Thursday, September 29, 2016

The FBI Director sure sounded like a weasel!

There's a lot of new stuff to unpack from the latest hearing on Hillary Clinton and the FBI director James Comey's testimony on 9/28/16 before the House Judiciary Committee.

FBI director James Comey'

I watched the entire hearing — 3 times — once while recording, twice while editing, and a third time while reviewing the final cut (and all in one sitting, so boy am I tired!) But now I'm thoroughly convinced that President Obama put the fix in for Clinton. There's no doubt in my mind now.

The 4 hours of testimony was edited down to two separate 1-hour clips (for you) for easier viewing, because it excludes the Democrats, who asked no questions at all regarding Clinton's email server, or about her perjury before Congress, or about the FBI's immunity deals for her staff, attorneys and IT people. They reminded me of ostriches with their heads in the sand (or like Hill-bots with their heads up their asses.)

The hearing / PART ONE  -- OR  -- OR

The hearing / PART TWO  --OR  -- OR

The hearing could not be edited down to a short 15-minute "highlights" clip of relevant sound bites (I tried), because there's just too darn much new information, of which very little (so far) has been seen on cable news. Fox News reported the most, but there was very little on CNN and MSNBC (Turner Broadcasting and Comcast), who donated to Clinton's campaign and helped influence the primary election against Bernie Sanders (who now supports Clinton because of his obsessive fear of Trump, and why I can no longer believe what Bernie says.)


Towards the end, while James Comey was being questioned by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) came to Comey's defense as though she were his private attorney! It was almost laughable!

If you have the time, and if you want to hear the Democrat's obfuscation and deflection (and heaping lots praise on James Comey), the full 4 hour video of the hearing is here at C-SPAN:

Besides not recording Clinton's FBI "interview", I also wondered why the FBI didn't put wire taps on Clinton's and her accomplices phones. And like me, you'll have many more questions after watching this hearing.

This FBI investigation, as you will see, was a sham from the start — and was probably the most rigged investigation in the history of the FBI. James Comey IS a weasel . . . a lying frigging weasel. While his people might be honest and hard-working, he is as corrupt as any establishment Democrat — unless his family was also threatened (If you ask me, those guys sitting directly behind him at the hearing could have been Clinton hitmen.)

Later in the day, Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox and Friends that he believes that once Obama saw Trump leading in the polls during the GOP primary, he put out the word that no one would be prosecuted because he did not want Trump to succeed him as President under any circumstances. (So watch for Obama to issue a lot of pardons if Trump is elected).

Democrats on the House committee tried to deflect from Clinton's illegal email server during the hearing by asking questions about Donald Trump, Russian hackers, gun control and many other subjects --- all EXCEPT Clinton's violations of the law and the risking of national security. The Democrats claimed the hearing was partisan, when in fact it's not JUST the Republicans, but it's also most Independents who are also concerned about Clinton's email server --- and they also believe she has been dishonest. Hill-bots don't want the truth, because they can't handle the truth.

After some House Committee members made certain allegations, FBI Director James Comey was invited to respond to them if he wished to, but he had declined on several occasions. Also, sometimes he had Hillary Clinton's problem of not being able to remember things. How convenient.

After watching this hearing, I became even more convinced of just how corrupt the Democratic party (our current government) really is, and despite my strong opposition to many GOP policies, the Democrats must not be rewarded for the way they have treated the American people. It is THEY who are the "deplorables" and who are "irredeemable". Clinton was the pot calling the kettle black. Now I can't believe anything Obama or any of them say anymore.

I will vote for Trump to punish Crooked Hillary and the Democrats for the next 4 years, and then see if they can purge some of the corruption from within their cancer-ridden party (I doubt it though). But if not, I will vote for President Trump for another 4 years.

This is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte's (R-Va.) statement prior to the hearing: "Many members of the House Judiciary Committee continue to have unanswered questions about the FBI’s investigation, Director Comey’s public statements on the matter, and the Justice Department’s decision to not prosecute Secretary Clinton for mishandling classified information through private email servers. It defies logic and the law that she faces no consequences for jeopardizing national security. It also appears that Secretary Clinton may have perjured herself and made false statements to Congress under oath. I’ve called on the Justice Department to investigate her for perjury and am interested to hear from Director Comey on the matter.”

Update: Related Links

  1. Congressman Issa says FBI gave broader immunity to Clinton aides than first disclosed (read UPDATE) - LawNewz
  2. Comey: Cheryl Mills' laptop contained 'some' classified information - Fox News
  3. Comey: Unusual but not unprecedented for Clinton to bring nine lawyers, including Cheryll Mills, to FBI interview - Washington Examiner
  4. Clinton aide Cheryll MIlls asked Pagliano for information on 'wiping' servers, and not with a cloth - Hot Air
  5. Comey denies Clinton email 'Reddit' cover-up, says the computer aide Combetta was trying to replace Clinton's email address so it wouldn't be revealed to the public - POLITICO
  6. Comey silent on pending Clinton perjury probe - TheHill
  7. ARCHIVE: FBI Director James Comey's Clinton Foundation connection - Breibart
  8. ARCHIVE: Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons - WND
  9. ARCHIVE: James Comey And KPMG: Isn't it ironic - Forbes
  10. FBI doc dump on email case reveals role of 'confidential' Clinton aide - Fox News
  11. Huma Abedin caught in falsehood—but no followup - Breibart
  12. Hillary failed to take highest security training at State Dept in 2009 - The Daily Caller
  13. Fewer than one in five State Dept employees with security clearance completed classified info training - Fox News
  14. VIDEO: Issa grills Comey: Why did Cheryl Mills receive immunity for 'destruction of materials' as well for laptop? - RealClearPolitics
  15. VIDEO (Starts at 3:43:45) : Issa: Mills received immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which covers concealment, removal or mutilation of government documents - C-SPAN
  16. VIDEO: Gohmert grills Comey: You gave immunity to people who could have made your case - RealClearPolitics
  17. VIDEO: Gowdy to Comey: You have five immunity agreements and no prosecution, 'That's not the FBI that I used to work for' - RealClearPolitics
  18. Gowdy: Mills walked out of FBI interview when they ‘went into an area she didn't want it to go’ (VIDEO) - Breitbart
  19. VIDEO: FBI Director Comey: Clinton IT contractor Combetta's Reddit posts are not evidence of a 'cover-up,' not a violation of immunity deal - RealClearPolitics
  20. VIDEO: Chaffetz grills FBI's Comey: Did Combetta destroy federal records on his own or under instruction? - YouTube

