Lynch/Clinton Meeting Requires A Special Prosecutor Now Be Appointed


, , , ,

Hillary Clinton Holds Primary Night Event In Brooklyn, New YorkFollowing the latest in the criminal probe of the Clintons, the probe that deals not only with violations of government secrecy and FOIA statutes, but the clear evidence of “pay to play” and other corrupt, self-enrichment, schemes at The Clinton Foundation? No? Follow along, as a subject and potential witness in this criminal investigation seeks and is granted a private audience with the woman supposedly charged with dispassionately determining whether indictments will be sought…

Keep in mind the crux of the criminal conspiracy – Hillary Clinton’s intentional efforts to keep her activities hidden from government records requirements, activity which put national security at risk. Every statement she has made in connection with the discovery of her unauthorized home-brew server has been demonstrably been proven a lie, as even the Washington Post must acknowledge:

(Clinton) “I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public, and I think that demonstrates that I wanted to make sure that this information was part of the official records,” she told ABC News last month.

But disclosures over the past several weeks have revealed dozens of emails related to Clinton’s official duties that crossed her private server and were not included in the 55,000 pages of correspondence she turned over to the State Department when the agency sought her emails in 2014.

At least 160 such emails have come to light so far, many of them through public-records lawsuits brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch.

In one email released by Judicial Watch on Monday, Clinton queried aide Huma Abedin and another staffer about how her official records were being maintained. “I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?” she wrote on March 22, 2009.

A 2010 Clinton email, which was disclosed last month by the State Department’s inspector general but had not been submitted by the former secretary, appears to show that she was concerned about ensuring privacy for her personal emails if she was given an official government account.

“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton wrote.

We also now know that scores of meetings with Clinton Foundation donors and political cronies, many of whom had business before the government, were deleted from Hillary Clinton’s official calendar archives. These entries are supposed to be complete.

We know that one such crony was able to buy his way on to a Sensitive Intelligence Board, despite having no relevant experience. We know that once ABC News was able to make the connection, Clinton’s aides scrambled for two days to try and cover up the cronyism, before the “donor/appointee” abruptly “resigned.

Apparently deciding that the Clintons’ long and close relationship with Attorney General (and Obama appointee) Loretta Lynch, and the president’s multiple statements designed to pressure investigators to not make a criminal finding, might not be sufficient to rig the game, Bill Clinton, himself a likely target of the probe, arranged to have a private, thirty minute, meeting with the AG in Phoenix this week.

Were it not for an intrepid local reporter, the meeting, on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport might not have revealed at all, since FBI agents on hand ordered “no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.”

Upon being found out, Lynch should have immediately recused herself. Instead, she persists in word games designed to give the appearance that she will not stand in the way of the FBI, without actually recusing herself. Calls for a Special Prosecutor, which is the only way an impartial finding can be reached at this point, have gone unheeded by the AG and the administration.

Andrew McCarthy at National Review adroitly sums up where we are now, and why full recusal is the only acceptable option:

Unlike great athletes, attorneys who practice in the American judicial system are bound by a code of ethics. The system’s most important rule is, quite deliberately, very simple and very easy to follow: Lawyers are supposed to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.” Not just impropriety, not just actual misconduct; they are to steer clear of — as opposed to, say, willfully orchestrating — the mere optic of corrupt behavior.T

he rule applies to all lawyers, of course. That makes it especially critical that the system’s highest-ranking lawyers honor it. And no lawyer in the system outranks the attorney general of the United States, who is obliged not only to follow the rule but to affirm it as the ethos of the nation’s principal law-enforcement department.

This prohibition on bad optics in the justice system mirrors the logic of baseball’s aversion to gambling. To justify the lifetime ban, there is no need for baseball’s commissioner to prove that, after betting on baseball games, Pete Rose actually took any action aimed at cashing in on the wager instead of playing to win. The game is rendered a sham by the presumption that a player or manager will act corruptly if, despite the well-known rule against gambling, he has voluntarily bet on the game. Since we can never really know for sure, and since the game cannot afford to be seen as a sham, we assume that someone who willfully puts himself in a compromised position proceeds to act corruptly.

Nothing is more essential to the functioning of a free society than the integrity of the justice system. That is even more important, the most diehard baseball fan must admit, than the integrity of the diamond. The rule of law is the foundation of a free society. There can be no rule of law unless the public is confident that law-enforcement agencies go about their business without fear or favor; that the same rules and procedures apply equally to everyone; that people in power are not putting their thumb on the scales; that outcomes are just.

