Monday, October 31, 2016


There are moments in life when one is caught utterly unprepared. "I heard the snake was baffled by his sin!"

What does a man do? bears and dares;
and how does a little boy fare? He fares.

(“Mr. Pou & The Alphabet,” John Berryman)

I’m turning 40 in a few weeks. I wasn’t expecting it. Like most of us, I’ve spent a lifetime learning a vocabulary fit to describe only the thrusts and pleasures of youth. I have many words for hope. I have odes to future plans. And I have faith. But don’t ask me about my right knee—it creaks now like the floor of an old hotel—or about the dread I feel each night, watching my children sleep and knowing that I can’t protect them, not from everything, not forever. I’ve lived a hard and sobering life, but my failures still confound me, and, on certain cold nights, so do my desires. And my heart breaks too easily these days, weighed down by the darkness that creeps in from every crack in the culture. I don’t know the words to describe the path forward, mine and ours. Thank God my rabbi, Leonard Cohen, does.

He released a new album last week, his 14th. I won’t bother searching for the right adjectives to describe it; that would be dumb, like pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the tallest mountain. It’s Cohen’s line, delivered in response to the news that his contemporary, Dylan, had just won the Nobel Prize. But Cohen could’ve easily been talking about himself: His new album is majestic, but its beauty gains nothing from description. Like a mountain, it is immediately and completely evident, inscrutable and inescapable. Like a mountain, it prompts a reckoning.

Which is not to suggest that the album is ominous. Its title may be You Want It Darker, but darkness has always found Cohen ambivalent; he may appreciate the purity of despair, but it has never been his drug. Unlike Dylan—for whom it’s never dark yet but always getting there—Cohen sees more layers to the night. His songbook is a manual for living with defeat, and its force has never been as moving or as clear as it is in the nine songs that make up his latest release.

Consider the following, from
“Steer Your Way”:

Steer your path through the pain
that is far more real than you
That has smashed the Cosmic Model,
that has blinded every View
And please don’t make me go there,
though there be a God or not
Year by year
Month by month
Day by day
Thought by thought
It’s about as elegant an expression of Jewish theology as we have ever received. In its infancy—as the late Rabbi Alan Lew notes in his wonderful book This Is Real and You Are Completely Unprepared, a title of which Cohen, I imagine, would approve—the old religion had a rosy-eyed view of the world. Four things, the Babylonian Talmud teaches us, “will cause God to tear up the decree of judgment which has been issued against a person: acts of righteousness, fervent prayer, changing one’s name, and changing one’s behavior.” But if you’ve lived as long as Cohen has—he’s 82 now, just a kid with a crazy dream—you know that prayer and good deeds and all kinds of change aren’t enough and that sometimes the righteous, whatever their name may be, are struck down and suffer and die. Judaism realized this, too, eventually, which is why the liturgy came to offer an amended view of fate. The Unetaneh Tokef prayer, for example, which Cohen had translated into a transcendent song, tells us that “Teshuvah, prayer, and righteous deeds can transform the evil of the decree.”

Not, mind you, change it, let alone tear it up: Just transform it. Our best efforts at repentance and rebirth, Rabbi Lew wisely noted, “will not change what happens to us; rather, they will change us.” That is the essence—of Judaism, of growing older with grace, and of Cohen’s new album, an essential guide to both; it’s going to get darker, it always does, but that’s all the more reason to try harder, not an invitation to surrender.

There’s fight in every one of Cohen’s new songs, illuminated by the wisdom of his years but powered by a lust for life that is rare even in artists who are decades younger. “I was fighting with temptation / But I didn’t want to win,” he sings with an almost audible wink, “A man like me don’t like to see / Temptation caving in.” It’s an invigorating sentiment, reminding us that even our most glaring flaws are not without their secret joys, and that our missteps, too, eventually take us to where we need to be. We may love and lose, we may try and we may stumble, but we feel, and the more we do the more alive we are even as we slouch toward the great eternal rest. “I heard the snake was baffled by his sin,” he muses in one of the album’s finest expressions of this profound idea, “He shed his scales to find the snake within / but born again is born without a skin / The poison enters into everything.” Teshuvah, or return—to righteousness, to our true selves, to those we love—is often difficult, sometimes deadly, always essential. There’s simply no other way.

