEP, or the “The Committee for the Re-election of the President”) squeezed corporations and wealthy individuals for millions in donations, in much the same way that Clinton’s multi-million-dollar cash machine has vastly outspent her opponent, Donald Trump.
The Watergate tapes later revealed an entirely cynical Nixon campaign team and a hard-nosed White House cadre led by H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman — plus a host of lesser toadies, such as the conniving John Dean. They all took for granted that Washington functioned on a quid pro quo and pay-for-play basis.
In that regard, the Clinton campaign under chairman John Podesta (the new Haldeman) has become Nixonian to the core, thanks to Podesta’s ruthlessness.
The WikiLeaks/Podesta e-mail trove reveals that Hillary’s consultants have no moral compass. They lampoon Latinos as “needy.” Catholics are written off as being stuck in medieval times. Aides bartered with plutocrats for Secretary of State Clinton’s face time on the basis of cash donations. A primary debate question was tipped off by CNN contributor and Democratic operative Donna Brazile.
The nickname “Tricky Dick” referred to Nixon’s perceived anything-goes campaign style and his “flexibility” on issues. CREEP’s “plumbers” staged break-ins to look for leaked information. Petty activists supposedly tried to disrupt rallies for Nixon’s 1972 opponent, George McGovern. Clinton is using similar tactics. In the ambush tapes of Project Veritas, Clinton’s for-hire thugs bragged on film of provoking violence at Trump rallies and bringing in voters by bus to cast illegal ballots.
The anti-communist and free-marketer Nixon turned out to be a wheeler-dealer who had no problem wooing communist China or imposing socialist wage and price controls. From hacked e-mails, it is clear that Hillary’s positions on fracking, trade deals, the Keystone XL pipeline, immigration, and foreign policy hinged on whatever best served her political self-interest.
Most loyal aides who served Nixon ended up disgraced, jailed, or humiliated. Does anyone think that Podesta, Cheryl Mills, or Huma Abedin — the fixers so prominent in the WikiLeaks scandal — will have a political future, given their aiding and abetting of Clinton knavery and profiteering?
We know that Nixon lied about what he had known about the cover-up of the Watergate break-in. And now we know from the WikiLeaks e-mail dumps and the FBI investigation that Clinton likewise has never told the truth about her e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation’s pay-for-play schemes, or the catalysts for the Benghazi killings. Nixon always attacked the messenger in hopes of discrediting the message — and now Clinton is going after FBI director James Comey.
Nixon professed that he never knew the sordid details of his campaign’s dirty tricks. Clinton has resorted to the same defense with regard to the shady activities of the now-disgraced subordinates who resigned after being caught trying to disrupt Trump rallies. Stonewalling was a Nixon specialty. Clinton told FBI investigators 27 times that she could not remember key details about the e-mail scandal.
A Democratic operative from a political action committee bragged on tape that Clinton herself liked the operative’s idea of having protestors decked out in Donald Duck costumes provoke Trump supporters at his rallies. (“In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” the operative said on tape.)
Abedin wrote in an e-mail to Podesta and Clinton aide Robby Mook that the idea of accepting $12 million to speak at an event held by a Moroccan-government-owned mining company (which had received a $92 million loan guarantee from the U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank) was Clinton’s: “This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request.”
A Clinton family advisor described shakedown efforts to reap millions of dollars for former President Bill Clinton as being the work of “Bill Clinton Inc.”
There remains, however, one disconnect.
Nixon covered up misdeeds long enough to be re-elected in a 1972 landslide — only later to resign before his looming impeachment, when even his administration flunkies could no longer mask his past misdeeds.
Would an elected President Hillary Clinton eventually meet the same fate?
This time around, there is not the same sort of investigative reporting that there was in 1973–1974. Much of the media is backing, rather than investigating, Clinton.
Does the death of independent journalism ensure that Clinton’s hubris will never earn a Nixonian comeuppance — or at least not until after the election?
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2016 Tribune Media Services, Inc.​​

The FBI Agents Who Stood Up for Rule of Law Make Me Proud to be an American!