That means the appearance that everything is on the up-and-up is just as important as the fact that it is. The most critical thing about decisions the system reaches is not that they are right but that we can have confidence they are arrived at in good faith.

The lawlessness of the Obama administration is unparalleled in the history of our Republic, but for outright corruption no one could hope to match the Clintons, who have amassed a fortune in the hundreds of millions of dollars all while “fighting” for “everyday people.”

It makes my blood boil that a serial liar, who put her personal enrichment above protecting government secrets, is thought by so many to be worthy of the Presidency. She is only worthy of shackles and our utter contempt, for she is contemptible.


Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota ~ Power Line


Minnesota’s Secretary of State, Steve Simon, has tried to frustrate investigation into illegal voting by refusing to turn over either to polling places or to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit the complete list, which the state maintains, of those who have lost their voting rights. It is hard to see any possible reason why this list should be a secret, other than the Democrats’ desire that convicted felons, who overwhelmingly vote their way, get away with voting illegally.

This fact is particularly explosive:MVA found 941 ineligible felons who were allowed to vote in 2008 alone, exceeding the 312 vote margin separating DFL candidate Al Franken and GOP Sen. Norm Coleman after a grueling recount.

This is stunning. It was Franken’s razor-thin “victory” over incumbent Senator Norm Coleman that allowed the Democrats to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American people. If we assume that 80% of the 941 ineligible felons voted for Al Franken–a conservative assumption, as nearly all convicted felons are Democrats–then Franken’s victory is attributable to voter fraud. And the 941 ineligible votes are just a fraction of those that could have been identified if the Democratic Secretary of State had not stonewalled, refusing to turn over the full list of ineligible voters.

Source: Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota | Power Line

Dr. Z’s Memoirs: A Life in Journalism ~ The MMQB with Peter King



My first newspaper job, on the Bee, was, in retrospect, a dream job for a young writer just starting out. The paper was scrupulously honest. You were held strictly accountable for every quote, every fact. There was an odd, old-fashioned, conservative strain to the paper, too. The saying around the city room was that the style guide was written by someone who had been dead for 50 years, old C.K. McClatchy, the founder and owner. There were some weird rules it was necessary to remember. You weren’t allowed to use contractions. The old man just hadn’t liked them. Make that had not liked them. This was a stunner, the idea of filling your story with “had not,” and “can not,” and “did not,” but that was the rule. Also, you could never write that it was hot in Sacramento, and that included all derivatives. It was “warm,” even though people were dropping from the heat, which could get up to 110 degrees. I remember covering a junior tennis match involving 10-year-old Rosie Casals on one of those blistering days, and I tried to make it a mood piece, the two little girls running around in that withering heat, etc. That’s before I knew about the rule. In the paper, it came out, “withering warmth.”

When you were on the road, you always had to dateline your story with the name of the county attached, after a comma. The standing joke was that a gunman jumps into a cab in downtown Sacramento, sticks his gun in the driver’s ribs and says, ‘Roseville, comma, Placer County.”

The Bee’s city desk fascinated me because of the collection of characters who manned the slots. My favorite was a real old-timer named Wayne “Slick” Selleck, who actually wore one of those green eyeshades that were known as the trademark of ancient newspaper men. Slick had some great stories about the old days, but the best thing he had was a scrapbook he had compiled of the bizarre and outlandish, much of which was of a smutty nature. My favorite item, out of a spectacular collection, involved a large photo that led the features page of the Bee, mid-1920s. It showed a movie actress who was passing through Sacramento by train. She was posing at the station, posing very prettily, with a stylish dress and hat and veil, in front of a background that was a bleak desert, which I guess was much of the area in those days. And in that barren background, two dogs were humping. I laughed every time I looked at that thing.

I was single and caught up in the excitement of actually doing newspaper work. I was making $85 a week, and it seemed that I always had money in my pocket. My little duplex in North Sac cost $61 a month, later lowered to $60 by my Polish landlady because I was quiet and paid on time. My big meal of the week was the $2.99 All You Can Eat Roast Beef and Shrimp Newburg special at Sam’s Rancho Villa in Carmichael. It would hold me for 24 hours.

I covered tennis and got to love the sport. I did a serious mood piece on Rosie Casals, aged 10, outlasting Leslie Abrahams, 13, in a three-hour marathon in the Central Cal juniors, the blistering heat, uh, warmth, sand flying, getting in their hair, their eyes, the two kids racing around the court, tears streaming. The best match I ever saw. I remember interviewing little Rosie afterward, a tough Mexican-American kid, going around to the tournaments with her white-haired father, the two of them shunned by the fancy clubs, which wouldn’t put them up overnight, having to sleep in their old jalopy of a car. “It was the gear shift that killed me,” she said.