I have no idea if the Lord of Song consults the Hebrew calendar, but it can hardly be a coincidence that Cohen’s album was released during Sukkot, our most Cohenesque of holidays. Immediately following the Day of Judgment and the Day of Atonement, Sukkot instructs us in ritual, as Cohen does us in song, to rejoice in brokenness. We are commanded to leave our comfortable homes—a subtle reminder that they’re not as stable and sheltering as we’d like to think—and instead eat and sleep in a ramshackle structure that’s nothing if not a monument to impermanence. Having spent the Days of Awe in meditation and prayer, we begin the year with a physical reminder that all must and does pass, and that the best we can do with the time we are given is to knock down our walls and open our doors and our hearts.

It’s a radical notion for a culture like ours, so solipsistic and so sophomorically obsessed with unequivocal triumphs. But Cohen has always been there for us, our singing prophet, reminding us to bear and dare, asking us to steer our hearts not to higher ground, to some more perfect ideal, or even to God, but back into ourselves, and into the hearts of others, no matter how painful it may be. Like a magical mantra, his wisdom grows more powerful with each repetition, pulling us away from our distractions and into its light. With this perfect new album we may begin to transcend: All we need is love—and Leonard Cohen.


Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morninTablet Magazine is a project of Nextbook Inc.

Sunday, October 30, 2016




2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election

Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win'

By Ken Kurson • 10/28/16 1:00pm

Hillary Clinton listens to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speak during the third U.S. presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. - Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.

The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.

The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton’s Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election is “rigged.”

Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”

Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral equivalency.

Eli Chomsky, photographed today at the Observer offices, participated in an interview with Hillary Clinton at the Jewish Press in 2006. - Observer

Regarding capturing combatants in war—the June capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas militants who came across the Gaza border via an underground tunnel was very much front of mind—Clinton can be heard on the tape saying, “And then, when, you know, Hamas, you know, sent the terrorists, you know, through the tunnel into Israel that killed and captured, you know, kidnapped the young Israeli soldier, you know, there’s a sense of like, one-upsmanship, and in these cultures of, you know, well, if they captured a soldier, we’ve got to capture a soldier.”
Equating Hamas, which to this day remains on the State Department’s official list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, with the armed forces of a close American ally was not what many expected to hear in the Jewish Press editorial offices, which were then at Third Avenue and Third Street in Brooklyn. (The paper’s office has since moved to the Boro Park section of Brooklyn.) The use of the phrase “these cultures” is also a bit of a head-scratcher.
According to Chomsky, Clinton was “gracious, personable and pleasant throughout” the interview, taking about an hour to speak to, in addition to himself, managing editor Jerry Greenwald, assistant to the publisher Naomi Klass Mauer, counsel Dennis Rapps and senior editor Jason Maoz.

Another part of the tape highlights something that was relatively uncontroversial at the time but has taken on new meaning in light of the current campaign—speaking to leaders with whom our country is not on the best terms. Clinton has presented a very tough front in discussing Russia, for example, accusing Trump of unseemly ardor for strongman Vladimir Putin and mocking his oft-stated prediction that as president he’d “get along” with Putin.

Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.

“Do you think it’s worth talking to Syria—both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel’s point [of view]?”

Clinton replied, “You know, I’m pretty much of the mind that I don’t see what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you’re not stupid and giving things away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary, they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our shores, we never stopped talking to them,” an answer that reflects her mastery of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.

Shortly after, she said, “But if you say, ‘they’re evil, we’re good, [and] we’re never dealing with them,’ I think you give up a lot of the tools that you need to have in order to defeat them…So I would like to talk to you [the enemy] because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I’ve got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my campaign against you. That’s my take on it.”

A final bit of interest to the current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to terrorism, Clinton said, “I think you can make the case that whether you call it ‘Islamic terrorism’ or ‘Islamo-fascism,’ whatever the label is we’re going to give to this phenomenon, it’s a threat. It’s a global threat. To Europe, to Israel, to the United States…Therefore we need a global response. It’s a global threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of principle…So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as you realize that underneath that global vision there’s a lot of variety and differentiation that has to go on.”