PJ Media ^ | October 31, 2016 | David P. Goldman 

One hears a lot of talk about America turning into a Third World kleptocracy. I've worked in a lot of Third World kleptocracies, back in the days when the Reagan Revolution was fresh and the Reaganauts thought we could export free markets and democracy to the rest of the world. We didn't, of course. But I had the opportunity to see first-hand what separates a banana republic from the land of the free and the home of the brave. It comes down to the grit of a few people willing to do their job come hell or high water--not look the other way, not accept the stuffed envelope or its equivalent in post-government employment, but to treat a job as a sacred trust given by the people.
Somewhere there are a handful of FBI agents who decided to do their jobs--to end the coverup of the Clinton private email server which was there to let Hillary turn high office into a cash cow. I don't know who they are or just how it happened, but some men and women told FBI Director James Comey that if he didn't step forward, they would--and they clearly had enough evidence to put Comey in a vise. We know this from Devlin Barrett's reporting at the Wall Street Journal. As Barrett wrote:
The new investigative effort, disclosed by FBI Director James Comey on Friday, shows a bureau at times in sharp internal disagreement over matters related to the Clintons, and how to handle those matters fairly and carefully in the middle of a national election campaign. Even as the probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy heated up, according to people familiar with the matter.
The unsung heroes of the FBI put everything on the line. They knew that they risked their careers, perhaps even their pensions. Their downside is that their kids may go to community college instead of a private university, and they rent an apartment rather than buy a house. Those are the stakes for mid-level officials who go up against the system. But they did it, because they had their jobs to do. It was their job and no-one else's; if they didn't do it, it wouldn't get done, and they wouldn't stand for someone telling them not to do their job to protect the public.
"High Noon" comes to mind. The Western sheriff portrayed by Gary Cooper faced down an outlaw gang for no other reason than it was his job to do so. It was his last day on the job, and the townsfolk urged him to flee rather than fight. It's not an existential gesture out of Hemingway. He's scared and he hurts. He feels no affection for the cowardly locals. But he won't walk away from his job.
If you want to keep a republic, you have to sacrifice personal interest for the public good if you're called on to do so. Those who choose to enforce the law, or to fight fires, or to serve in the military know that it may be their job one day to put their lives on the line. But the same is true for every citizen in small ways. In Latin American kleptocracies, the fellow whose job it is to turn off your gas when you fail to pay your gas bill takes a bribe instead, and passes most of the bribe up the line to his superiors. The secretary in a government office takes a bribe to hand you a form that you have to fill out to ship wood from Michoacán to Mexico City, which you then take to the office next door with another bribe, and so forth. Everyone is on the take. The system corrupts everyone. If you want to be honest, you emigrate.
The rule of law rests on the moral equivalent of a thin red line. At any given moment the fate of a country hangs on the handful of its citizens who happen to take the incoming: the front-line troops, the Marines at Iwo Jima, the pilots at the Battle of Britain. Those whose job it is to uphold the law must do so even at personal risk. What distinguishes a great nation from a banana republic is its ability to find enough of those people so that when the moment comes, they will do their job. In a banana republic, no-one fights the system, with rare exceptions, and they almost always get killed, like Luis Donaldo Colosio in Mexico in 1994.
I have been waiting for a long time to hear a presidential contender stand up and tell the truth about corruption in Washington. Donald Trump's New Hampshire address did so last Friday afternoon. Trump is doing his job. His job is to come in with a big pump and drain the swamp, and he's doing it--and deserves the support of every American. But he couldn't do it without the brave men and women in the middle ranks of the FBI who stood their ground. I don't know their names. But they make me proud to be an American.

Hillary plans to “legally” rule the American gun industry!

The Coach's Team ^ | 11/3/16 | David T. Hardy 

The following article appeared on November 2nd on the American Thinker website
Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat
By David T. Hardy

It’s no news that Hillary Clinton is against guns (except those in the hands of people who protect the high and mighty) and enthusiastically in favor of restricting gun owners. When it gets down to specifics, her position does become vague, with some exceptions. One of those exceptions stands out only because of its obscurity.
Hillary really, really, wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA essentially protects gun manufacturers and gun dealers from being sued unless, well, they have done something wrong. It’s a perfectly simple standard that would apply in any other field of human endeavor.
The reason for the PLCAA’s enactment was simple. As law professor Timothy Lytton wrote, before PLCAA was enacted: “By 2000 gun litigation was regularly front-page news, and manufacturers faced potentially bankrupting industrywide liability exposure as a result of suits by dozens of individual victims, over thirty cities, and the State of New York.” These suits were based upon various elaborations of the argument that “guns are used in crime, and so gun manufacturers should pay for what criminals have done.” Some sought to impose liability even where no one could prove what gun criminals had used: the theory was that all gun makers should pay for all gun crime, in proportion to their annual production level.
Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...

The Hillary Clinton File

Canada Free Press ^ | 11/03/16 | Roger Aronoff 

The Clinton Legacy from the ‘90s, Russian Reset, China, Clinton Foundatiion, Corruption, Libya and Benghazi, October Surprises, Duplicity, Media Collaboration, Clinton, Obama
October certainly lived up to its reputation as being a month for surprises in this year’s presidential election, especially for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The media have done as much as they could to help minimize the damage, but a massive amount of new information came out that has confirmed and revealed a pattern of deceit, duplicity and corruption, unmatched in any presidential candidacy in modern times.
October SurprisesUntil this recent information made its way into the public consciousness, the narrative for this upcoming election was largely intact. Hillary Clinton, the most intelligent, qualified, experienced, compassionate, and yes, the first ever female candidate was headed for an historic win. Sure, she had some people who didn’t find her honest or trustworthy, but that was just because they spent too much time watching Fox News or listening to conservative talk radio. Her opponent—a crude, rude, undisciplined, tax dodging, female-groping, reality television star with a checkered business career—was going down to defeat in historic fashion, while taking down what’s left of the Republican Party he did so much to destroy.

Hillary's Ride!

'Voter fraud'? California man finds dozens of ballots stacked outside home!

Fox News ^ | 1/03/2016 | Malia Zimmerma 

Jerry Mosna was gardening outside his San Pedro, Calif., home Saturday when he noticed something odd: Two stacks of 2016 ballots on his mailbox. The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

“I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.”

His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.”

They took the ballots to the Los Angeles Police Department, but were directed to the post office. They felt little comfort there would be an investigation, and called another neighbor, John Cracchiolo – who contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar's office.

A spokeswoman for the Registrar said the office will investigate. Both Cracchiolo and Jerry Mosna told FoxNews.com they think they stumbled upon a case of fraud.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

4 Reasons Obamacare Is Also A Lemon For People With Pre-Existing Conditions (O'Care Helps Nobody!)

The Federalist ^ | NOVEMBER 2, 2016 | Margot Cleveland 

On the heels of the postman’s delivery of an estimated 1.4 million insurance cancelation notices, the Obama administration announced last week the 2017 rates for insurance policies sold on Obamacare exchanges. Predictably, the escalation in rates continues unabated.

