THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR MAY 14, 2021 AT 6:15 PM

Paul Plante says:

And getting back to the subject of this thread which is so-called “police reform,” a nebulous term if ever there was one, a very slippery, amorphous (without a clearly defined shape or form; lacking a clear structure or focus) term, a Progressive Democrat term, for necessary background, let us go back to 9 August 2019 and the mindless, senseless, reckless and inflammatory (tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult: seditious: tending to inflame or excite the senses) TWEET on mindless TWITTER, a website for people in America with weak intellects and not much sense, and no ability whatsoever to engage in the type of critical thinking demanded of an American citizen in order to keep our REPUBLIC strong, from now-Biden vice president Kamala Harris identifying herself in the TWEET as “United States government official,” which makes her TWEET an official government TWEET, which means it has to be true and cannot possibly be false, where she posted as follows:

“Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.”

“His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement.”

“We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.”

end quotes

That conversation she is talking about, however, is based on a lie, and any conversation that starts out based on falsehood as is this one is fatally flawed right from the very outset.

Michael Brown was not murdered.

And that brings us further back in time to an article in THE WRAP on 28 August 2014, where we see Democrat Hillary Clinton pandering to the Black folks by propagating the lie that Michael Brown was a “victim” of anti-Black police violence, as follows:

Former U.S. Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke out about the events in Ferguson, Mo.

On Thursday, Clinton made her first remarks on the tense and racially charged situation that followed the fatal police shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown on Aug. 9.

“This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray,” Clinton said at a tech conference in San Francisco.

She also sympathized with Brown’s family.

“Losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss,” Clinton said.

“Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family.”

As recently as Aug. 24, Clinton was silent on the ongoing strife in Ferguson, even as reporters shouted questions at her while she left a book signing in Westhampton, N.Y.

end quotes

Yes, people, pandering, hack politicians like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden himself all peddling blatant falsehoods about Michael Brown that have brought us forward to this time we are in today with these calls from the pandering Democrats for police reform.

Should blatant falsehoods and outright lies from Kamala Harris and Joe Biden serve as the basis for a rational conversation on police reform?

But wait!

Can there ever be a rational conversation based on lies?

Silly me, of course not.

So why are we talking about police reform then?

Because Joe Biden said so based on a blatant lie by Kamala Harris?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... 56#respond
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR MAY 24, 2021 AT 6:42 PM

Paul Plante says:

And while we are on the subject of “THE BIG LIE” as a daily part of our lives in America today, never in my life do I recall getting barraged by so much pure BULL**** as is the case with this topic of Progressive “police reform,” as stated above, a nebulous term if ever there was one, a very slippery, amorphous (without a clearly defined shape or form; lacking a clear structure or focus) term so typical of the terms the Progressives use, like “systemic,” which calls for “reform” by the Progressives are based on nothing more than an intentionally false and mindless, senseless, reckless and inflammatory (tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult: seditious: tending to inflame or excite the senses) TWEET on mindless TWITTER, a website for people in America with weak intellects and not much sense, and no ability whatsoever to engage in the type of critical thinking demanded of an American citizen in order to keep our REPUBLIC strong, on 9 August 2019 by now-Biden vice president Kamala Harris identifying herself in the TWEET as “United States government official,” which makes her TWEET an official government TWEET, as follows:

“Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.”

“His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement.”

“We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.”

end quotes

It continues to amaze me that Kamala Harris could openly tell such a brazen lie and not get called for it in any way by either the American people, who are so used to getting lied to by people like Kamala Harris that they just accept the lies as their due for being ignorant and not knowing the difference, or the media, which not only accepts the lies, but helps to propagate them without question, which thought takes me back in time to these words of wisdom from the immortal Dr. Martin L. King, who should be an inspiration to us all, to wit:

“Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”

end quotes

Now, seriously, people, is there anyone out there who can dispute that – that education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction?

Asked another way, would anyone in their right mind who was rational and lucid make any attempt whatsoever to dispute that?

So why does that not seem to apply to the main-stream media?

Getting back to Dr. King, we have further as follows:

“The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.”

end quotes

And amen to that say I as an older American, which raises this existential question, to wit:

IF the function of education truly is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically, why are so many people in America today incapable of doing either?