H.A. Goodman: FBI James Comey Tells Congress Clinton Didn't Intend To Use Private Email Server (Also see the links in his video description)

Politico: Comey on Clinton email probe: "Don't call us weasels" (He sure sounded like a weasel at that last hearing!)

* Technical note: I posted this video at Daily Motion rather than YouTube because I didn't verify my YouTube account with a phone number, so I'm limited to 15-minute clips.

#HillaryClinton #FBI #JamesComey #HouseJudiciaryCommittee #Obama emailgate #Democrats #GOP #DishonestDems #JasonChaffetz #Weasels

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Trump could surprise us all, and be a great President

Winning is Trump's greatest inner-driving force. He would want to be the most successful president ever — and to prove all the naynayers and critics wrong.

Clinton and Trump

I might not be able to believe a single thing Donald Trump has to say, but I like what he says and the way he says it --- I like his "message". Hillary Clinton's message comes across too much as "me, me, me" — and not about "us" as a united country. Clinton isn't inspirational like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. She doesn't generate enthusiasm; and she sounds selfish, out-of-touch and politically expedient. And then there was that remark she made about half of Trump's supporters being "deplorable" and "unredeemable". Clinton also plays the "race card" a lot, which greatly offends me.

And even if I can't believe Trump, or if I can only believe half of what he says, I especially like what Trump has to say about trade and corruption in government. And I don't believe that his immigration policy is the least bit "racist" at all. (Here's my own thoughts on immigration.) Sure, Trump could be a huckster trying to sell us snake oil, and he could be deliberately adopting many talking points that Bernie Sanders used during his campaign to gain votes — but aren't almost all "establishment" politicians hucksters?

The people want change, so many took a chance to vote for "democratic socialism". But since the Democratic primary was rigged to install another establishment Democrat, many people will take a chance and vote for a billionaire real estate tycoon. The key word here is "change" (not like Obama's false campaign slogan of "Hope and Change", but real change) — and despite Bill Clinton's phony and ridiculous claim, Hillary is NOT the best changer-maker he has ever known.

But to be very clear: I don't agree with Trump on many of the core issues of the Republican party, such as his tax plan, which is just more "feed the rich, starve the poor" GOP economics — also known as "Staving the Beast" and "Trickle-Down Economics". But who knows, maybe Trump could be publicly saying some things just to keep his core base, while feeling completely different about some of these issues privately. But he still sounds much more genuine than any Clinton does (less of a big bullshitter), leaving me the a choice of choosing between the lesser of two husksters.

I regularly watch Trump's entire rallies online, and not just to selected sound bites that the media uses to disparage Trump in their corrupt reporting. I don't trust the media because the BIG 6 corporate media has their own political and economic agenda — and it is very different that ours. If I only watched CNN and MSNBC (or The Apprentice), I'd have a completely different opinion of Donald Trump than I currently do. The "mainstream" media is mostly trying to dig up dirt on Trump and report the most negative aspects of his (sometimes very distant) past ; whereas most of Clinton's dirt is still very fresh and much more damaging to the country as a whole (see all the links at the bottom of this post for examples).

Trump may have participated in shady business dealings; paid off private debts with funds from his charity; had his name on a university that scammed people; outsourced the manufacturing of his ties to China; avoided paying federal incomes taxes; and bribed government officials with campaign contributions ... and he might be a boisterous, self-centered, egotistical and greedy billionaire ... but one can argue that 1) as a businessman, he never worked as a corrupt elected government leader falsely representing The People, 2) and that many of his questionable or unethical dealings were legally performed under the corrupt government system we currently have, 3) and that if there was any level of actual "corruption" on Trump's part, it never came close to rising to the level of corruption the Clintons have engaged in — even if one argued that Trump lies as much as the Clintons do (because Trump tells lies for different and far less nefarious reasons).

And let's face it. After all the lies the Democrats have been caught in lately regarding Hillary Clinton, her email server, the Clinton Foundation, the DNC leaks, the primary election and Bernie Sanders, I can't believe a single damn thing any Democrat says anymore. Obama has been lying to us and hiding things from us for over 7 years after he had promised that his administration would be the most transparent in history. But it has been the exact opposite, and instead, was the most secretive. If Donald Trump had shot someone on 5th Avenue, and a slimy Democrat had told me, I wouldn't believe them. But even if that were true, that still equates to far less dead people than Clinton has gotten killed.

Why I think Trump could be a great President and surprise everyone...

When Obama was first elected in 2008, as a politician, he had very little experience — but with a teleprompter, was a great orator. But he was a great disappointment too, by running as a "progressive" Democrat who ended up being just another "moderate" pro-corporate shill. He either misrepresented himself to the American people (he lied), or "he evolved" in his political beliefs and ideology like Hillary Clinton supposedly has, going from a "moderate" to "progressive". But any sensible person knows that's not true either, and that Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.