As CNN.com reported, rates for 2017 will increase on average 22 percent, and as much as 116 percent in Arizona. CNBC.com highlighted the further cost increase consumers will face from higher deductibles: “[d]eductibles for individuals enrolled in the lowest-priced Obamacare health plans will average more than $6,000 in 2017.” Consumers also face fewer options. Seventy fewer companies are participating in the exchanges next year and approximately 21 percent of consumers will be limited to choosing plans from a sole insurance carrier.

With the public again facing the heartburn of fewer and more expensive choices in health insurance plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges, the “Affordable” Care Act is now front and center again. Since then, critics of Obamacare have been on their annual encore tour of the “I-told-you-so” choir.

Bre Payton already noted the hilarity of President Obama calling the recently revealed problems with Obamacare “bugs” while comparing them to a cell phone glitch. The president insisted you fix a snafu rather than return to the days of the rotary phone. Unless, of course, it starts on fire. Call me crazy, but breaking every promise made to enact the “Affordable” Care Act reeks of spontaneous combustion. There’s a name for a product that goes up in smoke—it’s called a lemon. You don’t fix a lemon, you junk it.

The Federalist’s Mary Katharine Ham exposed a further twist (of the knife?): Obamacare makes the prudent and responsible act of purchasing insurance for a healthy family foolhardy and unreasonable, at least in a purely economic sense. To hit the trifecta, Michelle Malkin shared her family’s continued Obamacare saga as they face their third cancelation in as many years.

Proponents of Obamacare took a bifurcated approach: First, as President Obama did, they stressed the law had some problems to fix, then pivoted to Republicans’ refusal to fix the law. Second, supporters of the “Affordable” Care Act stressed the popular aspects of the law, such as paying for pre-existing conditions and for adult children up to 26 years old. Of course, these popular aspects of Obamacare (along with the other coverage mandates) directly cause the increase in insurance rates, triggering the death spiral.

But there is yet another flaw in seeking to vindicate Obamacare by focusing on those with pre-existing conditions. Just as Obamacare injures the healthy, it also visits harm on those with pre-existing conditions. It does so in four ways.

1. Limited Access to Doctors
First, to manage costs, insurance policies on the Obamacare exchanges limit access to doctors and medical facilities. For the healthy, Obama’s broken “if-you-like-your-doctor, you-can-keep-your-doctor” promise is an inconvenience and a burden. But for those with chronic health conditions, the consequences are more significant.

Malkin makes this point in passing, noting that her family’s soon-to-be canceled plan is “nosebleed expensive, but provides us access to specialists not curtailed by bureaucratic gatekeepers. This has been important for us because several members of my family have required specialized care for chronic illnesses.”

For individuals with rare conditions or diseases, called orphan diseases, the impact is even more dire because a limited number of doctors and clinics specialize in those diseases. For instance, there are just about 120 approved cystic fibrosis centers throughout the United States to provide care for the approximate 30,000 individuals with this genetic disease. Many patients already must travel several hours to see their specialists. Some are now finding those doctors and clinics are off-limits, as these recent posts on a patient forum show.


These threads aptly illustrate that having health insurance does not equate to receiving health care.

2. Restrictions on Drug Coverage
The last thread above highlights another problem with Obamacare. Individuals with pre-existing conditions frequently require an artillery of prescription medications. Insurance companies (still) participating in the Obamacare exchanges defend against the high costs of covering those with pre-existing conditions by limiting coverage for certain prescription drugs or establishing higher co-insurance and co-pay percentages.

Limiting drug choices affects those with pre-existing conditions more frequently and more significantly than it does healthy individuals. A quick Google search shows the above concerns are not isolated.


Repeat: Health insurance does not equate to health care.

3. High Deductibles and Co-Pays
Exchange-based insurance companies also attempt to manage costs by offering policies with high deductibles and co-pays. Ham pointed out the irony here. Prior to Obamacare, she had a high-deductible plan that cost less than her current plan. President Obama referred to such plans as “junk.” But following Obamacare, Ham’s “individual deductible is more than two times the high deductible on [her] old ‘junk.’”

The rise in deductibles hits those with pre-existing conditions the hardest because they regularly incur $5,000 or more in annual medical expenses. Of course, those with pre-existing conditions who are able to afford the high out-of-pocket expenses benefit if they could not obtain insurance before Obamacare. Unfortunately, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, 44 percent of the underinsured (i.e., those with high deductibles or out-of-pocket expenses compared to their income) forego needed medical care.

Hillary Clinton points to this survey to support her proposed “fixes” to the “Affordable” Care Act. She suggests sweetening the law by adding more freebies—requiring insurance companies to cover three sick visits a year with no out-of-pocket expenses. Clinton also wants to limit out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications to $250 per month. However, even the most ardent advocate of Obamacare recognizes that such measures will further increase already too high premiums, leading more to forego insurance.

Repeat again: health insurance does not equate to health care.

4. Loss of State High-Risk Pools
Finally, prior to Obamacare states addressed the inability of many with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance by providing high-risk pools. Insurance sold in these pools was funded by a “combination of state funds, enrollee premiums, and fees assessed on private health insurance carriers.”

However, following the passage of Obamacare, the number of state high-risk pools dwindled from 35 to 13, with many of the remaining pools closed to new applicants. Thus, many people with pre-existing conditions lost the availability of high-risk pools, leaving as their only option the high costs and limited choice Obamacare provides.

