DNA test results say otherwise

Ace of Spades on Monica Lewinsky:

...And if she hadn't kept that blue dress (which was later used as the basis for a DNA test), the Clintons would be lying about Bill's many and various schtuppings TO THIS DAY. In order to get them to admit the truth, the hard evidence of their lying had to be shoved right into their smug, self-righteous faces. No, it's not a vast right-wing conspiracy, Mrs. Clinton, the DNA test results say otherwise.

"In the face of pervasive corruption, it has been reduced to so much white noise."

Linda Tripp writes,

...Hillary’s incessant scandals over decades have morphed into an odd sort of national vaccination, immunizing her from accountability while hypnotizing much of the nation. In the face of pervasive corruption, it has been reduced to so much white noise. With much of the country asleep at the wheel, she is days away from likely becoming our 45th President. The colossal Clinton con will have achieved riches, greatness and immortality and that is unthinkable to those of us who knew them both.

...Behind closed doors, it was not just the constant vulgarity, the obscenities, or the alarming denigration of vast groups of their own supporters. It was not just the Hillary scandals from Filegate to Travelgate, to Whitewater and Vince Foster, to massive illegal campaign contributions, to the selling of anything that wasn’t nailed down. It wasn’t even their unbridled greed or their politics of personal destruction. That was where any perceived enemy or opponent found themselves treated to a uniquely chilling kind of Clinton retaliation. All courtesy of her bona fide secret police. That was just part of it.

Equally egregious was her vocal disdain for vast groups of people of faith and her utter contempt for the members of all the armed services. There were too many examples to cite, but my introduction to Hillary occurred in the Oval Office corridor as she headed back upstairs to her own West Wing office. An army officer dressed in Class A uniform had made the mistake of being seen in her presence. Her loud, “Get these f–king uniforms the f–k out of my sight!” floored just about everyone.

Over time the staggering profanity coming from both Bill and Hillary became expected. As the wife of an army officer for twenty years with a career at the Department of Defense spanning that long, this particular outburst offended me the most. The language coming from a First Lady was deplorable enough, but it was the harsh sentiment that was stunning. This from one who believes she is fit to be Commander-in-Chief. In any case, that was only part of it.

...This past year highlighted the Hillary I know in action. The private server. The classified emails on the unprotected server. The destruction of laptops and phones with a hammer. The actual risk to our national security and the lives of many, all for personal gain. Many involved with this server holding not a whisper of a security clearance. The bizarre immunity deals granted to just about everyone in her periphery when a grand jury had not even been impaneled. The manipulation and the destruction of the emails while under a congressional subpoena. The secret tarmac meeting between the Attorney General and Bill Clinton just before the FBI’s curiously tortured findings were unveiled.

...With the election mere days away, those who know the Clintons are left with the feeble hope that divine intervention will miraculously lift the electorate’s blinders in time.

Read more here.

Grifters

Victor Davis Hanson writes,

The Hillary/Bill fortune — generated by pay-for-play influence peddling on the proposition that Bill would return to the White House under Hillary’s aegis and reward friends while punishing enemies — hit a reported $150 million some time ago, a fortune built not on farming, mining, insurance, finance, high-tech, or manufacturing, but on skimming off money. The Clintons are simply grifters whose insider access to government gave them the power to make rich people richer.

Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation.

Why did multimillionaire Hillary charge UCLA, in the era of thousands of indebted students, $300,000 (rather than, say, $149,999.99) for a brief, platitudinous speech? Why did multimillionaire Bill need more than $17 million for being honorary “chancellor” of the financially for-profit but tottering Laureate University (whose spin-off associate organization was a recipient of State Department largesse)? Did he think the extra millions were worth the embarrassment of being the highest-paid and least-busy college executive in U.S. history?

Apparently, the good life did not drive the Clintons so much as the quest for the supposed best life. Even though they had finally “made it” among the multimillionaire set, the Clintons always saw others (no doubt, deemed by them less deserving) with far, far more — whether Jeffery Epstein, with his ability to jet wherever and with whomever he pleased, or green half-a-billionaire Al Gore, who ran even more successful cons, such as rapidly selling a worthless cable TV station to beat impending capital-gains taxes, and selling it to none other than the anti-Semitic Al Jazeera, whose carbon-generated profits come from autocratic Qatar. (The media never audited Gore’s attempt to become a cable mogul, unlike their current concerns about a potential Trump media outlet).