It’s not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and differentiation, but what’s quite clear is that the then-senator, just five years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was comfortable deploying the phrase “Islamic terrorism” and the even more strident “Islamo-fascism,” at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish newspaper.

In an interview before the Observer heard the tape, Chomsky told the Observer that Clinton made some “odd and controversial comments” on the tape. The irony of a decade-old recording emerging to feature a candidate making comments that are suddenly relevant to voters today was not lost on Chomsky, who wrote the original story at the time. Oddly enough, that story, headlined “Hillary Clinton on Israel, Iraq and Terror,” is no longer available on and even a short summary published on the Free Republic site offers a broken link that can no longer surface the story.

“I went to my bosses at the time,” Chomsky told the Observer. “The Jewish Press had this mindset that they would not want to say anything offensive about anybody—even a direct quote from anyone—in a position of influence because they might need them down the road. My bosses didn’t think it was newsworthy at the time. I was convinced that it was and I held onto it all these years.”

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, publisher of Observer Media.


Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

Has America become so numb by the decades of lies and cynicism oozing from Clinton Inc. that it could elect Hillary Clinton as president, even after Friday's FBI announcement that it had reopened an investigation of her emails while secretary of state?
We'll find out soon enough.

It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.

A NEW CACHE OF 650,000 EMAILS ... 
FBI director James Comey's announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious.

This can't be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner's wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been "reckless" with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution.

So what should the Democrats do now?

If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

Since Oct. 7, WikiLeaks has released 35,000 emails hacked from Clinton campaign boss John Podesta. Now WikiLeaks, no longer a neutral player but an active anti-Clinton agency, plans to release another 15,000 emails.
What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.

The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee — should begin demanding it.

But what will Hillary do?

She'll stick and ride this out and turn her anger toward Comey. For Hillary and Bill Clinton, it has always been about power, about the Clinton Restoration and protecting fortunes already made by selling nothing but political influence.

She'll remind the nation that she's a woman and that Donald Trump said terrible things about women. If there is another notorious Trump video to be leaked, the Clintons should probably leak it now. Then her allies in media can talk about misogyny and sexual politics and the headlines can be all about Trump as the boor he is and Hillary as champion of female victims, which she has never been.

Remember that Bill Clinton leveraged the "Year of the Woman." Then he preyed on women in the White House and Hillary protected him. But the political left — most particularly the women of the left — defended him because he promised to protect abortion rights and their other agendas.
If you take a step back from tribal politics, you'll see that Mrs. Clinton has clearly disqualified herself from ever coming near classified information again. If she were a young person straight out of grad school hoping to land a government job, Hillary Clinton would be laughed out of Washington with her record. She'd never be hired.

As secretary of state she kept classified documents on the home-brew server in her basement, which is against the law. She lied about it to the American people. She couldn't remember details dozens of times when questioned by the FBI. Her aides destroyed evidence by BleachBit and hammers. Her husband, Bill, met secretly on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch for about a half-hour, and all they said they talked about was golf and the grandkids.
And there was no prosecution of Hillary.

That isn't merely wrong and unethical. It is poisonous.
And during this presidential campaign, Americans were confronted with a two-tiered system of federal justice: one for standards for the Clintons and one for the peasants.

I've always figured that, as secretary of state, Clinton kept her home-brew email server — from which foreign intelligence agencies could hack top secret information — so she could shield the influence peddling that helped make the Clintons several fortunes.

The Clintons weren't skilled merchants. They weren't traders or manufacturers. The Clintons never produced anything tangible. They had no science, patents or devices to make them millions upon millions of dollars.

All they had to sell, really, was influence. And they used our federal government to leverage it.

If a presidential election is as much about the people as it is about the candidates, then we'll learn plenty about ourselves in the coming days, won't we?