Admittedly, some individuals with pre-existing conditions benefit from Obamacare. But it is a pretty narrow group: those without access to employer-based health insurance who were within the estimated 20 percent of applicants denied private health insurance, who lived in one of the 15 states without a high-risk pool, and who can afford the high premiums and co-pays of policies offered on the Obamacare exchanges. It’s not quite the promised panacea for those with chronic health conditions!

It’s time for the proponents of Obamacare to recognize that there just isn’t enough sugar in the world to make the “Affordable” Care Act palatable. This lemon needs to be tossed.


Margot Cleveland is a lawyer, CPA, and adjunct professor for the University of Notre Dame. Cleveland can be reached via email at mobrien@nd.edu or on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland.

Bombshell break for Trump buried in the latest Rasmussen poll

American Thinker ^ | November 3, 2016 | Thomas Lifson 

Late polling traditionally tightens in presidential races, as propagandistic polls with samples biased toward one candidate or another start to refine their models in order to be not too far off from the final vote counts.
What is unusual, maybe even unprecedented, is the volume of negative feelings toward both leading candidates. This makes turnout even more crucial than usual, for there is an excellent chance that numbers of people will fail to rouse themselves sufficiently to vote for a candidate they are not terribly enthusiastic over.
And that is why an item from this morning’s Rasmussen Reports is so significant. Rasmussen finding an advantage for Trump is not unexpected. So the most prominent finding may not make much of an impression on the Hillary camp and its media friends:
Republican Donald Trump has a three-point lead in Rasmussen Reports’ White House Watch survey.
Ho-hum, Rasmussen has had Trump in the lead before.
BUT:
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters say they are now certain how they will vote. Among these voters, Trump has a 10-point lead over Clinton – 53% to 43%. Johnson gets two percent (2%) and Stein one percent (1%). This is the first time any candidate has crossed the 50% mark. Among those who still could change their minds, it’s Clinton 36%, Trump 36%, Johnson 22% and Stein six percent (6%).
Ten points is way over a sampling or a model error. There is a good chance a thick slice of the uncertain voters will stay home....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

As If the FBI Didn't Have Enough to Do...

PJ Media ^ | November 2, 2016 | Michael Walsh 


A criminal organization masquerading as a political party, as somebody or other famously said:

The FBI is investigating an alleged illegal donation scheme involving a wealthy Saudi family that supports Democratic Florida Senate candidate Patrick Murphy.

The Hill has found no evidence that Murphy himself was involved in, or even aware of, the alleged scheme. The Murphy campaign declined to say whether the candidate is aware of the FBI probe, but the campaign said neither Murphy nor his campaign staff is being investigated.
The Murphy campaign noted that a conservative super PAC earlier this year filed a complaint on the issue that the FBI is looking into.

“This complaint was written by a Republican super PAC willing to say anything to elect Marco Rubio,” said Murphy campaign spokesman Joshua Karp. “Neither Patrick nor any current or past employees have ever been contacted regarding this matter, and we are confident an examination of the facts will result in its dismissal.”

Murphy, 33, is running against Rubio, the incumbent Republican, in a race that could help decide which party controls the Senate in 2017. Rubio currently leads Murphy by an average of 5.6 percentage points, according to RealClearPolitics.


So, hey -- a complete nothingburger, right? Just another example of Rethuglican smash-mouth tactics. Oh, wait --


The FBI investigation, however, relates to Murphy’s first run for the House in the 2012 campaign cycle. The allegation — originally submitted by a Republican super PAC run by a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — is that Murphy’s high school friend and major political donor, Ibrahim Al-Rashid, coordinated a “straw donor” scheme to boost Murphy.

Al-Rashid didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. And Murphy’s campaign declined to say whether Murphy’s attorneys had discussed the FBI investigation with Al-Rashid’s attorney. A straw donor scheme occurs when a wealthy donor skirts legal limits on political donations by funneling money into campaigns using other people’s names.

For any charges to be backed in the Al-Rashid investigation, the FBI must prove that the person or people running the scheme reimbursed donors without their permission. It would also be illegal to agree to be the named donors using somebody else’s money.


One thing you have to say for Democrats at the national level -- they keep the Federal Bureau of Investigation fully occupied.



Murphy’s rise is extraordinary because of how little he seems to have accomplished to get here.
A child of divorce, Murphy spent his formative years living with his father, Thomas P. Murphy, Jr., who built a multimillion dollar construction empire from scratch. Thomas Murphy made sure his son attended private schools including an elite prep academy in the Northeast, The Lawrenceville School. The school’s alumni include five Governors, three Congressmen, a Senator, two Pulitzer Prize winners and a Nobel Laureate. The school has also produced an array of business titans in its storied history.
Patrick Erin Murphy circa 2010, however, did not seem destined to join their ranks.
A star athlete in high school and college, injuries kept him from pursuing that further, opting instead for a more functional degree in business administration from the University of Miami. His time at UM was marred by a drunken brawl at a South Beach night club that left him with a mugshot and a black eye. After graduating in 2006, he joined Deloitte & Touche as an audit assistant. He did not meet the minimum requirements to become a Certified Public Accountant in Florida, opting instead to apply for a license in Colorado, even though he did not live or work there. He applied in Colorado because the requirements were lower.
Before gaining approval in Colorado, Murphy took the licensing exam multiple times before passing it. Even with a CPA license in Colorado, his opportunities in Florida were limited because his license was not valid in the Sunshine State.
He was 27 years old and living in a high-rise condo on Miami Beach.
No wonder he's a Democrat.