And that question takes us back to a Daily Caller article entitled “Hillary Tells Black Church White People Must End ‘Systemic Racism’” by Alex Pfeiffer, White House Correspondent, on April 20, 2016, where we had Hillary Clinton, one of Joe Biden’s “Electors” in the “Electoral College,” whose electoral vote for Joe Biden was being counted in the empty ritual in the Capital on 6 January 2021, long after Joe had been declared the president by Nancy Pelosi, being quoted as follows with respect to how Hillary, whose Electoral College vote put Joe Biden into the white house, views “racial justice,” to wit:

PHILADELPHIA — In a visit to a black church Wednesday, Hillary Clinton told the predominately African-American audience that it is the “responsibility of white people” to end systemic racism and incorrectly stated a popular hip-hop phrase in saying we will “ride and die.”

Clinton was visiting the St. Paul’s Baptist Church along with “The Mothers of the Movement” and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The Mothers of the Movement consisted of mothers who had lost loved ones in police shootings.

The panel included the mother of Sandra Bland and the fiancee of Sean Bell.

The stated topics of the event were police brutality, mass incarceration, gun violence and racism.

“We have to be honest about systemic racism and particularly the responsibility of white people, not just people in public life but all of us,” Hillary said.

She later said at the event, “We all have implicit biases.”

“They are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia.”

“And what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them.”

Clinton added, “I don’t have the answers, I’m not a behavioral psychologist or anything, but I think that needs to be done in every community kind of setting we can find that is open to doing it.”

end quotes

And acting in strict accordance with the admonition of Dr. King to use our education to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction by thinking intensively and critically with regard to this political horse**** from Hillary Clinton that “(W)e all have implicit biases; they are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia.” to show how much ignorant bull**** that is, I want to go back even further in time to November 15, 1787 and the Brutus III political essay to the Citizens of the State of New-York where we have as follows:

“In a free state.” says the celebrated Montesquieu, “every man who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government.”

“Therefore the legislature should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives.”

But it has never been alledged that those who are not free agents, can, upon any rational principle, have any thing to do in government, either by themselves or others.

If they have no share in government. why is the number of members in the assembly, to be increased on their account?

Is it because in some of the states, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice, and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty, which have been publickly avowed in the late glorious revolution?

If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the states, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented — for a great share of property in some of them consists in these animals; and they have as much controul over their own actions, as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, “all other persons.”

By this mode of apportionment, the representatives of the different parts of the union, will be extremely unequal: in some of the southern states, the slaves are nearly equal in number to the free men; and for all these slaves, they will be entitled to a proportionate share in the legislature — this will give them an unreasonable weight in the government, which can derive no additional strength, protection, nor defence from the slaves, but the contrary.

Why then should they be represented?

What adds to the evil is, that these states are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves, until the year 1808 — and for every cargo of these unhappy people, which unfeeling. unprincipled, barbarous, and avaricious wretches, may tear from their country, friends and tender connections, and bring into those states, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the general assembly.

end quotes

Ask yourselves this question, people, if there really were implicit biases almost in the DNA going back probably millennia as Hillary Clinton would have us believe, why would Brutus give a damn about the Black folks being made slaves in his essay, given that Brutus was alive in the real time of slavery?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-355969
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

REUTERS

"Attorney for Clinton campaign indicted in U.S. Trump-Russia probe"


By Sarah N. Lynch

September 16, 2021

WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - An attorney who represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign was indicted on Thursday for lying to the FBI, as part of U.S. Special Counsel John Durham's probe into origins of the FBI's investigation of ties between Russia and former President Donald Trump's campaign.

Michael Sussmann, a partner with Perkins Coie who also represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with Russia's hack of the organization, is accused of making false statements during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting with former FBI General Counsel James Baker.


This marks the second criminal case Durham has filed since former Attorney General William Barr tapped him in 2019 to investigate U.S. officials who probed the Trump-Russia contacts.

Trump, a Republican, portrayed the 2016 FBI investigation as part of a witch hunt against him.

President Joe Biden's administration has allowed Durham to continue his work as special counsel.

In the indictment, Sussmann is accused of falsely telling Baker he did not represent any client when he met him to give the FBI white papers and other data files containing evidence of questionable cyber links between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank.

The indictment alleges that Sussmann had turned over this information not as a "good citizen" but as an attorney representing a U.S. technology executive, an internet company and Clinton's presidential campaign.


An attorney for Sussmann could not be immediately reached for comment.

Sussamann is expected to deny lying, and will maintain that he did disclose he was meeting with the FBI on behalf of a cyber expert client, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The conversation between Sussmann and Baker was not recorded and Baker did not take notes, the person added, which could make it more challenging for the government to convince a jury whether Sussmann lied.

The indictment says the technology executive client who helped assemble the data Sussmann presented to the FBI had "exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump."

The FBI investigated, but ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence of a "secret communications channel" between the Trump organization and the bank.