Listen to the Chicago Way podcast with John Kass and Jeff Carlin. Guests are Tribune cartoonist Scott Stantis and former White House Chief of Staff William Daley:

Saturday, October 29, 2016


‘The woman is a disaster!’: Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton ... A wide-ranging interview with the iconoclastic professor

Talking to Camille Paglia is like approaching a machine gun: madness to stick your head up and ask a question, unless you want your brain blown apart by the answer, but a visceral delight to watch as she obliterates every subject in sight. Most of the time she does this for kicks. It’s only on turning to Hillary Clinton that she perpetrates an actual murder: of Clinton II’s most cherished claim, that her becoming 45th president of the United States would represent a feminist triumph.

‘In order to run for president of the United States, you have to spend two or three years of your life out on the road constantly asking for money and most women find that life too harsh, too draining,’ Paglia argues. ‘That is why we haven’t had a woman president in the United States — not because we haven’t been ready for one, for heaven’s sakes, for a very long time…’

Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’

Not that Paglia was always opposed to the Clintons. She voted for Bill Clinton twice before becoming revolted by the treatment meted out to Monica Lewinsky: ‘One of the very first interviews I did here — the headline was “Kind of a bitch — why I like Hillary Clinton”. My jaundiced view of her is entirely the result of observing her behaviour. And last election, I voted for Jill Stein’s Green party. So I have already voted for a woman president.’

As far as most feminists are concerned, such a view is unconscionable. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright made it their business to castigate American girls who wanted Bernie Sanders, while Madonna has promised a blowjob for every Clinton vote. Professor Paglia does not seem to mind much if she makes herself violently unpopular with her contemporaries — she’s an expert at it. Currently professor of the humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, she first shot to fame in 1990 with the publication of Sexual Personae — a manuscript turned down by seven publishers before it became a bestseller.

Paglia’s feminism has always been concerned with issues far beyond her own navel and the Hillary verdict is typical of her attitude — which is more in touch with women in the real world than most feminists’ (a majority of Americans, for example, have an ‘unfavourable view of Hillary Clinton’ according to recent polling).

‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’
Paglia traces the roots of this belief system to American campus culture and the cult of women’s studies. This ‘poison’ — as she calls it — has spread worldwide. ‘In London, you now have this plague of female journalists… who don’t seem to have made a deep study of anything…’

Paglia does not sleep with men — but she is, very refreshingly, in favour of them. She never moans about ‘the patriarchy’ but freely asserts that manmade capitalism has enabled her to write her books.

As for male/female relations, she says that they are far more complex than most feminists insist. ‘I wrote a date-rape essay in 1991 in which I called for women to stand up for themselves and learn how to handle men. But now you have this shibboleth, “No means no.” Well, no. Sometimes “No” means “Not yet”. Sometimes “No” means “Too soon”. Sometimes “No” means “Keep trying and maybe yes”. You can see it with the pigeons on the grass. The male pursues the female and she turns away, and turns away, and he looks a fool but he keeps on pursuing her. And maybe she’s testing his persistence; the strength of his genes… It’s a pattern in the animal kingdom — a courtship pattern…’ But for pointing such things out, Paglia adds, she has been ‘defamed, attacked and viciously maligned’ — so, no, she is not in the least surprised that wolf-whistling has now been designated a hate crime in Birmingham.

Girls would be far better advised to revert to the brave feminist approach of her generation — when women were encouraged to fight all their battles by themselves, and win. ‘Germaine Greer was once in this famous debate with Norman Mailer at Town Hall. Mailer was formidable, enormously famous — powerful. And she just laid into him: “I was expecting a hard, nuggety sort of man and he was positively blousy…” Now that shows a power of speech that cuts men up. And this is the way women should be dealing with men — finding their weaknesses and susceptibilities… not bringing in an army of pseudo, proxy parents to put them down for you so you can preserve your perfect girliness.’

In an hour’s non-stop talking, Professor Paglia is only lost when asked which younger feminists she would pass the baton to. ‘I would love to inspire dissident young feminists to realise that this brand of feminism is not all feminism…’ she says, before citing Germaine Greer as the woman she admires most alive, and Amelia Earhart and Katharine Hepburn as heroines alas dead.