Source: Dr. Z’s Memoirs: A Life in Journalism | The MMQB with Peter King

Dr. Z profiles Howie Long (1985) ~ The MMQB with Peter King


, ,

Full marks to the MMQB, for making this Dr. Z Week. Those of us that grew up with and grew old reading Paul Zimmerman, the unparalleled football writer at Sports Illustrated and, knew what was lost when a series of strokes in late 2008 left the man silenced. Younger readers might appreciate the introduction. Direct, opinionated, a man of great passions. My kind of man.

This long form piece is one I think I must have missed in the magazine, covering one of my Raider heroes, Howie Long. It’s an incredible portrait, and one I’ve urged my son to read. I think a lot of our children have no idea how much of life is down to chance, in terms of the circumstance one is given, but how much more is down to effort – what one makes of the circumstance. I love this story. Well done, Z.

He sits in his grandmother’s kitchen in Charlestown, his great frame crowding the room, his face alight and open as he tells these stories. It’s the face of innocence, an Irish minstrel boy’s face transported to the body of a massive grown man. This magnificent body, combined with those clean, chiseled good looks, already has the Hollywood talent scouts buzzing. Now where is there a part for a 275-pound choirboy? He is 25 years old with two years of All-Pro behind him, a wife who has completed two years of law school and a healthy baby son named Christopher Howard Long. It’s all there ahead of him, a life of infinite promise, and yet almost every story he tells about himself, every anecdote, has an undercurrent of despair. It’s not me, he seems to be telling you, this isn’t really me that you see here in front of you.

Source: Dr. Z profiles Howie Long for 1985 Sports Illustrated | The MMQB with Peter King

Brexit a Victory for Xenophobia? Not So Fast. ~


, ,

“Are you scared of Brexit?” asked The Telegraph a few days before the vote. “If not, Remainers want you to be, as they’ve been spending the last few months making all sorts of predictions about the doom and gloom that a vote to Leave will cause.” Remain’s scare campaign so overtly attempted to frighten voters that its efforts gained the nickname “Project Fear.”

In fact, both sides can be accused of appealing to base emotions leading up to the vote on June 23. But both sides also offered perfectly rational, balanced arguments. Specifically, it was perfectly possible for voters in the U.K. to vote to leave the E.U. not because they wanted to slam the door on the world, but because they wanted to engage with it while managing their own affairs, without being pushed around by unelected, meddlesome bureaucrats who actually put hurdles in the way of international commerce.

In 2013, the European Union stirred a hornet’s nest with a proposal to require restaurants to serve olive oil only in commercially purchased bottles, not in refillable cruets or bowls. The ban, almost certainly intended to benefit large producers at the expense of local producers unable to package oil in single-use containers, was promptly pulled amidst a righteous outcry.

“What I find really interesting about this story is not the general derision with which the first proposal was greeted: rather, the nakedness of the ambition behind it,” wrote Tim Worstall, a fellow at London’s Adam Smith Institute. “Big business using ‘consumer protection’ legislation to kill off the small producer. Sadly, that’s an all too common part of the way that the E.U. is governed. Regulation which privileges large companies over the small ones that cannot afford to obey the legislation.”

Cronyism all the way down. It was ever thus.

Source: Brexit a Victory for Xenophobia? Not So Fast. –

“The Revolution is Being Killed Because We Are Hungry” 



The Post, trying as hard as they can, to avoid connecting the dots…

But many of the welfare programs started by Chavez have dried up, and the nearest store has little more than two-liter bottles of Pepsi and packs of Pall Mall cigarettes. Under Chavez, the government established a network of government-run supermarkets that sold basic foods at subsidized prices. But inflation has put even these bargains out of reach for many people. A single kilogram of yucca — about two pounds — now costs about one-third of the weekly minimum wage.

Sira’s neighbors hunt for deer and armadillos for subsistence and barter their meager catch. She lives off what she can grow — yams, tomatoes, corn — or what she can forage. Once a cacao-producing region, the area has been devastated by drought.

“I’m a Chavista and damn it, this situation is hard,” she said. “That is why the revolution is being killed. Because we are hungry.”