WEINERGATE: “NYPD Detectives Were Sickened By What They Saw”

State of the Nation ^ | 11/2/2016 | State of the Nation staff 

NYPD detectives were sickened by what they saw, according to our insider, and they have threatened FBI field agents that they would leak this information, if the FBI did not “step up and take off the kids gloves”. At that point, 13 of the FBI agents in NYC were also threatening to leak the information. As you can imagine, the scandal has the entire Obama Administration in full panic. We are told there are emails that could send Loretta Lynch to prison, as well as Bill and Hillary.....
Jim Comey learned that some of his own investigators were tipping off both Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, thus making his job impossible. Comey sent a letter to Congress knowing that ultimately, it would expose Loretta Lynch as a dirty actor and the bread crumbs would lead directly to Obama. The State Dept is terrified now. He has assembled a small team of 40 agents, whom he has declared the “Untouchables” after the famous federal agent, Eliot Ness.
Comey has clamped down on all FBI agents and he expects a full scale war between FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the White House and the State Department. He has confirmed and understands that many sitting senators, congressmen, lobbyists and power players are going to be indicted and prosecuted. One of the main targets of the probe is the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. Among the targets under investigation are Podesta, Huma, Cheryl Mills, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.
As it turns out, Weiner, Huma’s husband, had been forwarding Huma’s emails each time she came home and left her computer open. Huma appears to have been in touch with Saudi actors, and therefore, ESPIONAGE is strongly suspected.
“Comey and his 40 “Untouchables” are now preparing to take down the largest corruption ever witnessed in American History… which, is what I think MUST happen if Comey is planning to stay part of the FBI. He lost so much respect and so much credibility with the first Hillary investigation, it would take something of this magnitude to allow him to face the public again.”
The Pentagon has internal players and outside players they call “creatives”. Creatives are civilians who tend to be geniuses, malcontents, extreme hackers, or otherwise demonstrate brilliance in other useful areas. A Pentagon program called Cicada 3301, which we have reported on previously, was created by several of these talented civilians. The program is now used to allow thousands of honest Government people to report on their corrupt superiors, using what is called a DEAD BOX whistle blower encryption method so the non-corrupted Government officials can report corruption and still remain safe. Comey sent a letter to Congress knowing that ultimately, it would expose Loretta Lynch as a dirty actor and the bread crumbs would lead directly to Obama. The State Dept is terrified now. He has assembled a small team of 40 agents, whom he has declared the “Untouchables” after the famous federal agent, Eliot Ness.
Comey has clamped down on all FBI agents and he expects a full scale war between FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the White House and the State Department. He has confirmed and understands that many sitting senators, congressmen, lobbyists and power players are going to be indicted and prosecuted. One of the main targets of the probe is the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. Among the targets under investigation are Podesta, Huma, Cheryl Mills, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.
As it turns out, Weiner, Huma’s husband, had been forwarding Huma’s emails each time she came home and left her computer open. Huma appears to have been in touch with Saudi actors, and therefore, ESPIONAGE is strongly suspected.
“Comey and his 40 “Untouchables” are now preparing to take down the largest corruption ever witnessed in American History… which, is what I think MUST happen if Comey is planning to stay part of the FBI. He lost so much respect and so much credibility with the first Hillary investigation, it would take something of this magnitude to allow him to face the public again.”
The Pentagon has internal players and outside players they call “creatives”. Creatives are civilians who tend to be geniuses, malcontents, extreme hackers, or otherwise demonstrate brilliance in other useful areas. A Pentagon program called Cicada 3301, which we have reported on previously, was created by several of these talented civilians. The program is now used to allow thousands of honest Government people to report on their corrupt superiors, using what is called a DEAD BOX whistle blower encryption method so the non-corrupted Government officials can report corruption and still remain safe.
I’ve heard it said “A vagina almost took down Bill, now will a Weiner take down Hillary?” LOL!
Again, thank you to all of the insiders, the whistleblowers, the good FBI agents, the good CIA agents, the good NYPD officers and the non-corrupted government officials who want to see the truth exposed! Without these brave, wonderful and morally erect individuals, our country would still be in the corrupted darkness.
Vistors to Epstein’s St James Island include:
*Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister of Israel (1999-2001) – pedophile being pandered underage girls by Epstein. Former Israeli Minister of Defense and also deputy Israeli prime minister under Binyamin Netanyahu from 2009 to 2013.
*Prince Andrew – British royalty – Jeffrey Epstein and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell pandered Epstein sex slave Virginia Roberts to Prince Andrew multiple times. The victim girls say Prince Andrew was very sexually sadistic; they despised this sick, twisted creature.
*Kevin Spacey – actor in House of Cards. People tell me Spacey is gay and my response is “Have you ever heard of the word bisexual?” Spacey is very good friends with 2 bigtime pedophiles: Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton. Spacey, big Hollywood star, has 3.78 million Twitter followers.
*Alan Dershowitz – longtime friend of Epstein as well as one of his defense lawyers. Dershowitz was the one who negotiated that absurd plea bargain for Epstein that gave him a 13 months (served) sentence and a 16 hour/day day pass so he could spend most of his time in his mansion. Epstein sex slave Virginia Roberts has said that Epstein made her have sex with Dershowitz numerous times. The real question is how many other underage girls was Dershowitz having sex with? Virginia Roberts says Dershowitz also witnessed Epstein’s pedophilic activities.