As a politician, Clinton has a lot of experience (if you count "bad" experience, like Libya) — but she is also a crappy orator who comes across as very fake and contrived (a big bullshiter), who even lies about lying. On the other hand, Trump was never a politician; he spent his time around construction workers — so excuse him if he comes across as a little rough around the edges and is politically "incorrect". But aren't most of us? And yes, he lies too ... but as I said, for far less nefarious reasons than I believe Clinton does.

If one wanted to believe the worse about Donald Trump, he might have been a greedy and selfish man his entire life; but at 70 years old, he may want to go out making amends — and to make his children and grandchildren as proud of him as they can possibly be (even more so than they already are.) And I think his kids will keep him on the straight and narrow (more so than a Democratic or Republican Congress ever could.)

As Trump was growing his financial empire, he might not have treated his workers and other people fairly — and he might have engaged in the sort of corrupt pay-for-play that we've come to know with our government leaders. But it's still possible that Trump can be a great president if he wore a different hat (as president, not as a businessman) — and for 2 reasons: His ego and his rejection of failure.

Ego: In 2011 Trump was accused for helping to start the birther moment against Obama — so Obama might have wanted his revenge*. Soon afterwards I posted a blog article ridiculing Trump for this, believing Obama was born to an American citizen and was born in the State of Hawaii two years after it became a State. But recently an IT guy named Michael Trimm (who was a Bernie Sanders supporter) downloaded Obama's birth certificate from the White House website and did a forensic analysis examination on it with a special Adobe program — and he makes a very compelling case that it is, in fact, a sloppy forgery. Trimm takes you step by step through his entire process. The only thing he can't tell us is what the document originally showed before it was altered.

* From Obama's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner on May 1, 2011. NOTE: Osama bin Laden was killed the very next day on May 2, 2011, shortly after 4:00 pm EST. Then Obama went on TV to make the announcement. (The night before, while Obama was berating Trump, he had known the raid on Osama bin Laden was already in the works.)

"There’s a vicious rumor floating around that I think could really hurt Mitt Romney. I heard he passed universal health care when he was governor of Massachusetts. Someone should get to the bottom of that. And I know just the guy to do it -– Donald Trump is here tonight! (Laughter and applause.)

Now, I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. (Laughter.) And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter –- like, did we fake the moon landing? (Laughter.) What really happened in Roswell? (Laughter.) And where are Biggie and Tupac? (Laughter and applause.)

But all kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. (Laughter.) For example -- no, seriously, just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice -- at the steakhouse, the men’s cooking team cooking did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. And there was a lot of blame to go around. But you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. And so ultimately, you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf. (Laughter.) You fired Gary Busey. (Laughter.) And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night. Well handled, sir. Well handled. (Laughter and applause.)

Say what you will about Mr. Trump, he certainly would bring some change to the White House. Let’s see what we’ve got up there. (Screens show “Trump White House Resort and Casino.”) So, yes, this has been quite a year in politics..." (See the video here.)

After he MIGHT have been publicly humiliated by Obama at the White House Correspondence Dinner in front of millions of people, Trump might also want to exact some revenge by proving that he's a bigger and better man than Obama by thoroughly disproving all the ugly things Obama has said about him — because they say success is the best revenge — and Trump will not only want to just become the next President (being Obama's successor), but also to be much more successful at the job ... better than Obama.

But it should also be noted that, in actuality, Trump MIGHT not have really been humiliated by Obama's remarks at all. If anything, he was little displeased with Seth Meyers' remarks afterwards; because as the Washington Post wrote:

This narrative flies in the face of actual history: Trump mentioned running for president as far back as the 1980s, so the notion that this dinner was the single catalyst for this presidential campaign is absurd. He frequently used humor as part of his self-promotional tool kit and was the guest of honor at a 2011 Comedy Central roast just two months before the correspondents’ dinner — an X-rated drubbing that made Obama and Meyers look like weenies. Trump had said, “There are many reasons I’m running. But that's not one of them.”

Failure: After being on the campaign trail, and getting millions of votes, and after seeing the thousands and thousands of ordinary working people heaping so much enthusiastic support upon him at his HUGE rallies, Trump might have realized the enormous responsibility he would have as President, and he wouldn't want to let all those people down — and again, to prove to Obama and the rest of the country that he can do a much better job than Obama. Trump likes winning. Like I said: Trump will not only want to become President, but to be very successful at the job. Trump despises failure. Unlike Obama, he may not make up lame excuses to cover up for inept people in his administration — he will fire them.

Also, Trump is already a billionaire, so special interests and lobbyists wouldn't have as much influence on him as other establishment politicians. He would most likely just like to succeed where Obama has failed, giving him a more righteous place in history (and maybe to have a swanky TRUMP presidential library to leave behind as his legacy.)

It should also be noted that most of the corporate media is in the bag for Clinton (and contributed to her campaign); but if Trump is elected, they will watch his every move and will constantly hold his feet to the fire. Whereas with Clinton, just like now, she may get a lot more free passes. There will be very little government "transparency" with Clinton in the White House (It's already bad enough with Obama.)