The Clintons suffer from greed, as defined by Aristotle: endless acquisition solely for the benefit of self. With their insatiable appetites, they resented the limits that multimillionaire status put on them, boundaries they could bypass only by accumulating ever greater riches. The billion-dollar foundation squared the circle of progressive politicians profiting from the public purse by offering a veneer of “doing good” while offering free luxury travel commensurate with the style of the global rich, by offering sinecures for their loyal but otherwise unemployable cronies, and by spinning off lobbying and speaking fees (the original font of their $100-million-plus personal fortune and the likely reason for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to put all her communications, mercantile included, on a private server safe from government scrutiny). Acquiring money to the extent that money would become superfluous was certainly a Clinton telos — and the subtext of the entire Podesta trove and the disclosures about the Clinton Foundation.

For the Clintons, power is the narcotic of being sought out, of being surrounded by retainers, of bringing enemies to heel and enticing sycophants with benefits. Liberalism and progressivism are mere social and cultural furniture, the “correct” politics of their background that one mouths and exploits to obtain and maintain political clout — and to get really, really rich without guilt or apology.

As in the quest for lucre, the Clintons’ appetite for high-profile authority is endless. Just as $150 million seemed as nothing compared with the billions and billions raked in by their friends and associates, so too eight years in the White House, tenure as governor, senator, or secretary of state were never enough. In between such tenures, the Clintons suffered droughts when they were not on center stage and in no position to wield absolute power, as they watched less deserving folk (the Obamas perhaps in particular) gain inordinate attention. A Hillary presidency would give the Clintons unprecedented Peronist-like power, in a manner unlike any couple in American history.

Of course, the Clintons are not only corrupt but cynical as well. They accept that the progressive media, the foundations, the universities, the bureaucracies, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley honor power more than trendy left-wing politics; they well understand that their fans will, for them, make the necessary adjustments to contextualize Clinton criminality or amorality. Sexual predations, the demonization of women, graft, and unequal protection under the law are also of no consequence to the inbred, conflicted, and morally challenged media – who will always check in with the Clinton team, like errant dogs who scratch the backdoor of their master after a periodic runaway.

The Clintons have contempt for the media precisely because the media are so obsequious. They smile, that, like themselves, the media are easily manipulated and compromised — to the extent of offering their articles, before publication, for Clinton approval (as the New York Times’ Mark Leibovich did; leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign (as Donna Brazile did); or saying (as Politico’s chief political correspondent did), “I have become a hack. . . . Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything.” The Clintons view such sycophants not with affection, but with disdain, given that they are moochers no better than the Clintons, with the same base desires, albeit better camouflaged by their pretense of objectivity.
Read more here.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441637/hillary-bill-clinton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlesslyRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441637/hillary-bill-clinton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlesslyRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441637/hillary-bill-clinton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlessly

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441637/hillary-bill-clinton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlesslyRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441637/hillary-bill-clinton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlesslyRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441637/hillary-bill-clinton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlessly

How will it all end?

Maureen Dowd writes at the New York Times,

We are in the final days of the first presidential contest between two New Yorkers in 72 years, since Thomas Dewey ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt: The 42-year-old Republican governor of New York used a Trump-style attack on the 62-year-old Democratic president, calling him “a tired old man.” On election night, the party and the wake will both be held in Manhattan. Hillary will hold hers at the Javits Convention Center, with its literal glass ceiling and, as The Times’s campaign reporter Maggie Haberman noted, an air of trolling: Back in the late 1970s, Trump wanted to build the center and slap the Trump name on it, but the city refused.

In this historically dreadful and mesmerizing election, which could lead to the death of the Republican Party and the ideological makeover of the Democratic Party, the New York aspect has been largely overshadowed. Only Lin-Manuel Miranda made a point of highlighting it, on “Saturday Night Live,” urging people to take their minds off the crazy election by coming to “Hamilton”: “It’s about two famous New York politicians locked in a dirty, ugly, mudslinging political campaign. Escapism!”

...Trump realized that golf was his entree if he wanted to pal around with Bill Clinton, whom he considered a kindred spirit in some ways — a great man who attracted jealous haters. “Bill is kind of Trump with a dictionary,” one author who has written about New York real estate says. Trump had been obsequious in trying to lure Ronald and Nancy Reagan to his business empire, and tried just as hard with the Clintons. He happened to have his own country club with a golf course in Westchester, which he bought out of foreclosure in the late 1990s. He closed the club in 1999 to redevelop it from top to bottom and reopened it as Trump National Golf Club in 2002. It was six miles from the Clintons’ house, and Trump could play with him, ingratiating himself further by hanging photos of Bill on the wall. As of June, Bill still had a locker at Trump’s golf club.