TRUMP GRABS HILLARY’S VIRGINIA

Headline of the Day ^ | 10/02/2016 

Hampton University’s CPP Latest Poll Shows VA Voter Shift from Clinton to Trump Post Email Investigation
11/02/2016 – #80
Hampton University Center for Public Policy
Hampton, Va.— The latest Hampton University Center for Public Policy (CPP) poll reveals that the FBI’s decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation may have triggered a boost for Donald Trump with likely voters in Virginia.
Democratic Presidential nominee Clinton had a two point lead before the email news story broke on Friday Oct. 28. She is now trailing three points behind Republican Presidential nominee Trump.
With only six days left before the November Presidential election, Trump has jumped ahead of Clinton, erasing a 12 point deficit reported by the CPP in early October.
(Excerpt) Read more at headlineoftheday.com ...

Wikileaks Exposes Collusion Between Clinton Campaign, State Department, And New York Times

ZeroHedge.com ^ | 2 Nov 2016 | Tyler Durden 

And the hits just keep on coming.

At the same time as the latest Wikileaks email dump revealed an email sent from the gmail account of DOJ assistant attorney general, Peter Kadzik, to the gmail account of John Podesta, warning him of a FOIA case that would make it "a while before the State Department posts the [Hillary] emails", an off-the-record communication which the DOJ apparently had no complaints about, we learned of another coordinated, collusive event, this time involving not the Department of Justice, but the Secretary of State, the New York Times, and the Clinton campaign.
In an email dated March 1, 2015, just one day before the NYT's story revealing that Hillary Clinton had a personal email server, a State Department official, Lauren Hickey, coordinated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign staffers Heather Samuelson as well as Philippe Reines and Nick Merrill, on a statement given to The New York Times regarding how to frame its landmark story.
In the email also sent from the gmail account of State Department press aide Lauren Hickey (laurenashleyhickey@gmail.com), the government employee told Clinton aides that then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had “just cleared” a statement to a New York Times reporter. Hickey attached the statement, which appeared to include a change made at the behest of the Clinton aides.
...
To summarize: on the same day we obtained evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign's chairman, John Podesta, and one of the top-ranked staffers at the Justice Department, we also have confirmation of collusion between the State Department, the Clinton campaign and the New York Times.
Or, as president Obama put it, "an honest mistake."
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...

Crudele: Hillary won't survive another WikiLeaks dump (next release will make her "unelectable")

NY Post ^ | November 2, 2016 | John Crudele 

I said it a long time ago and I will say it again that I think that Hillary Clinton will be unelectable by Election Day.
[Snip]
The Democrats made a big mistake when they picked Clinton as their candidate, because too many people knew too much about her.
FBI Director James Comey did the Democrats - not the Republicans - a big disservice last summer by not coming down harder on Clinton.
If Comey had brought down the hammer, the Dems could have switched candidates.
[Snip]
If I had to guess, the newest releases will contain Hillary Clinton’s personal stuff. Unless WikiLeaks is lying, Phase 3 should come before the weekend. Only then will Clinton be unelectable.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Just how biased is the media against Donald Trump?

INN ^ | 11/02/16 14:49 | David Rosenberg 

Media bias in political coverage is hardly new. Going back to the muckraking days of “yellow journalism”, newspapers have expressed clearly partisan slants in the way they cover candidates to higher office. And going back at least to the early 20th Century, that bias has tended, at least generally speaking, to favor candidates professing a liberal progressive agenda.
This election season, however, appears to be have reached new levels of slanted coverage, one media watchdog says, with a report showing negative news coverage of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump outweighing positive coverage by a whopping 11-to-1 margin.
According to the report, produced by the conservative Media Research Center, of all news coverage focusing on Donald Trump on the three major non-cable television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) during their evening news shows from July 29th through October 20th, roughly 91% of mentions of the GOP nominee were in a negative context. Only 9% of news stories on Trump carried by those three networks were positive towards the Republican nominee. …
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...

DNC Donations Scandal May Go Beyond Boston Law Firm ('nother scandal)

Fox News ^ | 11.02.16 | Sue O'halloran 

The Democratic National Committee, already engulfed by the WikiLeaks Donna Brazile scandal, is again on the defense Wednesday as some Democratic Senate candidates in tight races scramble to return thousands of dollars in campaign donations following allegations of a massive straw-donor scandal, which Republicans say may be wider than initial reports.
Despite the fanfare, one high profile Democrat, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), says she won't return the donations until it is proven that they were given illegally.
The Campaign Legal Center, which represents the public interest, confirmed to FOXBusiness.com, it has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over straw-donor practices at a boutique Boston firm, Thornton Law.
Viveca Novak, who reported the story for the Center for Responsive Politics, told FOXBusiness.com this may not be an isolated case and is likely not the only one of employees being reimbursed for contributions to candidates of both parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...

