Obama: Profiles In Lies

Let’s get this straight: the guy who lied about Bengazi, lied about Obamacare — just to get it passed — who promised Putin and Russia more flexibility after his last election, (when he’d no longer be accountable to voters), who rejected accountability, the guy who voted present in Illinois on all the tough votes — Obama.

That guy deserves a Profiles in Courage award?

“It is my fervent hope, and the hope of millions, that regardless of Party such courage is still possible. That today’s members of Congress regardless of party are willing to look at the facts and speak the truth, even when it contradicts party positions.

I hope current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn’t take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential; but it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable.”

The “vulnerable” – unless, of course, it is babies or life in the womb who deserve abortion. And call that “social justice.” too. You channel that courage so well, Obama.

Was it for courageously meddling and intervening in Israel’s election, in Egypt’s election, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, refusing to call it Radical Islamic Terrorism?

Obama, the guy who lacked a strategy to deal with ISIS, who called them a JV team. The guy who drew a red line and ran away from it. The guy who wore the race card on his lapel to provide immunity from criticism. The guy who only wanted positive reports back from our military operations. Courage, expedience… he lectures Congress?

Those courageous feats, and more, earn him the Profiles in Courage Award from the JFK Library. The words Obama and courage do not belong in the same paragraph.

H/T to the Guardian

Susan Rice center of Unmasking-gate

Washington Free Beacon

Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, reportedly requested on several occasions the identities of “masked” U.S. persons in intelligence reports linked to President Trump’s transition and campaign. The revelation contradicts Rice’s past comments on March 22, when she claimed she knew “nothing” about the intelligence reports.

White House lawyers discovered Rice’s dozens of requests last month, during a National Security Council review of the “government’s policy on ‘unmasking’ the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally,” Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported Monday, citing U.S. officials.

But Rice, who Newsweek once called Obama’s “right-hand woman,” denied during a PBS interview last month having any knowledge of the intelligence community’s alleged incidental surveillance of Trump’s transition team.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/flashback-susan-rice-said-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/

Why does that make perfect sense?

The person who in 2012 told every major news network that a video caused the Benghazi attack. Obama’s Legacy of Lies’ right-hand deceiver.

Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.

Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.

But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.

Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.

The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.

The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.

Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.

“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/

The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.

Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.

So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.

Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?

For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?

As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.

Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more

All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:

“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”

He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.

They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”

The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.

Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

Fake News Is Obama’s Legacy

Fake news is the new code word, wolf whistle for Liberals. Media have made a cottage industry of naming anything remotely foreign to them a #FakeNews story.

So naturally the story of Pizzagate is now considered Fake News. Who really propels fake news stories? That would be the liberal Democrats. Lie whenever you have to; make it up to fit the purpose.

Well, we had an entire fake news construction of the disinformation campaign on Benghazi. Remember the video cause of Benghazi? Remember how it was up to us to prove that video narrative wrong? They withheld any evidence. Then they wrote the narrative that Benghazi was a manufactured story. Everything was a manufactured, fake story to them.

Before Benghazi, they wrote the fake news story ‘GM is alive and terrorism is dead’ — certainly no threat. So they went to any lengths to call Benghazi attack, even on 9/11, anything else but terrorism. Fort Hood was workplace violence. The fake news story of “hands up don’t shoot” went all across the media and is still repeated.

We had Solyndra and all those fake stories in their green agenda. Later, they went under and taxpayers money was lost. They lied about those.

But it was more than that. The whole Obamacare concept was designed, built and sold on lies. Constructed on deception. We call that fraud. If it was a private business it would be called false advertising. It would be labeled fraud or bait and switch marketing.

Speaking of fake news stories, Obama keeps saying he had a scandal-free administration. No media challenged him. Some things are so outrageous you know it’s a lie. But no one tells POTUS. I can already see the number one word in Trump’s presidency will be “lie.” Yet the word was banned under Obama’s reign.

Obama has a knack for lying. So virtually every time he addresses people he’s pushing fake news. Remember the JV team for ISIS? Remember terrorism has nothing to do with Islam? We found the intelligence was manipulated to deceive and paint a rosier picture. He didn’t want to hear bad news.