And Trump doesn't strike me as being a typical Republican ("alt" or otherwise) — nor as a slimy Democrat who'd rig elections. He's something else entirely — and why establishment politicians on both the sides of the aisle reject him (many GOPers are backing Clinton). Although, Trump's not Bernie Sanders either. Bernie was one of a kind. But Trump may also be a "once in a lifetime" candidate too and may not be as evil as Bernie believes. Since he endorsed Clinton, I really have a hard time believing anything Bernie Sanders now says.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about everything (delusional) ... and Trump could screw us all. But I hope not, because after 30 years, Clinton has done crappola for us. She's been a part of the problem all along, so I can't see her as being part of the solution now. I think she just wants to prove to her husband (and herself) that she's just as good as he is, and that being a woman is the only qualification she needs to break the glass ceiling of her glass house.

But if for any reason at all, I'd just like to see egg all over the faces of Clinton's smug and pompous surrogates (and all the media elites) and all those who screwed over Bernie Sanders. Their lies and deceit shouldn't be rewarded, even if it turns out that Clinton IS the lesser of two evils — which I doubt, because I don't think Trump ever got anyone killed.

And finally, in the end, most people want REAL change ... so for me, if it can't be Bernie, maybe it can be Trump. But NEVER Clinton.

And also, let's be honest, neither Jill nor Gary will be the next President in 2016 — so it's a waste of time and a vote to vote for either. A vote for either would be a vote for Trump or Clinton, so you might as well make a choice for the "Lesser of two evils" and vote for one of them. And IMHO, I think Clinton is much more evil. And I think she is more racist than Trump; and to the best of my knowledge, many more people were killed in Iraq and Libya than there were at Trump University.

But as I said, I could be all wrong about everything I wrote here (delusional); but even so, I think we can survive 4 years with a President Trump ... and I don't believe he can unilaterally push some red button and start a nuclear war/World War III and destroy the human race. I think that is mostly a lot of fear-mongering by "establishment" politicians who like the status quo just as it is and don't want to see any real changes at all.

President Trump

FYI: Below are just 41 recent links to headlines and stories showing why the Clintons are too damn corrupt to be occupying the White House again — and this just mostly pertains to their foundation, and excludes the previous 25 years of corruption and the many other controversies that have surrounded them during their entire political careers.

  1. Networks ignore Clinton Foundation conflict of interest in 95% of stories -

  2. Clinton gave State Department appointments to 194 donors, nearly 40 percent of the 511 advisory appointments - Washington Examiner

  3. Bill Clinton’s speaking fee overlaps with Foundation business, paid by industry that later benefited from family charity’s Haitian project - WSJ

  4. Exclusive: Clinton charities ignore law requiring them to disclose millions from foreign donors - ABC Newsnet5

  5. Bill Clinton falsely claims Foundation discloses all info on donors, activities -

  6. Clinton Foundation deceived IRS on tax exemption - The Daily Caller

  7. The problem with the Clinton Foundation's tax status - The Daily Caller

  8. The 21 pages deleted from The Clinton Foundation's 2005 IRS tax-exempt annual return - Michael Smith News

  9. Opinions: Clinton Foundation taxes deserve close scrutiny - Belleville News-Democrat

  10. "Clinton Foundation is charity fraud of epic proportions", analyst Charles Ortel charges in stunning takedown - Zero Hedge

  11. The Clinton Foundation's problems are deeper than you think - Current Affairs

  12. Report: Clinton Foundation gave ‘watered-down' AIDS drugs to Third World countries - The Daily Caller

  13. Press release: Congressman Marsha Blackburn releases Clinton Foundation report -

  14. REPORT: The Clinton Foundation and the ‘India success story': Self-serving philanthropy, watered-down drugs, and money in sub-Saharan Africa -

  15. ARCHIVE: Although The FDA sent a public “warning letter” to Ranbaxy in 2006, Bill Clinton praised the company for fight against AIDS - The Economic Times

  16. ARCHIVE: Ranbaxy pleads guilty and agrees to pay $500 Million to resolve false claims allegations, violations and false statements to the FDA - Department of Justice

  17. New documents that reveal Bill Clinton's backdated contracts and multimillion $$$$ frauds in the name of HIV/Aids - Michael Smith News

  18. Clinton's "bottom of the harbour" AIDS business - Michael Smith News

  19. Bill Clinton's early days in tax-exempt business - and his original sin in The Bahamas tax haven - Michael Smith News

  20. The CHAI Lie and the HIV/AIDS treatment: What connects Haiti with Papua New Guinea – Medium

  21. Bill Clinton says it was only ‘natural’ for Clinton Foundation donors to ask State Department for favors - The Daily Caller

  22. More Clinton Shenanigans in Haiti, Emails show the State Department and the Clinton Foundation collaborated on policy - WSJ

  23. Ex-Haitian President of Senate says Clinton Foundation withheld billions of donations, calls to 'disclose the audit of all the money' - Daily Caller

  24. VIDEO: Speech of the former Haitian President of Senate - YouTube

  25. Millions from Clinton Foundation donors bought seats to WH dinners, those who authorized the special invitations were ensconced in the Department of State’s Office of Protocol - The Daily Caller

  26. Emails detail State Dept. effort under Clinton to aid Foundation donor Walmart - Washington Examiner

  27. Clinton charity partner slams ‘philanthropic abuse’ -

  28. Clinton Foundation donor kicked out of China’s National People’s Congress on accusations of bribing his way into office - The Daily Caller

  29. Bill Clinton’s birthday bash proves the Clintons just can’t stop influence-peddling - New York Post

  30. POLL (Gallup): Hillary is 'email,' 'lie,' 'foundation,' 'scandal,' 'pneumonia' - Washington Examiner

  31. Paul Combetta, who deleted Hillary Clinton emails, may have asked Reddit for tips on how to remove a 'VERY VIP' email address - US News

  32. House panel looking into Paul Combetta’s Reddit post about Clinton's email server - TheHill

  33. Platte River executives fretted about being ordered to purge Clinton emails believing it was a cover up - New York Post