Here's What Would Happen if Hillary Clinton is Indicted or Steps Down

Law news ^ | October 28, 2016 | Ronn Blitzer 

The 2016 Presidential election is rapidly approaching, and the FBI just announced that they are reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s private email system. With the Democratic candidate once again the subject of a criminal investigation, it raises many questions as to what happens if she is indicted or relinquishes her candidacy before the election, or even after. The law is hazy in some of these situations, so let’s tackle them one by one.
1. If Clinton is indicted before the election
The FBI merely said that they are reopening their investigation to examine new emails that came to light. They have yet to even determine whether the emails are actually evidence of criminal activity, let alone decide whether or not to prosecute. Therefore, it’s highly unlikely that an indictment would come before November 8. If it did, the indictment itself wouldn’t mean that Clinton could no longer run, as an indictment is only an accusation, not a conviction.
.... Clinton could theoretically hope that voters hate Trump enough that they still vote for her (and hope that she isn’t convicted before taking office).Of course, even if she wins on November 8, the nature of our electoral system makes it so that the members of the Electoral College could theoretically go rogue and not vote for Clinton, even if their states tell them to. George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf wrote recently that only 30 states have laws on the books prohibiting this from happening, and that those laws have never been enforced and might be unconstitutional.
More likely, however, is that she would be pressured — by herself, the public, or the Democratic party — to give up her candidacy.
2. If Clinton steps down before the election
Should Clinton relinquish her candidacy before the election, the Democratic National Committee has rules in place for what happens next. Article 2, Section 7 of the DNC Bylaws says that if there is a vacancy on the national ticket, a special meeting of the Committee “shall be held on the call of the Chairperson,” where they would choose a new candidate. Such meetings make decisions based on a majority of those in attendance. Since we are exactly so close to election, there is one major problem: The ballot deadlines have passed in nearly every state. For example, in West Virginia, the law says a candidate must withdraw “no later than eighty-four days before the general election.” So the Democratic leadership would likely have to wage a public campaign to tell voters that if you vote for Clinton/Kaine, you are really voting for Biden (or whoever it maybe)/Kaine. Then the electors would have to change their vote for the new ticket when they meet on December 19th, 2016.
3. If Clinton wins the election and is indicted before the inauguration
Here’s where it starts getting tricky.
As mentioned earlier, an indictment is far different from a conviction. An indictment does not disqualify a person from being eligible for the presidency (neither does a conviction, technically, but being in jail would probably get in the way). Should Clinton be indicted after winning the election but before officially taking office, she could try to play beat-the-clock and hope to take office before her case concludes. Once a person is in office as President, it gets even more complicated, as we’ll see later. Should Clinton be indicted and convicted prior to her inauguration, and end up in jail, she may be deemed incapacitated, in which case Section 3 of the 20th Amendment kicks in and the Vice President-Elect, in this case Tim Kaine, would become President. (though that seems unlikely as the wheels of justice do not turn that fast)
4. If Clinton wins the election and steps down before the inauguration
If Clinton becomes President-Elect and decides to step down before her inauguration, either due to being indicted or out of fear that an indictment may be imminent, it would be similar to the situation just described, and Kaine would become President. However in a situation where a candidate steps down after the general election, but before the Electoral College chooses the winner, federal law says the electors would be able to vote for whomever they want, although states may pass their own laws controlling this situation.
5. If the investigation continues after the election and Clinton wins and is inaugurated before a decision is made. Could Clinton be indicted when she becomes President?
The law is unsettled when it comes to this situation, but most opinions tend to believe Clinton would luck out, due to the philosophy that Presidents — and only Presidents — are immune from prosecution while in office..............[snip]
......Long story short, the Department of Justice can very well affect who our next President is. If they move swiftly to indict, or if Clinton believes she’s in trouble, she could drop out before November 8. Alternatively, if an indictment comes soon after Clinton wins the election, she could still feel pressure to step down before she takes office. It all depends on what the FBI finds in these emails, what they decide to do about it, and when. But the clock’s ticking.

The Clintons as Farce

City Journal ^ | 30 Oct 2016 | Victor Davis Hanson 

Hillary Clinton was resting, running out the clock, sitting on a supposed large lead, and hoping that the election was sooner than later. Now after the latest Weiner disclosures, she is crisscrossing the country, terrified of collapsing polls, and wishing that she had three more weeks rather than just one. With the Clintons, farce is the desert to scandal: the profiteering Clinton Foundation as a humanitarian treasure; Hillary the former corporate attorney as child and little-guy crusader; Bill Clinton, both sexual predator and feminist hero.
Hillary didn’t just delete e-mails under congressional subpoena; she insisted that some 33,000 e-mails were mostly about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding—sort of like saying that one can beat 31 trillion-to-one odds of turning $1,000 into a $100,000 cattle-futures profit in no time by merely reading the Wall Street Journal. Until Friday, FBI director James Comey, in Hillary’s eyes, was a sober and judicious public servant who had rightly seen insufficient cause for her indictment. Now she believes that he is a rank Republican politico seeking to rob her of her presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...

Reports Prove FBI ‘Aggressively Investigating’ Clinton Foundation For Potential Pay To Play Crimes

breitbart.com ^ | 2 Nov 2016 

A pair of reports out on Wednesday evening from two of the nation’s biggest broadcasters brings gloomy news for the already hurting presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton: The FBI has been “aggressively investigating” the Clinton Foundation for a year.

All of this comes as a third report, from the Wall Street Journal, walks through how “secret recordings” have “fueled” the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation—a separate but parallel probe from the Hillary Clinton email scandal.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Emails show Clinton campaign coordinated with State Dept. official before email revelation

Fox News.com ^ | November 3, 2016 

Newly released emails appear to show a State Department official coordinating with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign before her use of a private email to conduct government business was revealed.