As with Greer, it is Paglia’s power of speech that utterly devastates. Her collected works read like a dictionary of vicious quotations. (Leaving sex to the feminists? ‘Like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.’ Lena Dunham? ‘She’s a big pile of pudding.’) Paglia is pro-liberty, pro–pornography, pro-prostitutes and anti- any and all special treatment when it comes to women in power: ‘I do not believe in quotas of any kind. Scandinavian countries are going in that direction and it’s an insult to women — the idea that you need a quota.’ Which brings us back to Hillary and the so-called victory her re-entering the White House would represent: ‘If Hillary wins, nothing will change. She knows the bureaucracy, all the offices of government and that’s what she likes to do, sit behind the scenes and manipulate the levers of power.’
Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’
All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.

Camille Paglia was a speaker at the Battle of Ideas in London last weekend. Her book Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism will be published next year.


FBI Found "Tens Of Thousands Of Emails" Belonging To Huma Abedin On Weiner's Laptop ... the rub: Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills both have security clearances and their not in prison for treason!!! 
With furious Democrats - and the Clinton Campaign - now openly blasting the FBI's reopened investigation (as Republicans take delight for once in having a government agency reinforce their side of events), the question turns to just what emails were found on Weiner's laptop, and how damaging their contents are for the FBI to take the unprecedented step of "intervening" in a major political event just days before the national election.


We first laid what was the most likely explanation yesterday, when we showed several examples of Huma Abedin emails being sent from her work email account to her personal account at, courtesy of a Judicial Watch FOIA release. Of the more than 160 emails in the latest Judicial Watch release, some 110 emails – two-thirds of the total – were forwarded by Abedin to two personal addresses she controlled. The Washington Times reported in August 2015 that the State Department had admitted to a federal judge that Abedin and Mills used personal email accounts to conduct government business in addition to Clinton’s private to transact State Department business.

One email from May 15, 2009, was sent by Abedin from her State Department email to her personal email. Abedin was archiving in her personal email account an email Hillary Clinton sent her from Clinton’s private email server at Abedin was asked to print out attachments to an email Mills sent via a private address the previous day to Clinton involving “timetables and deliverables” for her review via Alec Ross, a technology policy expert who then held the title of senior adviser for innovation to Secretary Clinton.

However, while forwarding Hillary's emails to her personal email server for "convenience" is one thing, what is more troubling is the amount of redaction involved in these emails which migrated to the open email account, which as we now know ended up in Anthony Weiner's computer: in the above example, the two pages of timetables and deliverables attached to the email were 100 percent redacted, with “PAGE DENIED” stamped across the first redacted page.
An argument can be made that the extensive redaction confirms confidential material was part of the transmission.
This is a nuanced point being pushed by Hillary Clinton supporters such as Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald, who in an article yesterday tried to make a case citing "sources" (even though the FBI said that nobody has seen the content of the Weiner/Abedin emails), that "no emails being examined by FBI were to or from Clinton."

It remains to be seen just what is in the emails, although whether Hillary sent emails with confidential content herself, or directed, or simply allowed her closest aide, Huma Abedin to forward such emails to her outside unsecured email address (where they subsequently ended up on Anthony Weiner's notebook), is what this latest case will be all about and how it will be defended and prosecuted in the media, by the water coolers and perhaps, in court.

However, we do know one thing: according to the NYT, the number of Huma emails that made their way to Weiner's PC was staggering:

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the tens of thousand

Which brings up two more critical questions: 

i) when she was questioned by the FBI over the summer, did Huma reveal and admit the existence of these "thousands" of emails located on a personal, home computer, and 
ii) will the FBI be able to comb through everything in the next 10 days ahead of the election? If the answer to the second question is no, will the US presidential election really take place with one candidate currently under FBI investigation, one which could potentially lead to impeachment proceedings within weeks or days of her being elected president?

Still, the biggest irony in this latest debacle is that it was largely predicted by Donald Trump himself back in August of 2015.

Friday, October 28, 2016



It's a fact that a YEAR of Polls have shown 68% of Americans see Hillary Clinton as "dishonest and untrustworthy"--- 68 Per Cent ! 61% even feel she has broken Laws!

A corrupt, Serial-lyar is what she is folks --- has been for Decades over 30 years!

Anyone believing she'll suddenly change after November is delusional. There will be endless criticism, investigations, and criminal allegations of this venal, amoral woman the entire time she sullies and defames the Office of the Presidency.