  34. Text of the exchange on Reddit involving Paul Combetta: Remove or replace to/from address on archived emails? - exchangeserver

  35. VIDEO: Hillary’s bleachbit specialist Paul Combetta deleting all of his reddit posts on video - Erik Jones on Twitter^tfw

  36. ARCHIVE: Tech firm charged Clinton $250 an hour for Paul Combetta’s interviews with Feds - Fox Nation

  37. Senator Grassley: FBI withholding key information about Clinton's deleted emails - PJ Media

  38. Judge blasts State Dept. for slow-walking Hillary Clinton emails - Washington Times

  39. State Department delays records request about Clinton-linked firm until after the 2016 election, the latest in a string of similar postponements - IBTimes

  40. Judicial Watch: New State Department documents reveal top agency officials raised questions about Clinton emails in early August 2013 - Judicial Watch

  41. Sen. seeks formal damage assessment of Clinton email secrets loss -


  1. Clinton campaign defends immunity deal for aide Mills, others in FBI email probe
  2. Clinton Camp's Benenson: Immunity Deals Given To Clinton Staffers Are "Fairly Appropriate And Routine"
  3. House GOP rep: FBI immunity deals for Clinton aides ‘strangest stuff I’ve ever seen’
  4. Jason Chaffetz on the FBI: "No wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case. They were handing out immunity deals like candy” -
  5. Republicans incensed that the FBI immunity deals did not require witnesses to cooperate with Congress - POLITICO
  6. Legal analysis: Why did the Obama Justice Department grant Cheryl Mills immunity? There was no need to grant concessions - National Review
  7. History of Cheryl Mills as Hillary’s aide obstructing investigations, Why did the feds give a key suspect who orchestrated the destruction of government records immunity as a witness? - New York Post
  8. Cheryl Mills immunity bombshell: She avoided signing mandatory security forms - Breitbart
  9. Insiders: FBI used agents as pawns to insulate Hillary, aides & Clinton Foundation from prosecutions - True Pundit
  10. Former NSA analyst and counterintelligence officer Schindler op-ed: The FBI investigation of emailgate was a sham - Observer
  11. VIDEO: Rudy Giuliani: It is disgraceful. To give immunity to so many people... The violations here were so many, so often, so gross - RealClearPolitics
  12. Clinton campaign manager has no answer when asked about an email in which the Clinton IT contractor referred to the 60-day email retention policy as “Hillary cover-up" (VIDEO) - Daily Caller
  13. Clinton aide told FBI there were internal concerns raised at State over private email server - The Washington Post
  14. Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal - POLITICO
  15. 27 things we learned from Clinton's FBI files - Washington Examiner
  16. Text of the FBI interview notes from Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation for mishandling of classified information - Public Intelligence
  17. ARCHIVE: EmailGate and the mystery of the missing GAMMA, Clinton’s 'unclassified' email included highly classified NSA information—why didn’t the FBI mention this fact? - Observer
  18. Ruling means most of Hillary Clinton’s newly uncovered 2,800 work-related emails will come out after election - The New York Times
  19. The public deserves to know what is in those emails, well before November 8. It is outrageous the State Dept has had these emails since late July, but has only released 5 records - Judicial Watch
  20. The State Department has said that Clinton did not include any of her emails with Petraeus when her lawyers screened and returned what they said were all her work emails in 2014 - Reuters

Thursday, September 22, 2016

I used to believe Bernie Sanders, not now.

Did Bernie Sanders endorse the lesser of two evils, or did he endorse the enemy?

Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton

Everything Bernie currently says (after he endorsed Hillary Clinton), should be taken with a grain of salt. It was Bernie himself who said we should not listen to him as to who to vote for; and he said it would be up to Hillary to make her case to the voters.

What he is NOW saying on Clinton's behalf is not consistent with his past statements. Who knows why ... maybe his grandchildren were threatened. In 1992 the Independent Ross Perot withdrew his 3rd party candidacy because he feared Republican "dirty tricks" threatening his daughter.

Or perhaps Bernie has a very genuine (but obsessive) fear of Trump, and he really does believe Trump is as dangerous as Hitler.

Previously, while he was still running, Bernie Sanders told his supporters not to listen to him if he ever told us who to vote for. On April 25, 2016 Bernie Sanders told us — like he did MANY times before — that he can't tell us who to vote for, and then he added, "If I ever do, you shouldn't listen to me."

Furthermore, in 1991 Bernie said we definitely need a 3rd party, such as a Rainbow Coalition party outside the Democratic party. But he lost that vision and never pursued or helped create a viable 3rd party. Instead he endorsed and campaigned for the status quo.

Also, many of us believe that Clinton is more dangerous than Trump. Actress Susan Sarandon made a good case against Hillary Clinton, who used to be her friend at one time.

The Bush family supports Clinton for the 2016 presidency. Despite occasional public rhetoric, they have a very close relationship and they see their families (Bush/Clinton) as one family. So what does this mean? It means Clinton has served the oligarchs her whole life. That's why so many "establishment" Republicans and "establishment" Democrats are currently supporting Hillary Clinton — to keep the political duopoly in power.

And finally, NJ.Com does not appear to be a left-wing/liberal or pro-Trump/alt-right online news publication. In 2016, its editors called on acting governor Chris Christie to resign from office, after a failed presidential campaign and Christie's endorsement of Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. So this poll surprised me >

JIll Stein leads in the polls.

And remember, the corporate media (The Big 6 media conglomerates) controls 90% of the media, so what they mostly report is in THEIR best interests, not yours. Cable news channels like Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have their own political agendas, so do your own independent research to verify or debunk everything they report that concerns you — and then come to your own independent consensus as to where the truth lies.