The bank was not named in the indictment, but the person familiar with the matter confirmed to Reuters it was Alfa Bank.

The New York Times later reported on the FBI's investigation into the Alfa Bank-Trump connection in October 2016 - a probe that the indictment says was sparked following Sussmann's September 2016 meeting with Baker.

The indictment alleges that some other materials Sussmann handed over to the FBI included a paper prepared by an investigative firm.

The indictment does not identify the firm, but a second source familiar with the events told Reuters it is Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C. based firm that hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct opposition research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign.


Steele went on to produce a controversial 35 page "dossier" purporting to outline Trump links and dealings with Russia and Russians.

A spokesman for Fusion GPS declined to comment, as did Steele.

Neither have been accused of wrongdoing.

Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; additional reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by David Gregorio

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-gra ... 021-09-16/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE HILL

"John Durham sent a message to the attorney general and the country"


Opinion by Kevin R. Brock, opinion contributor

22 FEBRUARY 2022

John Durham has been a special prosecutor for almost a year and a half - not a long time, but plenty of time for a drumbeat to begin that he was showing little progress against his orders to examine the origins of the debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative that convulsed a presidency.

His few indictments so far have been directed against peripheral players, feeding a fear among Donald Trump's supporters that elites higher up the stack are going to get away with their chicanery.

The problem for Durham is that these perceptions were providing the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) with increasing political top cover to shut down the special prosecutor's office as an unproductive, politics-driven exercise in futility that is wasting taxpayer dollars.

If Durham were to be terminated, the American people might not even push back much since no one had a clue whether his investigation was bearing meaningful fruit.


Attorney General Merrick Garland already had undercut Durham's investigation once by taking steps to rehabilitate the reputation of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a key figure in the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion debacle.

The Biden DOJ is not friendly to the goals of Mr. Durham.

Durham couldn't hold a news conference or pen an op-ed touting progress; that's just not done by investigators in the middle of an investigation.

So, he turned to a readily available vehicle - a routine, fairly innocuous motion filed with the court - to embed an explosive message to the DOJ and the American people.

It landed like fireworks at a funeral.

No one saw it coming.


Tucked inside the court filing, John Durham laid out a good chunk of the case he's building, and it was stunning.

Durham revealed the outlines of a corrupt conspiracy by operatives linked to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The exposed conspiracy allegedly made a contrived, fraudulent and shocking attempt to entice the FBI and CIA to use their powers against the rival Trump campaign and presidency.


This recent filing by Durham was designed to have two effects.

First, and most important, he has now made any decision by the president or attorney general to dump him much more difficult to undertake.

The last time a president fired a special prosecutor who was making significant progress, he lost his presidency.

Second, Durham has signaled to the American people that his investigation has legs, despite perceptions of plodding inertia.

He has provided hope that accountability in D.C. - rare as a MAGA sticker on a Prius - actually might happen.


Durham's filing triggered hyperbolic conjecture on the right and nervous silence on the left.

Don't be distracted by reactions driven by politics.

Look at the actual words Durham used; they're troubling enough on their own.

Those words are found in a section of the filed motion titled "Factual Background."

In it, Durham expands on information that led him to indict an attorney connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign, Michael Sussmann, for allegedly lying to the FBI.


According to Durham, Sussmann brought information to the FBI in September 2016 that he claimed proved a direct connection between candidate Trump and Russia to get the FBI to investigate.

But Durham says Sussmann falsely told the FBI that he was not presenting the information on behalf of any client when, in fact, he was billing the Clinton campaign for his time.

Sussmann's defense attorneys now argue, in effect, that even if he lied, the lie would not be material because the information was valid.

But the lie would be quite material, because Sussmann allegedly was asking the FBI to expend costly resources to investigate his claims.

If he concealed the clients on whose behalf he evidently was acting, as Durham charges, he would have fraudulently deprived the FBI of facts that would have helped the bureau decide whether it was worth investing taxpayer dollars on an investigation.

Knowing Sussmann's true affiliations was clearly information the FBI deserved to know.


In addition, despite the Sussmann attorneys' assertions that the information he possessed was bona fide, Durham makes an interesting case why it allegedly wasn't.

At this point in the Factual Background section, he expands on the role allegedly played by "Tech Executive 1," now known to be Rodney Joffe of Neustar, one of the country's most powerful tech companies you've probably never heard of.

Durham's description of Joffe's alleged activities does not paint him in a good light.

According to Durham, Joffe exploited Neustar data and other friendly sources to help him "establish ... an inference and narrative" tying Trump to Russia - and that he allegedly did so to please "VIPs" within the Clinton campaign and its law firm.