God help us!

Thursday, October 27, 2016





Schweizer: 12 Days from Election, Clinton World Still Has No Good Answers on Russian Uranium Deal
The transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium to a Russian-controlled company, first exposed in Clinton Cash and confirmed by the New York Times, has become a central subject of the presidential campaign. Donald Trump has referenced it in his speeches and news media “fact checkers” have been furiously writing about it.

Set aside for a minute how candidates might inartfully describe a complex transaction or the semantic games that might be played by “fact checkers.” The usually curious news media is going to absurd lengths to pretend that there is nothing here so the issue will go away.

Briefly, a Russian government sought federal government approval to purchase a Canadian company called Uranium One which controlled 20 percent of American uranium assets. This required the approval of several federal government agencies, because the deal involved a material (uranium) of national strategic importance.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of those agencies which signed off on the deal.

Nine shareholders connected to Uranium One contributed a combined $145 million to the Clinton Foundation before or during the time the review took place. Some of those donations were not publicly disclosed at the time, as the Clintons promised they would.

These facts were revealed in my book Clinton Cash and confirmed by the New York Times in their own investigation. And reporters have not questioned these elements of the story.

There are three primary defenses that Team Clinton has offered to the story that certain elements of the news media has gobbled up eagerly.

There were nine agencies that reviewed this deal and approved it—so there is nothing to see. What they ignore, of course, is that no other agency head received $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in the deal. The fact that other government agencies approved this deal is irrelevant.

Imagine if a jury of nine individuals is hearing a murder case and one of the jurors had financial ties to the individual on trial. If the jury came back 9-0 for acquittal, does that mean no bribery took place or no conflict of interest existed? Of course not.

The Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility in this area says that Hillary was not involved in the decision, so there is nothing to see. The Clinton campaign and the news media, including Washington Post “fact checkers,” trot out Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez to say ”Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” (The professionals at Time Magazine and PolitiFact both incorrectly called him Jose “Hernandez”).

Set aside the fact that Fernandez was a political appointee. Is he credible? The news media never seems to ask this question, nor ask for any evidence.

Newly released emails via Wikileaks, however, provide clear evidence that Fernandez is deeply entrenched in the Clinton political operation. As he wrote to John Podesta on April 17th, 2015, “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” He also wrote John Podesta on March 30th, 2015, “Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP board of trustees, which I’m finding extremely rewarding.” Does this sound like someone who is an impartial source? Or a political operative?

It’s a coincidence that shareholders in Uranium One were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. One of the most ridiculous defenses of this deal that has been offered is that Uranium One was a Canadian company that just happened to send money to the Clinton Foundation. This completely ignores the fact that the Clintons helped Uranium One acquire its most important uranium assets.

As the New York Times recounted in a 2008 article, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan to help Frank Giustra acquire the rights to uranium mines in Kazakhstan. After Giustra acquired those rights, Giustra sent $30 million to the Clinton Foundation.

As the Washington Post further reported in 2010, the Kazakh official who authorized the transfer of those rights to Giustra said in a video deposition that he was also pressured by then-Senator Hillary Clinton to hand over those assets. So the relationship between the Clintons and Uranium One is not tangential. They were central to Uranium One becoming a uranium company, one that the Russian government would want to acquire.

The lack of curiosity by the news media on this is astounding. Imagine for a moment that Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon intervened in a matter that benefited a defense contractor and its shareholders. And imagine if nine shareholders in that company donated $145 million to a Rumsfeld family foundation. Would the news media take the word of his deputy that he didn’t directly intervene in the matter? Would they say there is no story because other government agencies were involved in that decision? Of course they wouldn’t.

Furthermore, the media shrugs its shoulder that millions of dollars in the donations to the Clintons involving the Uranium One deal (including those from the Chairman of the company) were undisclosed. This despite the fact that they had signed a written agreement with President Obama that they would do so, and Hillary told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the American people that she would do so.

Ordinarily, “millions in secret contributions” gets the media moving. I guess hidden donations and flows of money involving other political figures will not be of interest in the future.

We now know that the Clinton Foundation operated with a quid pro quo when it came to donations during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State. We know this because the Podesta emails revealed an internal review of the Clinton Foundation done by the law firm Simpson Thacher which states precisely that.