Emails from campaign chairman John Podesta show that the state official provided Clinton aides with the agency’s official response to a New York Times reporter in advance of the paper’s March 2015 report that Clinton had used a private email account to conduct business while serving as secretary of state.
WikiLeaks released the hacked emails Wednesday in part of a massive trove of emails disclosed by the whistleblowing website. The site has released new Podesta emails on a daily basis since October. WikiLeaks has indicated it intends to leak emails stolen from Podesta's account every day through the election.
In a March 1, 2015 email, State Department press aide Lauren Hickey told Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill and two other advisers that then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had "just cleared" a reply to the Times. Hickey provided the agency's response to the Clinton aides and also appeared to agree to a change requested by the campaign, saying: "Yes on your point re records - done below." It is not clear what specific change was requested and made.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Obama DOJ: Handmaiden of Clinton Corruption

Frontpage ^ | Joseph Klein | November 3, 2016 

The Obama Department of Justice has been corruptly aiding and abetting the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to escape legal accountability for her actions. From Attorney General Loretta Lynch on down through the Justice Department’s political ranks, the Department has blocked the FBI from searching for the truth and following the evidence of potential criminality to its logical conclusion. Whether it is Hillary’s use of a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State or her involvement in the pay-for-play Clinton enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation, the Obama administration is applying a banana republic-style double standard to pervert justice and the rule of law in order to shield her.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...

On The Upside, At Least This Election Will Destroy The Media

Townhall.com ^ | November 3, 2016 | Kurt Schlichter 

With the clock ticking toward Election Day, the mainstream media seems intent on committing ritual suicide by eviscerating the tattered remnants of its credibility. See, there’s some good news out there if you just look for it.
At this writing, it still looks like Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit will convince enough morons to vote for her to defeat Donald Trump, but who the hell knows? The polls are tightening, my book remains eerily prescient, and in Hades they are getting out the mittens. So what’s next from our disgraced media drones as they face the possible repudiation of every libfascist thing they believe in? More covering up, to be sure. By the time this column actually runs, it could be revealed that Hillary tried to auction off Idaho to the Emir of Burkina Faso in return for a $25,000 donation to her slush fund. But then her organ grinder monkeys in the mainstream media would respond to this news by claiming that that this is all Russian lies, the notarized videotape of her explaining that Boise alone is worth 25 grand notwithstanding, or by claiming that these allegations are racist against Burkina Fasoans.
Then again, the media would eagerly aid and abet any fresh oppo dump on Donald Trump in hopes of turning everything around. The media slobbers at the possibility of obtaining the much-gossiped about KGB sex tape, though its delight seems to rely on the dubious notion that Trump getting biz-ay with multiple hot Eastern European women is totally going make people think less of him. Then again, most members of the media have never met an actual male.
The media would love to obtain a new tax return showing that Trump didn’t pay taxes on money he didn’t make – remember, stolen stuff if fine unless it hurts liberals, and then it’s bad. The desperate media be happy just to trot out another woman who is paid to have sex on film to break down in tears claiming Trump tried to pay her to have sex, only not on film. If she was involved in the taped Russian orgy, there would be a kind of wonderful symmetry.
Regardless, welcome to the countdown to the final doom of the media as we know and hate it.
We’ve already seen some remarkable things in the last week. It’s no shock that Hillary Clinton does not believe that the American people should go into the voting booth armed with the knowledge that one of the two major party candidates is under investigation for multiple felonies by the FBI. She and her liberal pals believe in the mushroom theory of voter information – keep them in the dark and feed them…manure.
What’s remarkable is the reaction of the press, the Fourth Estate, the ink stained wretches who afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, those proud defenders of the People’s right to know, the guys who published the classified Pentagon Papers because of transparency, damn it. These heroes likewise do not believe that the American people should go into the voting booth armed with the knowledge that one of the two major party candidates is under investigation for multiple felonies by the FBI.
Let that ping pong around in your brain for a minute. Liberal journalists, by which I mean journalists, do not think you should know things that hurt their favored candidate. This is an interesting new take on the whole idea of “news reporting,” an innovative rethink that refocuses journalists less on ensuring people hear the news and instead focuses on ensuring they only hear certain news that, incidentally, supports the media’s progressive political agenda.
So we get fact checking that involves neither facts nor checking. When RoboHillary’s debate program caused her voice unit to make noises that explained that the Heller Supreme Court decision was about keeping toddlers from getting guns, no facts were checked. This despite millions of Americans who would probably be interested to know that Hillary does not believe the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects their right to keep and bear arms, and instead believes it protects the government’s right to keep and bear arms, all because of, apparently, the children.
Nor did it fact check Hillary’s failure to mention the key fact that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision Hillary hates prevented the government from prosecuting people for making a movie critical of…wait for it…Hillary Clinton.
But hey, some withered rando says Trump tried to date her in 1973! Yeah, let’s lead with that!
I don’t know…I kind of like the idea of having all the facts in front of me and determining all by my lonesome what I think is important and what it all means. But then, this makes me unreliable, dangerous even. If enough people find out that the FBI seems to think Hillary Clinton and her foundation/crime family is totally corrupt, that might influence their votes and it could result in unapproved people taking office.
We sure can’t have that. So in this last week before the election, it’s more important than ever to restrict the available information about the myriad flaws of Hillary Clinton and to create new false narratives about her opponent because if the people might vote wrong if they have raw, unfiltered information.
You know what we used to call “raw, unfiltered information” back in the day, before the media poured gasoline all over itself and flicked its Bic?

READY!

NfbdmFp.jpg

Preferences

L8yGTm0.jpg

Up my ass!

libhal.jpg

The Other Shoe

Lsq5xgR.jpg

Stronger Together

SDBPksz.jpg

RATS

1hu1aNY.jpg

Smell the change!

QWS5AtI.png

Scandal-Crippled

tOv397f.jpg

Control

33D6TnU.jpg

Loyalty

PNWlrSY.jpg

Photo Finish!

fFJidNO.jpg

You may be a liberal

eK58vDB.jpg

Tales

186658_600.jpg