Sussmann happened to be Joffe's attorney as well.


Joffe, in this scenario, isn't an independent whistleblower; he's a partisan whistle maker.

Durham could only know all this if either Joffe told him or the sources Joffe approached for help disclosed those conversations to Durham's investigators.

Neither reality can be comforting to those involved.

Of all the points made in the Factual Background, Joffe's alleged efforts and their disclosure are the most damaging to those who may have participated in a burgeoning conspiracy.

It is particularly damaging because, if true, Joffe appears to have unethically and possibly illegally turned over proprietary government data to a civilian third party.

Plus, Durham makes a compelling argument that the data Joffe allegedly gave Sussmann for delivery to the FBI is incomplete and made to look more sinister than it really is.

In addition, Sussmann and Joffe allegedly withheld from the FBI important context that would have placed the sinister overtones in a more innocuous light.


Thanks to a routine court filing, the nation now knows the Durham investigation is no joke.

He has set a ladder against a formidable wall and is climbing it rung by rung, apparently gaining cooperators and locking in testimony before a federal grand jury.

There will be more squirming to come in powerful circles, but John Durham must be allowed to continue his important work.

Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He independently consults with private companies and public-safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE NEW YORK TIMES

"Russia, Suspected in Hacking, Has Uneasy History With Hillary Clinton"


By Mark Landler

July 28, 2016

Donald J. Trump’s apparent endorsement on Wednesday of Russian cyberspying against Hillary Clinton has pulled President Vladimir V. Putin fully into the American political fray.

But Mr. Putin’s relationship with Mrs. Clinton has been tense at least since 2011, when, as secretary of state, she accused him of rigging an election and he accused her of meddling in Russian politics.

Mr. Putin — who was then the prime minister, plotting his return to the presidency — said her words were a “signal” to protesters, encouraging them to take to the streets, which they did in large numbers.

Her remarks also annoyed the White House, which at that time still clung to the hope that President Obama’s policy of “resetting” relations with Russia could be salvaged.


That episode, late in Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, is important to understanding why Mr. Putin’s government could have a motive for hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s computers and leaking emails to damage her electoral prospects against Mr. Trump.

But it also speaks to the hard-line stance toward Russia and Mr. Putin that Mrs. Clinton staked out in the Obama administration.

At the same time that she was condemning Russia over its elections, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, was planning to travel to Moscow to meet Mr. Putin; her harsh words complicated his diplomacy.

Above all, the bitter exchange attests to a combustible relationship between two ambitious, self-confident leaders, both unafraid to exercise power — one a former K.G.B. officer who emerged from the shadows; the other a famous female politician who spent decades on the public stage.


“In our administration, Secretary Clinton always had a tougher line toward Putin and the Russians than other senior administration officials,” said Michael A. McFaul, an adviser on Russia who served as United States ambassador to Moscow.

“It was Putin’s strong belief that we, with Clinton in the lead, were trying to meddle with his regime.”

It was one of several instances where Mrs. Clinton was more hawkish than her boss — differences the White House and the Clinton campaign have so far played down but which may loom larger in the general election.

Certainly, Mrs. Clinton has been open in saying she would push back harder than Mr. Obama has against Mr. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and Syria.


Mrs. Clinton’s first meeting with Mr. Putin as secretary of state set the stage for a stormy relationship.

When she went to see him in his dacha outside Moscow on March 19, 2010, he kept her waiting in front of a ceramic mantelpiece, facing a forest of cameras and boom microphones.

Mr. Putin finally turned up for what was billed as a brief photo opportunity, only to lecture her in front of the reporters about how the United States needed to lift sanctions against American companies doing business in Iran.

And when Mrs. Clinton started to defend the Obama administration’s policy, he promptly ordered the news media out of the room.


Mrs. Clinton laughed off the episode, telling reporters what has become an oft-repeated story about their relationship.

“Prime Minister Putin,” she recalled asking him amid his harangue about trade policy, “tell me about what you’re doing to save the tigers in Siberia.”

Eyes brightening, Mr. Putin motioned her to his private office downstairs, where he showed her a map of Russia.

Pointing to various regions, he delivered a fervent lecture about endangered tigers and polar bears.

He asked her whether Bill Clinton would go on a bear-tagging expedition with him in Siberia.

If Bill was not available, he said, maybe Hillary would go?

Diplomats traveling with her were impressed.

“It’s like he sizes somebody up and sees them as a worthy adversary or counterpart,” said William J. Burns, a former ambassador to Moscow who served as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy at the State Department.

“I’ve seen him with other people who he didn’t see that way, and he’d be much more dismissive and snarky.”