Then Obama always claimed to know nothing until he saw it in the media. Even though that would make him incompetent. But saying his administration was — until his last day — scandal-free is utter bullshit practically no one can believe. Still he repeats it. Reality has no impact on Obama. A fiction writer is his top foreign policy adviser.

He lied about Iran. He lied about the TPP trade deal. He lied that the Iran deal was not a treaty, to circumvent the Senate. Iran was fake news. He said there was no ransom for hostages. He said there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. And that was a huge scandal. Scandal-free? Now he touts his great legacy which is fake news on steroids.

RightRing | Bullright

Backfire: first 2016 prez debate

Sure no matter what, everyone seems to think Trump didn’t do as well as he should have. Fair criticism. He did leave an awful lot on the table — more like a smorgasbord. I think there is more than enough room for a backfire, or blow back as it may be.

Well, so much material to work with on Hillary. What was up for grabs on the table?

Travelgate
Email Server
Benghazi
Senate run 2000 fundraising
Wall St speeches
Pay to play
Foundation connections
Ethics.
Clinton Foundation — her home away from home. Shutdown issues and ethics.
Whitewater — their premier scandal
Cattle futures were very, very good to her
FBI Background Scandal — collecting and using information on opponents.
Hillary speeches were anything but free – follow the money — 11 mil in one year.
Broken promises and shattered ceilings
DNC scandal — leading to firing DWS and resignations. Politics of no choice.
Above the law
Norman Hsu Scandal and Jorge Cabrera Scandal
Damagegate to the White House — returning many things.
Records — always, the continual cover-up of her records… and her Record
Iraq vote — she actually had one, which she promptly ran away from thereafter and in her first presidential bid.
Russian reset — failure and her central focus. Getting translation wrong was not the only failure.
Reset to Red Scare
Libya and her failed mission in Benghazi.
Failed state policy on Libya
Egypt — walk like a Mo-Bro Egyptian.
Judgement disaster – this one could be disastergate.
Support Iran Deal — touts it as one of her signature achievements
TPP — she can run but she cannot hide her glowing endorsement for it.
Refusal to label Boko Haram
Her cozy partnership with Muslim Brotherhood.
Support for Refugee increases
Many lies of Hillary — she was within the law while breaking it.
Her passivity on Terrorism
Her attack on women — more like war on women. Failure to stand up for women.
Foreign Clinton Foundation donors while she endorsed beneficial policies.
Her responsibility Deficit — always claims to take responsibility, then never does.
A history of scandal and corruption — unfit and unqualified, lawfully prevented

 

Even Germany’s Angela Merkel says she wishes she could roll back time.– in regret for the refugee policy and problems. Hillary never learns, she’s irredeemable and incorrigible.

But then 11 hours of testimony to Congress on Benghazi couldn’t even put a dent in Hillary’s contemptible Libyan legacy. Nothing covers her server emailgate either.

Now the debate of so many missed opportunities. However, nothing made the Clinton record go away. She cannot delete that. Bleach-It cannot remove that stain. So it’s all still hanging like a cloud over Hillary Clinton. They did not disappear.

RightRing | Bullright

Exhibition in Dishonesty

Democrats’ convention — the proper thing to call it — has closed their big show. Lights are down, glitter is trashed and the floors are swept. And a show it was.

Something is missing now though in the media coverage. Normally there have been at least a token one or two conservatives or Republicans. I watch Republicans and they seem like the cat got their tongues. Have they all been defanged? Are they just there for looks? And many of them make cordial, polite comments on Dems’ road show production.

Hillary reintroduced herself editing out the highlights of the last 20years.

She told us that sure, “I sweat the details” on things. Thus if you accuse her of that she will take it. But where was her obsession for details in Benghazi where lives depended on those details? In every area, on details, she sold them out or rendered them irrelevant. So she is a detail freak which mitigates people’s criticism of her. And where’s Heiress’s attention to detail of her own scandalous bio. Or is that Clinton compartmentalization again?

No, we don’t see her focused on any details except self-serving politics. When probed on details, from Benghazi to her server problems, her instinct is to lie. Now her plan seems to be make Donald Trump a scapegoat for her own lack of trust and honesty.