In closing, watch this VERY interesting 15-minute video about the last Democratic convention - - - rigged and fake and full of lies.

Monday, September 12, 2016

As many jobs created as those who left work force under Obama

14,770,000 net new jobs were created since January 2009 when Obama first took office — and according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, most of those went to foreign-born workers: Foreign born workers / Native born workers — And the U.S. has 13,862,000 more working age Americans not in the labor force since January 2009 since Obama first took office.

For the sake of argument (to give the Obama administration the best benefit of the doubt), we'll assume that all 8.7 million people who lost jobs during the Great Recession have either went on disability, retired on Social Security, were incarcerated (criminally or medically), passed away, left the country or found another job — and not a single one is officially counted as "unemployed" today (as of September 2016).

Since Obama first took office in 2009, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. has averaged over 3 million high school graduates every year during his tenure (24 million total during Obama's time in office) — and many, probably most, have went on to college for a certain amount of time and then either dropped out or graduated from college (and we can assume that most of them have attempted to enter the job market).

Net new jobs created under Obama per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (in thousands)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Net Jobs Created
2009 -791 -703 -823 -686 -351 -470 -329 -212 -219 -200 -7 -279 -5,070,000
2010 28 -69 163 243 522 -133 -70 -34 -52 257 123 88 1,066,000
2011 42 188 225 346 73 235 70 107 246 202 146 207 2,087,000
2012 338 257 239 75 115 87 143 190 181 132 149 243 2,149,000
2013 190 311 135 192 218 146 140 269 185 189 291 45 2,311,000
2014 187 168 272 310 213 306 232 218 286 200 331 292 3,015,000
2015 221 265 84 251 273 228 277 150 149 295 280 271 2,744,000
2016 168 233 186 144 24 271 275-p 151-p - - - - 1,398,000
Total to Date 14,770,000

 24 million graduates during Obama's tenure
-15 million jobs created during Obama's tenure
- 9 million jobs short (minus those who have either went on disability, left the country, was incarcerated (criminally or medically), passed away or left the country — and we have almost 14 million more working age Americans "not in the labor force" during Obama's tenure.

On her website, Hillary Clinton claims she can create 10.4 million jobs "in her first term alone". With 3 million graduates a year, will that be enough? How many of those jobs will go to foreign-born workers and those on guestworker visas? How many will be part-time or low-paying jobs at McDonalds and Wal-Mart?

Americans not in the labor force during Obama's tenure per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (in thousands)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85441 85637 85623 85603 85834 86144 86383 86111 85940 86308 86312 86589
2012 87918 87740 87837 88227 88106 88071 88411 88812 88605 88443 88818 88753
2013 88997 89514 89961 89810 89880 89799 90094 90391 90419 91686 91215 91663
2014 91630 91526 91071 92063 92111 92130 91934 92149 92317 92294 92402 92885
2015 92699 93022 93190 93234 93089 93679 93761 94035 94458 94446 94380 94103
2016 94062 93668 93482 94044 94707 94517 94333 94391 - - - -

We have almost 1 million more Americans "not in the labor force" (but want a job now) during Obama's tenure per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (in thousands).

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 4846 4739 4718 4733 4851 4929 5023 4922 5153 5094 5421 5431
2009 5708 5617 5807 5927 5986 5908 6003 5649 5949 6002 5998 6186
2010 5942 6098 5993 5913 5824 5909 5895 6037 6270 6289 6182 6431
2011 6472 6390 6527 6537 6289 6519 6513 6463 6262 6384 6538 6323
2012 6353 6337 6299 6388 6332 6559 6513 7010 6817 6552 6849 6727
2013 6647 6775 6666 6402 6676 6567 6517 6282 6136 6048 5724 6118
2014 6381 6018 6134 6175 6517 6162 6271 6380 6397 6499 6570 6407
2015 6333 6488 6310 6194 6047 6057 6104 5918 5944 6039 5637 5886
2016 5973 5870 5712 5793 5923 5692 5886 5833  -  -  -  -

The unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October 2009 but is reported by the Obama administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the media at 4.9% today.

Economic Populist (September 2016) "The labor participation rate is 62.8% ... Pre-recession, the January 2008 labor participate rate was 66.2% — a far cry from what we see today. Ignoring labor participation rates after 2008, one has to go to the late 1977 to find rates this low ... Below is a graph of those not in the labor force, (maroon, scale on the left), against the noninstitutional civilian population (blue, scale on the right). Notice how those not in the labor force crisscrosses the noninstitutional civilian population in growth.  The civilian noninstituitonal population is from where all other labor statistics have sprung, so to see strong acceleration in those not counted as participating in the labor force than the pool of population possible to be part of the labor force in the first place has been the bad sign of the last eight years."

*Full Disclosure: I didn't compare jobs created vs. those not in the labor force, or how many of the jobs that were created went to foreign-born workers, compared to previous administrations.

Friday, September 9, 2016

UPDATES on Hillary Clinton Emails Sept 9, 2016

Russian Spy?