In retrospect, though, the meeting planted the seeds for future tensions.

Eight months later, Mrs. Clinton canceled her attendance at a meeting he organized in St. Petersburg to save the tigers.

Her excuse was that she had to stay in Washington to lobby the Senate to ratify a new arms reduction treaty.

A year later, Mrs. Clinton was traveling in Lithuania when reports of ballot tampering and other fraud emerged after parliamentary elections in Russia.

“The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted,” she said in a statement, drafted by her spokeswoman, Victoria J. Nuland, a career diplomat and Soviet expert known for her sharp-edged views about Russia.

“Putin was livid that she had spoken out,” Mr. McFaul said.

High-ranking Russian officials even called the White House to ask whether she was speaking for the United States.

That created a tempest in the West Wing, since Mr. McFaul had signed off on Mrs. Clinton’s statement.

Although the president was also skeptical of Mr. Putin’s intentions, he, too, had hoped to keep the reset policy alive a little longer.


There was no evidence that Mrs. Clinton had any regrets.

Shortly before she left the State Department, she asked her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, to draft a three-and-a-half-page exit memo from her to Mr. Obama, warning him that the reset policy was dead, that relations with Russia would deteriorate under Mr. Putin and that the United States needed to push back hard.

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said they were confident she would pursue such a strategy as president.


Mr. Trump’s latest comments — in which he said he hoped Russia would find and expose thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not hand over to the State Department — only highlighted the chasm between their positions, according to these aides.

“What Trump said today is reckless and demonstrates he is unfit for the Oval Office,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former top State Department official and foreign-policy adviser to Mrs. Clinton.

He said that he was confident that Mrs. Clinton would strongly defend the interests of the United States and its allies against any aggression by Mr. Putin.

By 2014, after Russia had annexed Crimea and sent its tanks and troops to menace Ukraine, Mrs. Clinton’s exit memo to the president looked prescient.

Speaking at a Democratic fund-raiser in California in March 2014, she likened Mr. Putin’s behavior to Hitler’s conquest of the Sudetenland in 1938.

When Mr. Putin was asked about that comparison by a French television station three months later, he replied: “It’s better not to argue with women."

"Ms. Clinton had never been too graceful in her statements.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/p ... cking.html
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

ASSOCIATED PRESS

"Clinton slams Putin, a day after her Hitler remark"


Associated Press

March 6, 2014

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Russian President Vladimir Putin is a tough but thin-skinned leader who is squandering his country's potential.

Clinton's comments came Wednesday, a day after she likened his actions on the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.


Putin has said he was protecting ethnic Russians by moving troops into Crimea.

Clinton said Tuesday at a closed fundraising luncheon in Long Beach that Putin's actions are similar what happened in the Nazi era in Czechoslovakia and Romania.

"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Clinton said, according to the Press-Telegram of Long Beach.

"Hitler kept saying, 'They're not being treated right.'"

"'I must go and protect my people.'"

"And that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."

Responding to a question submitted at the UCLA talk, Clinton said she was not making a comparison although Russia's actions were "reminiscent" of claims Germany made in the 1930s, when the Nazis said they needed to protect German minorities in Poland and elsewhere in Europe.

"The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe," she said.

"I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective."


"I am not making a comparison, certainly."

"But I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before," she said.

Kathryn Stoner, a Russia expert at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, said she considered Clinton's comparison between Putin and the tactics of Nazi-era Germany "a bit of a stretch," in part because Putin "doesn't look like he is intent on spreading across the Ukraine and permanently occupying this area."

In a delicate diplomatic situation "I don't think it's helpful on either side to say things like this, but in these crises it happens," Stoner added.
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"Durham stripping bare 'incestuous relationship' in Clinton campaign lawyer case: Chaffetz"


Daniel Chaitin

17 APRIL 2022

Special counsel John Durham is digging up evidence of an "incestuous relationship" underlying the so-called Russiagate scandal, according to a former House Republican.

Jason Chaffetz, guest-hosting Fox News's Sunday Morning Futures, talked about the latest developments from the politically charged criminal investigation with current members of Congress, focusing on the case against Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann.


Sussmann was indicted last September for allegedly concealing his clients — Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” known to be former Neustar executive Rodney Joffe — from FBI general counsel James Baker in September 2016 when he presented internet data that suggested a now-debunked Trump-Russia link.

Sussmann denies any wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty.

"The allegation here is that Michael Sussmann got in with a meeting with the general counsel there at the Federal Bureau of Investigation by representing that he wasn't representing anybody," Chaffetz said during an interview with Rep. Andy Biggs.

"But there's other documentation and flow of money and logs and whatnot," he added.