Trump once told me that he rebuilt the club, in part, because he knew Bill Clinton would need a place to play. As Don Van Natta Jr., an ESPN senior writer, wrote in his book about presidents and golf, “First Off the Tee,” Trump enjoyed playing with the ex-president. “He’s got a lot of golf talent, but he really likes those mulligans,” Trump told Van Natta. “If he misses a shot, he wants to take another crack at it. It’s like life.”

Trump greased the wheels of his relationship with the ex-president and the senator, giving the Clinton Foundation a $100,000 gift from his own foundation. According to “Trump Revealed,” by Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher, Trump donated to Hillary’s Senate war chest six times between 2002 and 2009, for a total of $4,700, and between 1999 and 2012, he switched his registration among the Republican, Democratic and Independence parties seven times.

Read more here.

There are four FBI investigations related to the Clintons.

Sharyl Attkisson reports that there are actually four active FBI investigations related to the Clintons.

1. Clinton Foundation: Four FBI field offices– New York, Los Angeles, Little Rock and Washington DC– have been involved in a lengthy probe of the Clinton Foundation charity. “Pay to play” allegations include the charity soliciting donations from corporations and foreign countries in exchange for access and policy considerations from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which she denies. Emails published this month by Wikileaks reflect consternation among various Clinton allies about the possible appearance of conflicts of interests.

2. Anthony Weiner sexting: ...The FBI began a probe into whether Weiner had traded sexually explicit texts with a minor, and in the process of examining his computers, investigators ran across evidence of Abedin emails sent to and from Clinton’s insecure private server(s), which the FBI had previously investigated.

3. Hillary Clinton email: In July, FBI Director Comey said that Hillary Clinton had been “grossly negligent” in the mishandling of classified emails on private servers as secretary of state, but that there was no basis under which to charge her with a crime. However, the revelations of new Abedin emails that could be relevant to the investigation have returned the status of the case to “open.”

4. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe: Longtime Clinton ally, former Clinton Foundation board member, and former head of the Democratic National Committee, McAuliffe is also said to be under FBI investigation (led by the Washington Field Office).

Read more here.

The Clintons in Haiti

Dinesh D'Souza wrote this piece in July 2015 for the National Review, explaining the activities of the Clintons and Clinton cronies in Haiti.

The "60 Minutes" lies by Bill and Hillary

Aaron Klein has the lead story in Breitbart this morning. Klein interviewed Gennifer Flowers. Flowers had a twelve year affair with Bill Clinton, which began after Bill and Hillary had been married only three months. In the interview, which will air Sunday on Kein's weekend radio program in New York, Flowers tells about having an abortion, which was paid for by Bill. She had hoped Bill would commit to parent the child with her. However, when she told Bill she was pregnant, all he offered to do was to pay for the abortion.

Hillary knew about the affair, and asked only that he "not embarrass" her. Klein reports,

Flowers never sought to go public. Her name was put out there against her will when former Clinton insider Larry Nichols, who claimed he was improperly dismissed by Clinton from a state job, mentioned Flowers in court documents. In a lawsuit, Nichols alleged that Clinton diverted state funds to engage in extramarital affairs with five women, and he named Flowers, and four others, including former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen and former Miss Arkansas Lencola Sullivan.

Nichols would later drop his lawsuit, but the charges helped form the basis for tabloid stories alleging that Clinton had extramarital affairs, including with Flowers.

Three days after Star Magazine mentioned Flowers as Clinton’s alleged mistress, Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared in January 1992 side by side on “60 Minutes,” where Bill denied a relationship with Flowers

To protect her reputation, Flowers held a press conference the next day where she played excerpts from tape recordings she had made of private phone calls with Clinton. In a deposition in 1998, Bill Clinton admitted he had a sexual encounter with Flowers.

Read more here, including details surrounding the abortion.

Juanita Broadrick once again desribes being raped by Bill and being threatened by Hillary

"That crowd"

Huma Abedin, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, urged former President Bill Clinton in 2009 to reject a speaking invitation before the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), asking his assistant in an email, do “u really want to consider sending him into that crowd?”

Abedin’s comment about “that crowd” has sparked anger and consternation among Jewish and non-Jewish leaders who consider it hostile to Jews and to the State of Israel. Her comments are raising uncomfortable questions about Abedin’s past and her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more here.