Another note in Hillary’s speech: twice she referred to Bill Clinton as her “Explainer in Chief”. Well, isn’t that special? That illustrates her ‘too cute by half’ campaign. She always blurs the legal lines and then chuckles about the questions that follow. That’s what I mean, just too slick and offensive. So welcome back to the 90’s — or those that missed it — and the evolving definition of “is”. I guess Bill will be very busy.

RightRing | Bullright

Benghazi Report doesn’t phase the NYT

The NYT had their piece after the release of the House Select Committee report on Benghazi, and said that:

At a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Mr. Gowdy praised as heroes the Americans who died in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012. They included Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, who were killed at the main American diplomatic compound in Benghazi by a mob of militia fighters who had been incited by an American-made video deriding the Prophet Muhammad. The fighters were apparently further inflamed by news of an assault on the American Embassy in Cairo.

See article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

Are we now going in reverse, or have we been transported back in time to the original lie about the cause of the Benghazi Attack?

Benghazi select committee stonewalled

The Benghazi attack happened a few months before the 2012 Election. Now four years later, with a few months left in his term, the administration continues to run out the clock on the Select Committees investigation. We still don’t know what Obama was doing or what exactly Hillary did.

Trey Gowdy Levels Criticism Against Obama’s State Department

“Its justifications…are imaginary.”Western Journalism

The Committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., has been seeking emails and records from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her senior staff at the State Department for over one year, including the findings of an Accountability Review Board but has yet to receive anything substantial.

“Whatever the administration is hiding, its justifications for doing so are imaginary and appear to be invented for the sake of convenience. That’s not how complying with a congressional subpoena works, and it’s well past time the department stops stonewalling,” he said.

More: Trey Gowdy Levels Criticism Against Obama’s State Department

“There is only one reason why these facts are now available to the American people: thorough congressional oversight, including the Select Committee on Benghazi’s insistence that any truly comprehensive review of what happened before, during, and after the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya must include public records from the former Secretary of State and her senior staff,” said Gowdy.

“If anyone wonders why the investigation is not yet complete, the malfeasance and numerous problems identified in this report are Exhibit A, and prove the committee has faced serial delays from Day One at the hands of public officials who sought to avoid transparency and accountability,” added Gowdy.

We’re set to go into another election, four years later, without critical answers. At this point, to expect the answers or accountability from Obama’s administration would require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Maybe we will not get the answers but only an explanation as to why we didn’t get the answers or accountability.

Hillary tough as nails?

Bill Clinton says Hill’s 11 hour hearing shows she is tough enough.

Maybe she should have screened Bill’s material better before he took it on the road?

BPR Review

“It’s amazing what they put her through,” he told a cheering crowd. “But in those 11 hours she stood with the seventh committee she proved she was tough enough to be president. I don’t think there’s another figure in America (that) could’ve done that.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/23/forget-13-hours-hillarys-11-hour-benghazi-testimony-makes-her-the-hero-says-bill-clinton-297924/

I don’t think there’s another figure in America that could lie like her. I guess getting 4 Americans killed, then lying about it, makes you “tough”.

The haunting lies on Benghazi

Once again, another stunning detail on Benghazi. Forces were ready to go but never sent.

Disclosed: Email Shows Pentagon Offered ‘Forces that Could Move to Benghazi’ Immediately

BY: Adam Kredo | December 8, 2015

Newly released emails show that a senior Defense Department official offered the State Department “forces that could move to Benghazi” immediately during the deadly 2012 attack there on the American consulate.

Jeremy Bash, the former Pentagon chief of staff, offered to provide forces at 7:19 p.m. on the evening of the attack, “only hours after they had begun,” according to Judicial Watch, which disclosed the email on Tuesday.

“We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak,” Bash said.

Read: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/disclosed-email-shows-pentagon-offered-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately/

There is that word, “immediately,” which seemed to be a foreign concept on Benghazi. Why then is it so vague and hidden who stopped them? Who and why?

Scandal for hire: have experience

Here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal.

5 Hillary scandals the media is missing

by Ed Klein | NY Post | November 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton can condemn Republicans as her “enemies,” dismiss the Veterans Administration scandal as “not widespread,” and get caught lying about what she knew about Benghazi and when she knew it — but the mainstream media doesn’t seem to give a damn.