"That's why this is a case that is important, because these people had this incestuous relationship to be able to actually go in and access things that other people that are on the receiving end of these — of these types of prosecutions don't get to do."

After the judge presiding over the case denied Sussmann's attempt to dismiss, Durham revealed in a court filing late Friday that a government agency, identified in media reports as the CIA, found data from Sussmann indicating that coordination between Trump and Russia was "not technically plausible" and "user created."

Durham also said "the Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard."

Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, was asked to share what he has heard about the case.

"I'm hearing that there's some emails that Durham has found that, again, show that they're — that Sussmann lied to the FBI and that he also lied and misrepresented regarding the connection of all of this with DNC, which is the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, and who paid for his bogus information that he was throwing out there," Biggs said.

"So, it's pretty interesting to see."

"And I'm not sure that the Clinton campaign folks or the Democratic Party wants to see this go to trial and air their dirty laundry even further," he added.

Durham is in the midst of two active prosecutions, including a case against the main source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier and the case against Sussmann.

Sussmann’s trial is scheduled to begin May 16.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 4164230098
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

CNN

"Obama all but names Putin as behind hacking, told him to 'cut it out'"


By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer

Updated 9:01 PM ET, Fri December 16, 2016

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama on Friday all but named Russian President Vladimir Putin as behind Moscow's alleged attempts to meddle in the US election, vowing retaliation for the moves and defending himself against criticism his administration acted too slowly.

Without directly answering whether Putin ordered up the cyberactivity that US intelligence says was meant to bolster Donald Trump, Obama described government in Russia as tightly controlled by the man at the top.

"Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin," he said.


"This happened at the highest levels of the Russian government."

Obama said he personally confronted Putin about the hacking in September on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in China, telling the Russian leader to "cut it out" and warned of "serious consequences if he didn't."

"In fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process," Obama said of the aftermath of that conversation.

"But the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred."

Obama, however, did not say whether he has addressed with Putin Russian's post-election hacking activity which has continued largely unabated, US officials briefed on the investigation this week told CNN.

The outgoing President's year-end press conference was dominated by questions about Russia and its influence in last month's vote.

After unleashing a string of putdowns about Russia, describing America's Cold War adversary as "a weaker country" that "doesn't produce anything anyone wants to buy except oil and gas and arms," Obama conceded the country could exploit political divisions in the United States.

"They can impact us if we lose track of who we are."

"They can impact us if we abandon our values," Obama said.

He attacked Republicans for siding with an arch-enemy of the United States because of their dislike of Democrats.


"Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave," Obama said of recent GOP praise of Russia.

He warned, "Mr. Putin can weaken us just like he is trying to weaken Europe if we start buying into notions that it is okay to intimidate the press or lock up dissidents."

Obama's given Trump advice

Referring the relationship between his White House and the incoming Trump administration, Obama said Friday there was no "squabbling" between the sides, even amid a roiling debate over Russia's intrusion into the US election.

The President noted he had made "some pretty specific suggestions" to successor Donald Trump about "maintaining the effectiveness, integrity, cohesion of the office," he said during his news conference Friday.

"He has listened," Obama said.

"I can't say that he will end up implementing, but the conversations themselves have been cordial as opposed to defensive in any way."

Obama said he would "always make myself available to him" during his tenure for counsel and advice.

On the alleged Russia hacks, he said the issue should be confronted on a bipartisan basis.

"What we have simply said are the facts," Obama said.

"Based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC, and as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure we are preventing that kind of interference through cyberattacks in the future."

"That shouldn't be a partisan issue," Obama went on.

"My hope is the President-elect is similarly going to be concerned that we don't have foreign influence in our election process."

Despite his assurances, his White House has increasingly been engaged in an escalating rift with Trump's transition team over Moscow's intrusion into the US vote.

At the same time, Obama is working to foster a productive relationship with his successor in a bid to influence his presidential decision-making.

Promised response to Moscow

Some Democrats have argued the White House was slow in naming Russia as the hacking culprit, though Obama and his aides argue that pushing the intelligence community to make that assessment earlier would have appeared like political interference.

In an interview with NPR that aired Friday, Obama attempted a balance, saying it was clear Trump and his team knew what Russia's intentions were, but arguing the issue shouldn't become mired in partisan politics.

"It requires us not to re-litigate the election, it requires us not to point fingers, it requires us to just say, here's what happened, let's be honest about it, and let's not use it as a political football but let's figure out how to prevent it from happening in the future," Obama said.

He said Trump would be wise to uphold a US commitment to international norms.