"Guilty as Sin"

Ed Klein's new book about the Clintons is excerpted here.

Clinton's Washington: the deception strategy

Christopher Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair in 1999,

...I had become utterly convinced, as early as the 1992 campaign, that there was something in the Clinton makeup that was quite seriously nasty. The automatic lying, the glacial ruthlessness, the self-pity, the indifference to repeated exposure, the absence of any tincture of conscience or remorse, the awful piety—these were symptoms of a psychopath. And it kept on getting worse and worse—but not for Clinton himself, who could usually find a way of sacrificing a subordinate and then biting his lip in the only gesture of contrition he had learned to master. (After reading the testimony of Juanita Broaddrick, I’ll never be able to think of his lip biting in the same way again. But no doubt Arthur Schlesinger will be on hand to assure us that all men lie about rape.)

Hitchens writes about his friendship with Sidney Blumenthal, who we read a lot about in Hillary's emails. Blumenthal tried to persuade Hitchens that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker. Hitchens writes,

A president, if you think about it for a second, just can’t be stalked in his own Oval Office.) However, as time went by, the significance of the conversation metamorphosed. I became convinced that, a few weeks before the lunch, Kathleen Willey had been threatened in person, had received threats against her children by name, and earlier had had her car brutally vandalized. I discovered that, within days of the lunch, she received a telephone call from a private detective named Jared Stern. Hired to invigilate her, he had sickened of his work and decided to give her an anonymous call warning her that she had influential enemies. It also appeared that Ms. Willey had been subjected to pressure by a politically connected tycoon named Nathan Landow, whom I knew by reputation as one of the less decorative members of Clinton’s soft-money world. (Asked by the grand jury whether he spoke to Ms. Willey about her testimony in the Paula Jones lawsuit on his own behalf or on the president’s, Mr. Landow has taken the Fifth Amendment.) I refuse to believe for a second that Sidney knew anything about this, but in the week that we talked, the White House “found” and released Ms. Willey’s correspondence with Clinton. I say “found” because when these same letters had been subpoenaed in the Jones case in January 1998, they couldn’t be located anywhere. Just another day in Clinton’s Washington.

...t hit me very abruptly, when I was having a drink with Erik Tarloff, Chris Buckley’s only rival as D.C.’s first satirical fictionist. As well as having contributed to speeches for Clinton and Gore, Erik is married to Laura D’Andrea Tyson, formerly Clinton’s chief economic adviser. He’s a shrewd guy, and he’s seen a lot of the Clinton M.O. “Notice how they always trash the accusers,” he said. “They destroy their reputations. If Monica hadn’t had that blue dress, they were getting ready to portray her as a fantasist and erotomaniac. Imagine what we’d all be thinking about her now.”

How, then, did the White House expect to get away with the lie? They expected to get away with it because they had made everyone complicit. In a city where the main “source” is the government, the etiquette about sources masks the plain fact that the government has a lock on the press. (One survey, which took 2,850 news stories from The Washington Post and The New York Times, found that 78 percent of the stories were attributed to government sources either on or off the record. Talk about ventriloquism. The state uses the media as a megaphone.)

Here’s what I mean. On January 23, Charles Ruff, the counsel to the president, told the Senate trial the following whopper: “The White House, the president, the president’s agents, the president’s spokes-persons—no one has ever trashed, threatened, maligned, or done anything else to Monica Lewinsky. No one.” (I know who the president’s spokespersons are, I recall thinking at the time. But who are these “agents”?) The following day, James Warren, the excellent Washington-bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, was asked to comment on CNN:

That comment by Ruff was so palpably untrue. If I had a buck for every person at the White House who bad-mouthed her to me last January I could leave the set now and head off to Antigua.

I barely know a single reporter who could not have sworn to the same. And indeed, I do know at least one reporter who was approached by the House Judiciary Committee and asked to testify. He said no. He has to live here, and he can’t commit his newspaper. I don’t have to live here. Still and all, I wish it had been Ruff rather than Sidney I heard putting the story about. As it is, the state now has a new weapon against the press. Don’t be calling the president a liar. You’ll be accused of snitching on his juniors.