The review done in 2011 found that some donors “have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.” The firm went so far as to “recommend that the Foundation establish a gift acceptance policy and procedures to ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”

Clearly, the law firm was deeply troubled by the pay to play culture at the Foundation. There is no evidence that they implemented these suggestions.

The Clinton defense in the Uranium One deal rests entirely on us taking their word for the fact that there is nothing to see. But of course, that is what they said about the email server. And we now know how widely they lied about that scandal. The fact that the news media is playing lap dog and not watch dog in this case does enormous damage to the integrity of our government.

It’s time for an independent federal investigation of this deal.


Published on Oct 25, 2016
Thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, we now know EXACTLY which mainstream media reporters have been completely compromised by Hillary Clinton!
A new set of emails released from John Podesta reveal 2 top-secret lists of reporters getting their cues DIRECTLY from Hillary.

John Podesta actually sent out an invitation to THESE 63 major reporters to have an “off-the-record” dinner at his mansion where they could plan their strategy on how to beat the American people.
Full Article can be found Here:

Original Memo Attachment file from the Email:

WikiLeaks Emails:
RE: Press Dinners - Full Info 
Date: 2015-04-08 14:31 
Subject: RE: Press Dinners - Full Info

For those who have been asking, here is the

ABC – Diane Sawyer YES 
ABC – George Stephanoplous LIKELY 
ABC - David Muir YES 
Bloomberg – John Heillman 
Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter 
Bloomberg – Mark Halperin 
Buzzfeed – Ben Smith NO/IN KOREA 
CNN – Erin Burnett YES 
CNN – Gloria Borger 
CNN – John Berman 
CNN - Jeff Zucker YES 
CNN – Kate Bouldan 
Huffington Post – Arianna Huffington 
MSNBC – Alex Wagner 
MSNBC – Ed Schultz TRYING 
MSNBC – Rachel Maddow 
MSNBC - Phil Griffin YES 
MSNBC - Beth Fouhy NO/IN PA 
MSNBC – Thomas Roberts YES 
NBC – Savannah Gutherie 
New Yorker - Ryan Liza NO/IN LA 
NY Post – Geofe Earl YES 
NYT – Amy Chozik YES 
NYT – Maggie Haberman YES 
NYT – Pat Healey YES 
NYT - Jonathan Martin YES 
NYT - Gail Collins YES 
POLITICO – Glenn Thrush Tina Brown 
YAHOO - Matt Bai YES 
PEOPLE - Sandra Sobieraj Westfall 
PBS - Charlie Rose YES 
VICE - Alyssa Mastramonoco YES 
GPG - Mike Feldman 
CBS - Gayle King 
CBS - Norah O'Donnell 
MSNBC - Joe Scarborough NO/IN PA 
MSNBC - Mika Brzezinski 
New Yorker - David Remnick YES 
MORE - Betsy Fisher Martin 
*From:* Jesse Ferguson [] 
*Sent:* Monday, April 6, 2015 5:31 PM 
*To:* 'Mandy Grunwald' 
*Cc:* 'Amanda Renteria'; 'Huma Abedin'; 'Marlon Marshall'; 'Robby Mook'; 'Nick Merrill'; 'Jennifer Palmieri'; ''; 'Kristina Schake'; 'Margolis, Jim'; 'Joel Benenson'; 'John Podesta'; 'Marissa Astor' 
*Subject:* RE: Press Dinners - Full Info Invite to reporters just went out today – so will circulate the press list of attendees tomorrow so everyone has in advance. Thanks. 