They’ve ignored those stories in favor of articles about how Hillary has come through her email scandal with flying colors. They’ve crowned her as her party’s presidential nominee three months before the first primary caucus.

More: http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/5-hillary-scandals-the-media-is-missing/

The Foundation; Uranium; Brother beneficiary; Hedge fund fever; Health: she likes to spread her scandals out.

So maybe if that is not enough for you, she is sure to have more yet to be revealed, even being created now. She’s a walking talking scandal that keeps on giving. Scandals, for Hillary, are not a problem they are a way of life. It’s a lifestyle, stupid.

If there is a scandal Hillary is not involved in, then she just hasn’t gotten around to it yet. Some people are embarrassed by scandal. Not Hillary, she flaunts them. Yet for some reason, the media likes to ignore them. It’s her greatest achievement.

Some people would run and hide from scandals, Hillary dives headlong into them and celebrates them as a skill. What’s not to like about that? It’s not her fault, there is such a demand for them, someone has to provide the service.

Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary: Breaking the law

Finally someone does an astute comparison of the Hillary Clinton email ordeal to General Petraeus and gives it more than passing reference. Ken Cuccunelli, former AG of Virginia, writes the stunning piece detailing the breach of conduct, in what I call egregious offenses to break the law.

Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law

By Ken Cuccinelli | September 27, 2015 | Op-ed NY Post

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

[excerpt]

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

Read at: http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

The big question, once this is established by the very investigation she is taunting, is would the justice department prosecute? What grounds would they use to ignore or refuse to? She could need a pardon, which by accepting it requires the basic admission that one did something wrong. No wonder Bill is out characterizing it as a little nothing.

Bill bailing out Hillary

Bill Clinton on Hillary email/server scandal: this always happens. So this is just fodder about nothing. They’ve been victims since ’91. Poor old Clintons, so used and abused.

Hey Bill. this whole victim story thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen. After all the money he took in while Hillary was Secretary of State, he has nerve to say that. Even her Senate campaign was rife with scandal. That’s just how they roll.

The arrogant ‘Heartbroken’ bastid-in-chief is back in the Spite House

Oh, right, he never left…

Daily Mail reports:

‘It breaks my heart every time’: Obama reacts to shooting of Virginia TV reporter and cameraman as he says gun-related deaths ‘dwarf those that happen through terrorism’

President Obama has revealed he was heartbroken when he learned a TV news reporter and a cameraman were shot dead during a live broadcast in Virginia.

He also slammed the number of gun-related homicides in the United States, adding that it ‘dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism’.

Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, were gunned down by former employee of the CBS affiliate Vester Flanagan while filming an on-air, early morning segment.

The 41-year-old shot and wounded himself several hours later as police pursued him on a Virginia highway. He died later at the hospital, police said.

Speaking to ABC, Obama said: ‘It breaks my heart every time you read or hear about these kinds of incidents.’

Still waiting for word from Obama about the shooting death of a girl in Ferguson  doing her homework on her mothers bed. Not like they haven’t had days now to respond. But he took this one off the teletype to harp on gun control. Shameless.  There have been more car accidents than deaths of terrorism, too. So what is the point of that? There isn’t one.

The gun-runner in chief has problems with gun laws — or lack thereof?

Heartbroken in Waiting

Hillary also chimed in interrupting her server defense road tour.

‘So, yes, I feel just great heartache at what happened and I want to reiterate how important it is we not let yet another terrible instance go by without trying to do something more to prevent this incredible killing that is stalking our country.’

Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton also weighed in on the shooting, tweeting to her followers that she was ‘heartbroken and angry.’

‘We must act to stop gun violence, and we cannot wait any longer. Praying for the victims’ families in Virginia,’ the former secretary of state wrote.

More Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3211578/Two-Virginia-television-journalists-fatally-shot-air-attack.html

How long have we been waiting for the Truth about Benghazi to come out? Now she’s the impatient one, having got an ambassador and 3 American patriots killed in Libya, who operated a renegade server as Secretary of State. So she throws out the “war on women” nonsense and she can’t wait any longer. She should be indicted and banned from holding any public office. She won’t even say if she would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. But she has a “war on the Second Amendment”.