"I had a conversation with the President-elect about our foreign policy generally, and the importance of us making sure that in how we approach intelligence gathering and how we think about fighting terrorism and keeping the country secure ... that we recognize America's exceptionalism, our indispensability in the world in part draws from our values and our ideals," Obama said.

On Friday, he said that Russia's cyber meddling "was not some elaborate complicated espionage scheme," arguing instead that a hyperpartisan political environment led to an obsession with leaked emails.

"I'm finding it curious that everybody is suddenly acting surprised that this looked like disadvantaging Hillary Clinton because you guys wrote about it everyday," Obama said.

"This was an obsession that dominated the news coverage."

Overall, Obama contended, Clinton was "treated unfairly" in the presidential contest.

"I think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling," Obama said.


Criticism of Syria

It comes as Obama also finds himself reckoning with a worsening humanitarian emergency in Syria, where Russian and Iranian-backed government forces recently retook the city of Aleppo.

Obama has called Syria a deeply frustrating crisis that haunts him daily.

He condemned the situation Friday, harshly accusing the Syrian regime, along with Moscow and Tehran, of slaughtering civilians in Aleppo.

"We have seen a deliberate strategy of surrounding, besieging and starving innocent civilians," Obama said.

"Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone: the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran," Obama declared.

"The blood for these atrocities are on their hands."

On China, where Trump has called for a different course, Obama said it was "fine" to reexamine the longstanding "One China", which spells US recognition of Taiwan as a part of China.

But Obama said it was essential Trump familiarize himself with the consequences of his moves, saying his team should be briefed by current officials.

"What I have advised the President-elect is that across the board on foreign policy, you want to make sure that you're doing it in a systematic, deliberate, intentional way," Obama said.

"He should want his team to be fully briefed on what's gone on in the past and where the potential pitfalls may be, where the opportunities are, what we've learned from eight years of experience."

The President led off the traditional Q-and-A session by touting his achievements from his time in office, starting off by noting that Thursday saw the biggest number of Obamacare sign-ups -- 670,000 people -- in a single day.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services said that it was due to this "extraordinary demand" that the deadline to sign up for coverage beginning on January 1, 2017, has been extended until December 19.

The news comes just weeks ahead of lawmakers reconvening for the new session of Congress on January 3.

Republicans intend to move swiftly to repeal major parts of the Affordable Care Act through a budget reconciliation bill.

CNN'S MJ Lee contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/ ... onference/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"Durham focuses on Russian YotaPhones Clinton campaign lawyer linked to Trump"


Jerry Dunleavy

21 APRIL 2022

John Durham has revealed further details about the Trump-Russia collusion allegations that Michael Sussmann pushed to the CIA in 2017, scrutinizing claims surrounding Russian phones known as YotaPhones.

In early 2017 in a conversation with the CIA, the Democratic cybersecurity lawyer linked former President Donald Trump to these phones near the White House and elsewhere beginning in 2016.

The special counsel has rejected these allegations and said the CIA did too.


Sussmann was indicted last September for allegedly concealing his clients — Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” known to be former Neustar executive Rodney Joffe — from FBI general counsel James Baker in September 2016 when he pushed since-debunked claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Durham says Sussmann similarly concealed his client, Joffe, when he met with the CIA on Feb. 9, 2017.

The special counsel released Friday a lightly redacted version of the CIA’s “memorandum for the record” written the day the agency met with Sussmann.

The CIA said Sussmann told them his contacts had gathered information “indicating that a Russian-made Yota phone had been seen by them connecting to WiFi from the Trump Tower in New York, as well as from a location in Michigan, at the same time that then-candidate Trump was believed to be at these locations” and that “the Yota phone was seen connecting to WiFi from the Executive Office of the President (the White House)” in December 2016.

The special counsel revealed Friday that the CIA concluded in early 2017 that the Alfa Bank and YotaPhone information was not “technically plausible,” was “user created," “contained gaps,” and “conflicted with [itself].”

Sussmann’s lawyers are objecting to the various statements their client allegedly made to the CIA in 2017 being introduced as evidence during the May trial, but Durham is insisting on it.


The special counsel argued that “regardless of whether this statement was true, partially true, or — as the Government contends — false and misleading, the statement is admissible because it provides crucial context for the defendant’s meeting and the other statements he made.”

The CIA said Sussmann told them he had met with Baker “on a similar, though unrelated, matter."

But Durham said that was “misleading” because information regarding the Alfa Bank allegations that he had pushed to the FBI was among the materials Sussmann provided to the CIA and thus was not unrelated.

During the February 2017 meeting, the CIA said Sussmann “provided both written documents and thumb drives which he claimed contained data related to potential Russian activities connected to then Presidential candidate/elect Trump.”