When Susan Bogart, senior investigative counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, contacted me in the closing days of the trial, she asked a question to which she already knew the answer. I had put a version of the lunch with Sidney in print, in the London Independent of September 13, 1998. I had told many people. I was in the process of writing a column for a small, pro-Clinton weekly magazine, in which I was proposing to tell it again. Furthermore, the story had the merit of being true, and of being revealing of the squalid underside of Clintonism. Every time I told it, I now realize, I was placing a friend in potential jeopardy, but only because he had elected to join the president’s bodyguard. In order to disown the story, I would have had to join the general agreement about “putting this behind us and moving on.” Well, I didn’t want to join any bloody agreement about putting things behind us and moving on. I thought it was a disgrace to have a mock trial, invisibly sponsored by the stock market and the opinion polls, at which the defendant didn’t appear and at which all efforts to mention Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick were quashed. The stocks are sold, the press is squared—include me out. To disown the story, also, I would have had to risk committing perjury, in order to accuse myself of having lied in the first place, in order to safeguard a dirty tactic used by Clinton’s proxies. Well, thanks, but then again, no thanks. That would’ve been Clintonism squared or cubed. And why didn’t I run out the clock, people ask me, and get clever with lawyers and delaying tactics? That’s easy. The trial of Clinton was in its closing stages. If I strung the prosecution along, anything they later established from me could be used only against someone other than the Godfather.

So I said that, if need be, I would confirm the Lewinsky stalker stuff under oath. I also put in the material about Kathleen Willey, without being asked, so as to help establish the White House state of mind. By the time you read this, the name Willey may be much better known than it is now, and people will be ashamed that they ever spoke so fatuously about “consensual sex.” No one has bothered to notice that I went out of my way to include Willey in the affidavit, because Sidney hasn’t been asked about it under oath and doesn’t know much about it anyway, and therefore it doesn’t help the only story that people seem to care about, which is fratricide between Sidney and me. A silly town, as I said, and sometimes a spiteful one, too. A town where, as the Chinese say, when the finger points at the moon, the idiots look at the finger.

The rest of the conversation with the House Judiciary Committee—actually the bulk of the conversation—consisted of my making a moral stipulation. This affidavit was being given in the trial of one person only: the president. It was being given as a rebuttal to a White House strategy of deception. Since grand-jury testimony had elicited the fact that Clinton was the sole author of the “stalker” slander, that he had passed it to Sidney and probably others, and had seen it get into the press, I wasn’t doing more than filling in one blank. In Senate evidence, Sidney had said that he now felt he’d been lied to by his president. He wasn’t the only one who had that feeling. So it would obviously be grotesque to proceed against him for the mere offense of giving an evasive answer. Any use of my affidavit for this purpose, I said, would cause me to repudiate it and risk being held in contempt. I would testify again only about Kathleen Willey. There are no absolute guarantees in this world, but I do know that what I said was understood. Anyway, the offense of perjury has been so downwardly defined by the Clintonoids that it can’t seriously be charged against a perjurer’s apprentice. Morally, also, it has been defined by the Democratic leadership as an offense only slightly worse than telling the truth.

And for doing that, I have already been held in contempt. But in Clinton’s Washington, it is a positive honor to be despised.

Read more here.

Dick Morris says Bill left out a few things

Go here to see a few things left out in his ode to Hillary this week.

She put him to sleep

Tim Kaine checks on snoozing Bill at the twelve second mark.

Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations.

Maureen Dowd writes in The New York Times,

IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.

And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.

In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.

...On Tuesday, after Comey managed to make both Democrats and Republicans angry by indicting Clinton politically but not legally, Barry and Hillary flew to Charlotte, N.C., for their first joint campaign appearance.

Obama was left in the awkward position of vouching for Hillary’s “steady judgment” to run an angry, violent, jittery nation on the very day that his F.B.I. director lambasted her errant judgment on circumventing the State Department email system, making it clear that she had been lying to the American public for the last 16 months.

...Comey, who was then yanked up to Capitol Hill for a hearing on Thursday, revealed that instead of no emails with classified information, as Hillary had insisted, there were 110, of those turned over to the State Department. Instead of Clinton’s assurances that the server in the basement in Chappaqua had never been breached, Comey said it was possible that hostile actors had hacked Clinton’s email account. Among the emails not given to State, he said at least three contained classified information.

Hillary had already compromised the president, who feels he needs her to cement his legacy. Obama angered F.B.I. agents when he was interviewed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last fall and undermined the bureau’s investigation by exonerating Hillary before the F.B.I. was done with its work, saying pre-emptively, “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

After Bill Clinton crossed the tarmac in Phoenix to have a long chat with Lynch, the attorney general confessed that the ill-advised meeting had “cast a shadow” over her department’s investigation into his wife and that she would feel constrained to follow the recommendation of the F.B.I.