You might want to check again for the reasons behind your hunger…

Source: Venezuelans are storming supermarkets and attacking trucks as food supplies dwindle – The Washington Post

Brexit Vote: Racism & Xenophobia Were Not the Cause ~ National Review


, , ,

If Brexit’s critics are right, the European Union should be glad to be rid of the United Kingdom.In the wake of the U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the EU, the anti-Brexit crowd has leaped to explain the vote in stark terms. “The force that has been driving [‘Leave’ voters] is xenophobia,” wrote Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, and at Esquire Charles Pierce explained: “Some of the Oldest and Whitest people on the planet leapt at a chance to vote against the monsters in their heads.” The Guardian’s Joseph Harker mused: “It feels like a ‘First they came for the Poles’ moment.” And blogger Anil Dash managed to squeeze all of these dismissive opinions into a single tweet: “We must learn from brexit: Elderly xenophobes will lie to pollsters to hide their racist views, then vote for destructive policies anyway.”

There was, to be sure, no absence of toxic rhetoric over the course of the U.K.’s referendum campaign. Especially in the weeks before Election Day, the cynicism of both sides was on full display. Still, the impulse to accuse 17 million people of racism seems an unhealthy one.

Alas, it’s not just the Brits. Less than 24 hours before polls closed in the U.K., President Obama responded to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the injunction against his 2014 executive amnesty by dismissing his critics as those who want “to wall [them]selves off from those who may not look like us right now, or pray like we do, or have a different last name.” He warned that America’s immigration policy does not “reflect its goodness,” and chided “spasms of politics around immigration and fear-mongering.”

The anti-Brexit crowd and the president do their critics an injustice. What is noteworthy is that they do it in the same way.

In the wake of Orlando, I noted: “The invocation of ‘hate’ has become a way of dismissing opponents by suggesting that their beliefs are beyond the reach of reason. You can’t debate someone who hates, because hatred precludes thought; it’s in the bones. If Republicans are motivated by ‘hate,’ then they are not legitimate political actors, because political life cannot be predicated on irrationality. Reason is our common ground.”

That same impulse is on display here, where “hate” has simply been replaced with some other emotion: “fear,” “xenophobia,” &c. The key is that the animating force is not thought; it’s raw, unconsidered passion.

Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness.

That is not true when it comes to Brexit, and it’s not true when it comes to immigration in the U.S. But the powers-that-be have lost sight of that. Both sides of the Atlantic are dominated by liberal cosmopolitans who are no longer able to acknowledge the validity of any other worldview than their own. The anti-Brexit crowd cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security — that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly. And President Obama seems incapable of recognizing that there are reasonable, non-bigoted grounds on which to oppose his executive actions — for example, to preserve the principle of separation of powers that is a pillar of the American constitutional order.

Source: Brexit Vote: Racism & Xenophobia Were Not the Cause | National Review

Brexit: What Happens Next for United States & Russia ~ National Review


, ,

At the same time, ISIS emerged — reminding a world that had already largely forgotten 9/11 what jihad looked like. To men who believed in divine favor for holy war, the new international order meant opportunity. European countries compete for the title of “moral superpower,” while ISIS merely calls them “targets.” It confronted a civilized world that had vowed “never again” with a new genocide, and that civilized world — possessing immense military power — largely chose ”compassion” over confrontation, opening its borders to floods of refugees whose ranks contain those who despise European culture, subvert European values, and rape and kill European citizens.

Is it any wonder that citizens of one of the greatest and strongest nations in human history would recoil from an international order that was proving mainly that it could enrich an elite without seeming to lift a finger to preserve the nation’s core values and traditions — the very things that had made it great and strong? Is it any wonder that citizens of other great countries are —wondering what loyalty they owe to that same elite?

Source: Brexit: What Happens Next for United States & Russia | National Review

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate ~ WSJ



In 1958, approximately two million filers (4.4% of all taxpayers) earned the $12,000 or more for married couples needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans paid about 35% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many “taxpayers” actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era “tax fairness” should bear this in mind.

Source: Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate – WSJ

How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America


, ,

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

The article highlights the important fact that Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate. This fact was demonstrated recently when police discovered that the only surviving terrorist from the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was able to travel from Paris to Brussels and conceal himself there until a few days before the Brussels attacks. He was aided by a large community of French and Muslim Belgians whose loyalties clearly lie with their own community, not with Belgium, or Europe at large. What’s more, a 2013 study shows the shocking degree to which European Muslims hate the West.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Until we are prepared to resolutely defend our values and culture we will see these things slowly eaten away from within.

Source: How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America