DOJ reportedly granted immunity to computer expert Combetta who deleted Clinton emails - Fox News

Server was wiped with BleachBit by Combetta after a conference call with Bill Clinton's aides - The Daily Caller

Timeline leading up to Combetta wiping Hillary's server - Zero Hedge

Invoice shows Clintons paying for Combetta’s travel and legal assistance, it raises the question of how independent his cooperation with the FBI was - Complete Colorado

House Oversight panel zeroes in on deletion of Clinton emails, is on track to hold three hearings in five days - TheHill

Committee chairs want DOJ interviews with Clinton's server IT team - POLITICO

Trump, Gowdy hit reported immunity deal connected to Clinton email controversy - POLITICO

Trump Statement on the immunity granted to the IT worker who deleted Clinton emails while they were under a preservation order from Congress - Donald J Trump for President

Editorial: A fishy story in Platte River Networks' purge of Clinton e-mails - Denver Post

Obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence haunt Hillary’s future - National Review

The FBI’s blind Clinton trust, Comey’s agents were forgiving about some incriminating evidence - WSJ

VIDEO: FBI ignored key evidence in its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server - WSJ

How the FBI went easy on Hillary Clinton - New York Post

Did the FBI botch the Clinton email investigation? - Fox News

FBI managers instructed to exonerate Hillary Clinton - Washington Times
Was the FBI handcuffed from doing a credible full-fledged transparent national security investigation on Clinton emails? - Forbes

VIDEO: Fox’s Judge Napolitano just flat out accused FBI of corruption - YouTube

FBI Director Comey defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over email servers - CBS News

Hill Republicans: Clinton investigations won’t stop if she wins - POLITICO

Clinton email had 'multiple' classified markings, challenging her claim to FBI - Fox News

Clinton comes up with ANOTHER new email excuse - AEI

#HillaryClinton #TreyGowdy #FBIPrimary #DOJ #emailgate #FBI #LockHerUp #Clinton #HRC #CGI #bodycount #DNCLeaks #DNC #ClintonFoundation #DemExitNow
#DemMassExodus #crookedhillary #neverhillary #whichhillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts #DropOutHillary #dumphillary

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Dems don't want immigration reform, they want votes

Since before Bill Clinton was President, the Democrats have been steadily losing their base support from the White working-class — but this has accelerated since he passed his horrible trade deals. And the Democrats would like nothing better than to fill this void with 11 to 18 million undocumented immigrants living within the U.S.

So when it comes to immigration policy, the Democrats always frame this as a "race" issue. It's not. It's an "immigration" issue, an "economic" issue and a "security" issue. But the Democrats always play the race card for votes — and that deeply offends me.

And what's very odd is, last week when it sounded as though Donald Trump might be "softening" his stance on the deportation of these undocumented people, the Democrats and the pundits in the liberal media were sounding the alarm and raising the red flag! — as though, "How dare he try to still our votes!" — votes that the Democrats have always taken for granted.

Damn those French-Canadians! I suppose NAFTA wasn't enough! Now they're coming here to take away even more of our jobs! But the Democrats will accuse me of racism if I complain!

Illegal French-Candain immigrant

I like to call myself a "Progressive Independent" — but many (maybe most) progressives might not think so because of my position on immigration. While I almost completely disagree with the Republicans on all their economic and trade policies (feed the rich and starve the poor) with their "Starve the Beast" ideology and their positions on Social Security and Medicare, I don't completely disagree with ALL their positions on immigration.

Donald Trump talks sense when he discusses trade (if you can believe him) and on immigration. The "liberal" media (those that push the Democrat's policies and politicians) benefits from trade deals like the pro-corporate TPP trade agreement (the deal that Obama and 81% of the Republicans in Congress pushed for), when average working people do not benefit from these trade agreements — just like NAFTA (for Canada and Mexico) and PNTR with China that Bill Clinton passed. There's a big difference between "fair" trade and "free" trade — and demanding "fair" trade does not make one a "protectionist" or "anti-trade".

And so what if Trump makes his ties in China or his shirts in Korea (or if he dodges taxes) — who gives a damn? As a businessman, he's only taking advantage of bad trade deals and tax laws that our elected politicians had passed that had enabled him (and thousands of others) to take advantage of — just like the tax dodgers Apple (making iPhones in China), Nike (making shoes in Vietnam), GM and Ford (in Mexico) and Boeing (almost everywhere else but Seattle Washington). And who knows, maybe if Trump wore a different hat (POTUS), he might change this, because he won't be just a local businessman anymore, he'll also be the mayor and sheriff.

I have followed Trump closely on his immigration plans, and they are not really all that draconian as many people would like to make them out to be. But Trump is very clumsy in explaining his positions and walks a fine line between his far-right base and the general public. He's not the smooth-talking orator and slick politician that most of us are accustomed to — like Obama when he is reading from a teleprompter (listen to him speak without one: "Ah, ah, ah, ah..."). Trump speaks off the cuff and considers himself to be more "politically incorrect".

But the "liberal media" (aka The Big Six — the 6 corporate conglomerates that controls 90% of the U.S. media) and my political heroes like Bernie Sanders always paint Trump as a racist: "He hates Mexicans; they're all drug dealers and rapists; they're all murderers; he's Islamophobic; he hates Muslims; he hates Blacks, he's anti-Semitic; he's homophobic; he hates gays and lesbians!" The media and the Democrats wants us to think Trump hates everyone but David Duke and the KKK — which is totally ridiculous fear-mongering. I watch Trump's rallies LIVE on YouTube and see many instances where Trump's words are taken out of context and used against him by the Clinton campaign, CNN and MSNBC — and so it's no wonder Trump is always criticizing the corporate media.

* NOTE: CNN (Turner Broadcasting) and MSNBC (Comcast) support Hillary Clinton and donate to her campaign,. A VP at Comcast held a $2,700-a-plate fundraiser for her. So when they have "panels" on their shows, they sometimes have the Clinton supporters outnumbering the lone Trump supporter 5 to 1. They are not "fair and balanced" when it comes to reporting about Hillary Clinton. Just look at all the videos I posted at YouTube from Fox News dated around this time that shows all the new information we have from the FBI's latest data dump about her FBI interview. This is barely mentioned on the other cable news stations. They are just (if not more) biased against Donald Trump as they were against Bernie Sanders during the primary when he ran against Hillary Clinton ... totaled biased and manipulative reporting. And we all know how Clinton lied about Sanders, so she'd also lie about Trump as well (She lies about everything ... she even lies about lying!)