“I certainly wouldn’t do it again,” Lynch said, admitting it hit her “painfully” that she had made a mistake dancing with the Arkansas devil in the pale moonlight.

The meeting seemed even more suspect a week later, when The Times reported that Hillary might let Lynch stay on in a new Clinton administration.

...“You’ve got a situation here where the woman who would be in charge of setting national security policy as president has been deemed by the F.B.I. unsuitable to safeguard and handle classified information,” Bill Savarino, a Washington lawyer specializing in security clearances, told the Times.

...But what should disturb Obama, who bypassed his own vice president to lay out the red carpet for Hillary, is that the email transgression is not a one off. It’s part of a long pattern of ethical slipping and sliding, obsessive secrecy and paranoia, and collateral damage.

Comey’s verdict that Hillary was “negligent” was met with sighs rather than shock. We know who Hillary and Bill are now. We’ve been held hostage to their predilections and braided intrigues for a long time. (On the Hill, Comey refused to confirm or deny that he’s investigating the Clinton Foundation, with its unseemly tangle of donors and people doing business with State.)

We’re resigned to the Clintons focusing on their viability and disregarding the consequences of their heedless actions on others. They’re always offering a Faustian deal. This year’s election bargain: Put up with our iniquities or get Trump’s short fingers on the nuclear button.

The Clintons work hard but don’t play by the rules. Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations.

Read more here.

He's colorful and sounds good, but let's take a closer look

Donald Trump would not be beholden to the big GOP donors and political consultants who gave us Romney and McCain. That's a good thing, right? Talk show host Michael D, Brown on Denver's KHOW says not so fast, folks. Remember Ross Perot, who ran as a third party candidate and took enough votes away from George H.W. Bush to give us the Clintons? Trump could do the same thing.

Brown also points out that Trump is a gun control advocate, a big supporter of New York Democrats, and although he says he would repeal Obamacare, he would have no such authority as president.

The Clintons: pioneers of the brazen lie, coyly delivered and knowingly accepted

Bret Stephens writes in the Wall Street Journal,

We are hardly a month past Hillary Clinton’s Server-gate press conference, in which she served up whoppers faster than a Burger King burger flipper—lies large and small, venial and potentially criminal, and all of them quickly found out. Emails to Bill, who never emails? The convenience of one device, despite having more than one device?

...What the Clintons pioneered—the brazen lie, coyly delivered and knowingly accepted—has become something more than the M.O. of one power couple. It has become the liberal way of lying.

...Question for Mrs. Clinton: Does she think the U.S. should gently midwife Iran’s nuclear birth or violently abort it? If she wants to be president, our former top diplomat could honor us with a detailed answer.

In the meantime, let’s simply note what the liberal way of lying has achieved. We are on the cusp of reaching the most consequential foreign-policy decision of our generation. We have a deal whose basic terms neither side can agree on. We have a president whose goals aren’t what he said they were, and whose motives he has kept veiled from the public.

Maybe the ayatollah will give him his deal, and those with the secret knowledge will cheer. As for the rest of us: Haven’t we learned that we’re too stupid to know what’s for our own good?

Read more here.

"How dumb do the Clintons think we are?"

John Hinderaker asks at PowerLine, "Will the Clinton's greed do them in?"

The Washington Post reports that while Hillary was Secretary of State, “[t]he Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments.” How many millions? Weirdly, the Post doesn’t say. It does tell us that as of 2008–before Hillary became Secretary of State–”Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.”

Accepting donations to a family foundation from foreign governments while serving as Secretary of State represents extraordinarily bad judgment. Sure, most of the money went to bona fide charitable causes. But there are any number of ways to donate to, say, earthquake or flood relief. Does anyone seriously think that a foreign government would choose the Clinton Foundation as its preferred charitable vehicle unless it sought to curry favor with a) a former president and still leading figure in the Democratic Party, b) the Secretary of State, and c) a possible future president? How dumb do the Clintons think we are?

Moreover, there is reason to suspect that the Clinton Foundation has served as a slush fund to finance the Clintons’ private enjoyments. The New York Post reported in 2013 that the Clinton Foundation had spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003. Think about that: $50 million!

Presumably when Bill rode the Lolita Express, the bills were paid by his convicted sex offender pal Jeffrey Epstein. But who knows what discreditable episodes may have been funded by the Clinton Foundation and its overseas donors, if any journalist took the trouble to check?

Photo by airport-data.com
This is the jet of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, used eleven times to fly Bill Clinton around, according to flight logs released today.
Read more here.