“Mr. Sussmann advised that he was not representing a particular client and the information he was volunteering to us was not privileged,” the CIA wrote.

“His contacts wished to provide information to the U.S. government through Mr. Sussmann, preferring anonymity citing a potential threat from the Russian Intelligence Services.”

The agency added that Sussmann “was up front" that his law firm supported the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign "but that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting the CIA.”

The CIA said Sussmann told them “the information his contact had collected (the content of the thumb drives) was ‘private collection’, suggesting that the data had been collected by his contacts as a matter of personal interest.”

Durham claimed Sussmann's CIA allegations showed his intent was to "deceive" the CIA "by prompting them to act on information without truthfully describing or disclosing the relevant background, including the fact that the FBI had already been made aware of the allegations."

The FBI, CIA, special counsel Robert Mueller, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, and Durham’s team have all cast doubt on or shot down the Alfa Bank claims.

Durham also referenced Friday an earlier Jan. 31, 2017, meeting Sussmann had with “Former Employee-1” — who had worked at the CIA.

The special counsel provided a heavily redacted copy of an email that the former CIA employee sent to someone referred to as “Employee 14."

“Sussmann said that he represents a CLIENT who does not want to be known, but who had some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian made phone around President Trump,” the email reads.

“The activity started in April 2016 when then President elect Trump was working out of the Trump Tower on its Wi-Fi network.”

Trump was a candidate, not president-elect, at the time.

The email added that “after his move to the White House, the same phone surfaced on the EOB network (assume Executive Office Building).”

Durham wrote earlier this year that “the Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations" related to the Russian phones.

The January 2017 email said “the CLIENT claims that only dozen or so of these phones are present in the U.S.” and that “the CLIENT claims that double screen YotaPhones are often given by Russian government officials as gifts.”

“The phone close to President Trump apparently surfaced in April 2016 at the Trump Tower Network, and also at Wi-Fi used at Trump’s apartment at Grand Central Park West," the email says.

"When Trump traveled to Michigan to interview a cabinet secretary the phone appeared with Trump."

The email claims Sussmann contended that “in December 2016 the phone disappeared from Trump Tower WiFi network and surfaced on EOB network.”

Sussmann said that from April 2016 through January 2017, the YotaPhone “made number of Wi-Fi calls to Moscow and St. Petersburg” and that “the calls made from Trump Tower WiFi Network” were Voice over Internet Protocol calls.

The special counsel said earlier this year that Sussmann “provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider” during the CIA meeting that also “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”

Durham revealed this year he has evidence Joffe “exploited” domain name system internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President.

The special counsel said Joffe exploited his company's access to data at a "high-ranking executive branch office" both before and after the 2016 election, meaning at least during the transition period.

The January 2017 email said Sussmann asserted that “his client did not want to provide this to the FBI.”

Sussmann allegedly said his client “would most likely go to the New York Times” if there was no interest at the CIA.

Durham pointed out that Sussmann had pushed Alfa Bank claims to that outlet, as well as to the FBI and elsewhere, in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

The Special Counsel's Office previously said Joffe tasked university researchers with mining internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” to tie Trump to Russia, which Durham says Joffe believed would please certain “VIPs” — referring to the Clinton campaign.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... fc02a12c5c
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

BLOOMBERG

"Fox News Chooses Tucker Carlson Over Jan. 6 Hearing, Drawing Backlash"


Carly Wanna

7 JUNE 2022

(Bloomberg) -- Fox News won’t show continuous live coverage of Thursday’s first televised hearing into the deadly attack on the US Capitol, putting the conservative news outlet at odds with its competitors.

Fox News said on Monday it will cover the hearings that begin at 8 p.m. New York time “as news warrants” on its flagship news channel.

Fox News will offer special coverage beginning at 11 p.m., after its regular schedule of primetime shows by hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Live coverage will be relegated to other platforms like the Fox News website, Fox News Audio and Fox Business Network.

Rival networks plan to interrupt their primetime lineups for the hearings.

CBS and ABC will air the proceedings live, according to network representatives.

NBC will offer live coverage on its cable news channel, MSNBC, and its streaming service, Peacock, and special coverage on its network channel.

Fox News’ decision has drawn criticism online, including from lawmakers.

US Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republicans on the House select committee investigating the attack, tweeted last night that Fox News employees who want to maintain credibility as journalists should “speak out, or quit."

"Enough is enough.”

Members of rival media networks as well as prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, also criticized Fox.


A Fox News Media spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/f ... a35ab16677
Post Reply