Hillary servergate, trail of scandal

Here are some basic defense talking points on the growing Hillary server scandal — herein and in other places referred to as servergate.

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As “Classified” Or “Top Secret”

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself

“Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as “top secret” to push myths about Clinton’s handling of government information and scandalize her email use. Here are the facts.” — Media Matters.

The retroactively thing does not work. The emails from the intelligence agencies would be generated with that stamp or classification. If it was not on the documents on her server, then it had to be removed. That is just a fact. Our agencies do not willy nilly go out and put info out to be classified by others — retroactively. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

“FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use. “

They were not originated in State Department but in the various intelligence agencies that created them. Questions would have occurred regardless of Clinton’s server use? If State controlled that info how they should, there would not be a problem with it. It was her server, and information on it, being out of their loop that causes the risk and scrutiny. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes”

Regardless, the similariies involve classified information. Was her server company, vendor, cleared for such info? Did they have or create backups for it? That is why they investigated the Denver based company. So where the comparison does not work is that this was worse.

She stored them on a device, not approved, which could be compromised– or even lost. Petraeus didn’t destroy said information. (who can validate the destruction of it?) Indeed, she made copies of said information, apparently without the classification on it, electronically to another device and gave it to her lawyer. Additionally, we don’t know if she made other copies or distributed it to anyone else. Plus the emails she tried to keep from everyone.

Comparisons that might fit to any degree of similarity:

  • General Petraeus — giving notebooks to mistress with classified info in them (probation 100,000 fine)
  • Snowden — took classified documents and dispersed them to others.(currently on the lam – many calling it treason)
  • Sandy Berger with national archives — removed documents and destroyed documents.  (50,000 fine, loss of security clearance, forfeited law license, probation)

Now, it seems unlikely if not impossible that the information of classified nature could have come directly from the intelligence agencies. They would not have stripped the labeling off. And IF, big IF it arrived unmarked on her server, then someone, somewhere would have to remove it.(since it was generated with that labeling) So it would have to go through someone’s hand to remove it. The likely place being within the State Department itself. (especially as she is lecturing others not to use their private email accounts.) So if within State, someone had to remove the labeling prior to sending it to another system, unsecured out of the government loop and control. (two actions to consider) And was it the same person? Was it routinely done? That would make any others comparisons look pale. Now long this information was there and who all saw it or had access to it from there, makes her server use highly questionable.(and illegal)

“FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself.” — Really?

Right, it’s the server they are investigating. Those darned rogue things, since Clinton discovered their self-awareness and intelligence. (surely sent chills into the tech sector) A secondary issue/problem is her specious explanation of a server. If all info was being copied back to State, then why did she need the server? It would only create a redundancy and extra unnecessary hassle. We know why, she wanted to circumvent State Dep, and government(not comply with), or the very department she was the head of.

Since the subject is exploitation, what seems to be happening is a shifting of the goal post. It’s a little shrude, but then what isn’t when dealing with Clintons? Here the emphasis is all going on classified information. If, a big if, they can clear that hurdle then she can claim the investigation cleared her. But the whole issue of the server and her keeping information from the government FOIA system is very much an issue, along with the missing and hiding of emails from Benghazi.

So when they zero in focus on that legal problem of classified information it becomes a diversion on the greater server, email, information issue. As reports indicate, many sources have adopted Hillary’s meme that it is not her being investigated but her server. Who’s server was it? Even some reports have joked about the independence of her server. They willingly or not detach her, and her wrongdoing, from the server itself.

This is the opening Hillary is looking for to avoid personal responsibility or accountability. She’s already denied the classification of top secret information on it, creating a loophole to presumably dodge the entire bullet. I hope the smoke of the classified information does not distort the whole issue. It seems the only concern the Feds have and are looking at is the classified one. She must not be allowed to walk away after dumbing down the investigation the same way she did on the initial Benghazi investigation, which didn’t even question her and still made its declaration.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama theory, just brainstorming

Since it is August (Obastid’s birthday — if he has one) and it is time for theory, opinion, even conspiracy theory, I have an interesting one I’ve given some thought.