The Clinton's actions (the crime bill; welfare reform, private prisons, etc) were not just mere words, they were also very racist. And Hillary Clinton is partially responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Whereas, if he could, Trump would try to contain his killing to just members of ISIS — and not just use the excuse of wars to export weapons to the Middle-East to benefit U.S. arms manufacturers.

Immigration isn't about "race", it's mostly about national security and jobs (economic security). If jobs in the U.S. aren't offshored to other countries who pay slave wages, many others are also lost to foreigners on guestworker visas (many who over-stay their limits). Both the Democrats and the Republicans have allowed this to happen with bad trade deals and by using H-1B visas to displace American workers with lower wages by perpetuating the lie that Americans lack the skills. If anything, many are over-skilled and work in jobs at McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

People born in the U.S. have a shrinking job pool, so flooding the labor market with more people from outside the U.S. puts downward pressure on wages and makes jobs less abundant. The employment-to-population has been in a steady decline since 2000. Americans WOULD do the jobs that illegal migrants do ... if they were paid a fair and living wage. But these undocumented workers are paid sub-par wages and are also abused by their employers (i.g. threatened with deportation, etc.) — and this further poisons the job market. These days you have to have a very expensive college degree just to get a job that only used to require a high school education! (Jill Stein wants to us QE to bail out student debt, the same way it was used to bail out the big banks. And why not?)

While Americans should not demonize those attempting to enter the country in search of a better life for themselves and their families, Americans need to ensure the economic security and safety of their fellow citizens first (which includes legal immigrants from many countries) before extending their generosity to others. Besides a lack of good-paying jobs, there's also the added burden on social programs, public schools, infrastructure (etc) — not to mention that a lot of financial resources (money earned from undocumented workers in the U.S.) is sent out-of-country to be spent in those local economies (the same way our military and diplomatic personal who are stationed overseas spend American dollars in foreign countries, benefiting those economies and their tax base the way tourists do here when they visit the U.S.)

I don't like Trump's idea of lowering taxes for everybody (which disproportionately benefits the very rich); because at the same time he talks about more military spending (rather than just eliminating all the waste, fraud and abuse) and more investment in infrastructure. Where does Trump think all the money will come from? Cuts in Social Security and Medicare? But on immigration, he makes a lot sense (whether you believe he's a racist or not).

Sensible immigration policies that (I believe) should all be enacted simultaneously

  • Immediately grant permanent Green Cards to people who have illegally entered the country — with the exception to those who committed serious crimes (they would be immediately deported — or after having served any prison sentences.)
  • Immediately grant U.S. citizenship to those who were involuntarily brought here (or were born here) by their parents who illegally entered the country.
  • Re-enforce the borders, although, not necessarily by a continuous Trump wall, but wherever it is feasible, financially and physically possible and only where needed — including using additional technology and additional border guards.
  • Those who over-stayed work and student visas could be offered a "path to citizenship" if they immediately register, complete citizenship classes, pay fines (and back taxes if this applies), and pass an "ideological" test.
  • Strictly enforce EXISTING immigration laws (and do away with the "sanctuary cities") and make it perfectly clear that GOING FORWARD anyone else will be immediately deported without exception. Otherwise, the U.S. will be right back where they are again, just like after Ronald Reagan's amnesty program.
  • People born here (i.g. foreign tourists on vacation who give birth in the U.S., etc.) should not be able to automatically qualify for American citizenship unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth.
  • People attempting to migrate from countries where ISIS (or other extremist ideologies) have been problematic SHOULD BE scrutinized more thoroughly, properly identified and extremely vetted. This is not "racial profiling", this is "political profiling" and "national" profiling.
  • This immigration policy would equally apply to all those entering the U.S. from the Northern border, by way of sea and airports (or via U.S. territories), or from the Southern border. This is not a "race" issue, it's an "immigration" issue, an "economic" issue and a "security" issue.)
If for any reason you don't agree with any of these polices, then you should show your sincerity by removing all fences, walls and locks from your home — and allow your neighbors to enter any time they want and at will — without any questions asked. (And if they take your job, so be it.) Some people will call me a "hater" for not wanting open borders, while also hating me for being against open borders and supporting many parts of Trump's immigration plan.

Of course, stricter immigration enforcement will only stem the flow of lost jobs for American workers, but it won't eradicate it. One study showed that 1/3 of all U.S. jobs are still prone to offshoring/outsourcing — and then there will always be more automation, robots and artificial intelligence in the future. Long gone are the days when a man would work at one factory for 45 years before retiring, when his son would follow in his footsteps to do the same. I suspect most young people graduating from school today will be struggling to find one job after another during their entire working careers.

* Personally, I'm now on a fixed income. I could live much better in Mexico with their lower cost of living. But I can't just pack up my truck and drive down there to live ... at least, not legally anyway. And I doubt very seriously I would be hired by anyone there. If I could, I would move there. I love Mexico. But I also wouldn't move there as an illegal migrant and start burning the Mexican flag.

Those damn Canadians! If they're here illegally, deport them all! We sent them our jobs with NAFTA and the ungrateful bastards still come here to take away even more of our jobs!

We send them jobs, and they still come here to take more!

* Full Disclosure: To all Canadians, I was only being sarcastic to make a point. Please forgive me ;)