*From:* Mandy Grunwald [
*Sent:* Monday, April 6, 2015 5:25 PM 
*To:* Jesse Ferguson *Cc:
* Amanda Renteria; Huma Abedin; Marlon Marshall; Robby Mook; Nick Merrill; Jennifer Palmieri;; Kristina Schake; Margolis, Jim; Joel Benenson; John Podesta; Marissa Astor 
*Subject:* Re: Press Dinners - Full Info Wow. 
These weren't on my schedule. I was planning to leave NYC after the shoot Thursday. I might be able to get to Podesta's Thursday night. Can you please send the press list for each? Thanks 

Mandy Grunwald 
Grunwald Communications 
202 973-9400 
On Apr 6, 2015, at 5:10 PM, 
Jesse Ferguson wrote: 

We wanted to make sure everyone on this email had the latest information on the two upcoming dinners with reporters. Both are off-the-record. 
1) Thursday night, April 9th at 7:00p.m. Dinner at the Home of John Podesta. His address is 3743 Brandywine St NW in Washington, DC. This will be with about 20 reporters who will closely cover the campaign (aka the bus). 

2) Friday night, April 10th at 6:30p.m. Cocktails and Whores D'oeuvre at the Home of Joel Benenson. His home address is 60 E. 96th Street, #12B, New York, 10128. This is with a broader universe of New York reporters. We understand if it’s too hard to make it, not a big deal, but great if you can. Let me know if you have any questions.


It’s not over yet: Donald Trump will win, says top forecaster
Donald Trump at a rally in Tampa, Florida (Photo: Getty)
Hillary Clinton’s confidence could cost her the US presidency, according to a leading American political scientist who claims that Donald Trump is on course to win the US election in 12 days.
The warning comes amid concerns from the Clinton campaign team that voter turnout will yet prove critical, despite many polls suggesting that the Democratic candidate is ahead of her Republican rival.
The latest results from the poll considered to have most accurately predicted the results of the last three elections, by IBD/TIPP, suggest that Ms Clinton may have a lead of just 0.6 per cent over Mr Trump, with 41.8 per cent backing the former US Secretary of State compared with 41.2 per cent for Mr Trump.

’87 per cent likelihood’

In Florida, a key state for signalling the winning candidate in previous elections, Mr Trump may be ahead of Clinton, with 45 per cent compared with 43 per cent for his opponent, according to a Bloomberg Politics poll released yesterday.

Jon Voight: Donald Trump did not hurt anyone unlike Robert De Niro

Professor Helmut Norpoth, from the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook University in New York, has correctly predicted the past five US presidents.

Using a statistical model based on previous election results, he is predicting that Mr Trump will triumph next month. Professor Norpoth told i: “My forecast says that he’s going to win 52.5 per cent of the two-party vote, that would give Hillary 47.5 per cent. I attach something like 87 per cent certainty that he’s going to win.”

Downward trajectory
Professor Norpoth admits that his prediction is not shared by many pollsters, with most showing Ms Clinton just ahead of Mr Trump – one by as many as 12 points.

But he added: “My forecast is not poll-driven – I don’t live by the polls so I don’t die by the polls.”

It is to Mr Trump’s advantage that he represents a party which has been out of power for almost a decade, Professor Norpoth argues: “It’s very difficult for a party that’s been in the White House for two terms to get a third term, it’s not very common.”

He added: “Obama openly won by about half the margin in 2012 compared to 2008 so that shows that the trajectory of the vote for the Democrats is down.”

The problem all along

Ms Clinton’s confidence could result in defeat, he claims. “I think that’s been a problem all along. She was complacent when she ran against Obama in 2008 and lost and I think she believes too much of the hype that she’s ahead in the polls.”
But Professor Alan Abrahamowitz, a political scientist based at Emory University Atlanta, Georgia, told i: “I think it’s extremely unlikely that Trump will win.” He added: “Clinton’s margin in the national polls is substantially greater, at this point, than Obama’s margin was four years ago.”

Mr Trump is the most controversial presidential candidate in living memory, while both candidates have had to defend themselves against damaging allegations.
Dogged by questions

In his case, these include a raft of sexual abuse allegations made by several women, while Ms Clinton has been dogged by questions about using her own private email account for US government business.

The bitterness which has surrounded an increasingly personalised campaign continued yesterday. The billionaire businessman opened a new hotel in Washington and boasted: “Today is a metaphor for what we can accomplish for this country.”

Ms Clinton, speaking at a rally in Lake Worth, Florida, countered: “While the hotel may be new it’s the same old story: he has stiffed American workers, he has stiffed American businesses.”

She appealed to her supporters not to take their “foot off the gas” and warned them that every vote will count in the coming election.