Now the possibility of this theory, nothing more, may be based on the results one wants to achieve. That is usually the way it works with Dems anyway. Outcome and agenda rule. The theory goes like this, suppose Obama had enough of the political sparing and his trust and approval have taken a hit. Plus he’s on the brink of nasty politics or investigations on multiple levels. So he could decide: (far-fetched maybe… but what if)

Before it gets any worse, why don’t I just resign while there is a little time left on the clock? That would fix them. I could step aside and preempt all their criticism or plans to attack me, especially in an election year. Do I give them that opportunity to run against me? Who do they think I am, George Bush?

I could avoid repercussions for these problems by stepping down. That would put Biden in office for the remainder. He could field these issues. Then he could stage his run from here and consolidate that support seemlessly. It would get people off my back in the immediate and my approvals would start turning around. They would see me more as the victim I am and forget these controversial side issues. Joe could challenge Hillary, who has been a thorn in my side from the beginning.

You know, Hillary would just have to suck it up. Too bad, sucks to be her. I already did plenty for Hellary. I don’t owe her anything. Joe would make a better president for this apparatus I built than she would. Her credibility is shot through anyhow. She didn’t do me any favors. She should have to work for the nomination the way I did. I hope she is not expecting me to campaign for her.

If I stepped down now it sure would put a kink in Hillary’s plans. People would love Joe and he can handle the press. Hillary would be irrelevant. She can deal with all those scandals she has going on. I can fade off and there is nothing they can do to me. I might be the most popular president in modern history in a year. By the time those Republicans are staging their run against me and Democrats, I’ll be in Hawaii polishing my legacy. I’ve already done most of what I planned and the rest is already in motion. Even Biden can handle finishing that. If I tell him he’ll be all for it. I’ll still have that loyalty and an open door.

The only scandals the press would be able to focus on then is Hillary’s. Wow was that a mistake, that ungrateful beotch. I’ll still be the real voice for progressives and she will look like a pawn to me. Biden and Elizabeth Warren could work. It’s all upside for me and downside for Hillary. Maybe I ought to do that and not let her or her people know? That would mess her up.

Well, it is just an idea and I’m not sure Barry hasn’t considered it or given it some thought. He might see it as a way to screw the people again. Do you think he would ever attempt something like that? A bit strange, but hey, these are radicals anyway. Just theorizing.

RightRing | Bullright

Hill claims China is a bully

That’s my description of what she said, I’m entitled to it. Cue Clinton’s complaints.

[AOL] U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused China on Saturday of stealing commercial secrets and “huge amounts of government information,” and of trying to “hack into everything that doesn’t move in America.”

Read more: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/04/hillary-clinton-accuses-china-of-hacking-u-s-computers/21205004/?cps=gravity_4816_3199749523481590688

Okay, that’s a first-rate case of hypocrisy for the left. She’s carrying on worried about China hacking, yet had her own private server while running the State Department. Now though, she jumps on popular sentiments against China’s cyber hacking attacks. But what did she do about it when she was at State? Nada. No doubt they hacked that little Clinton server for all it was worth.

You know, in a way I can see where Hillary was hacking the State herself by diverting email through a private server outside the State loop.

“They’re also trying to hack into everything that doesn’t move in America. Stealing commercial secrets … from defense contractors, stealing huge amounts of government information, all looking for an advantage” — Hillary Clinton said while on a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

It is laughable considering her long stint at the State Department doing nothing about it. Then she went on to castigate Iran as a threat regardless of superficial nuclear agreement. But again, as the former Secretary of State, what did she do about it?

Then she complained Iran’s “aggressiveness will not end”. She went on to rail about Russia, too. You’d never know she was Secretary of State while all this was rolling out. Perhaps she had to get out before it was too obvious? Now we have the uranium-gate and donation-gate on top of that. She’s still got Benghazi shrouded in secrecy and mystery along with he arms running to Syria. Yep she’s now worried that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket. Ya think?!

Better elect her to straighten out these problems. She’s already mentioned her gun-control agenda and amnesty for illegals. What’s next, a chicken in every pot?