Something like this would end the political career of a republican, but for a leftist, it is a career booster, it seems. I wonder how Comey is feeling attributiing Clinton’s criminal activity to simple ignorance and negligence in light of more revelations like this. And it all comes right after the coordinated journolist attack from the left, just a week or two ago, where they made the case that Trump’s ways are dangerous for national security. Now we find out that this was just another case of projection as usual, because Hillary already got there first:
Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.
“I’m not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman,” he said on “Face the Nation.” Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran’s nuclear program.
The senator said this lapse proves she is not capable of keeping the country safe.
Don’t expect this story to make the rounds on the national news circuit. At least not until they find a way to blame the right and Trump for it. And where is this administration’s legal arm, huh? Shouldn’t they be filing charges yet?
Surprisingly, job reports are out, drastically bucking the trend of the last few months in a major way. This seems to be a trend whenever elections are about to happen and the democrats are worried about the economic numbers, and, as I suspected, it happens because the numbers are rigged.
When Iran released four American prisoners in January, including journalist Jason Rezaian and former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, it was heralded as a diplomatic breakthrough, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan reports.
“The plight of these individuals is they have done it and we have paid a price. We paid a price in a major way to bring them home,” said Representative Robert Pittenger upon their release. He was a member of a coalition of congressman that met three of the freed Americans at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.
The Obama administration strongly denied paying any ransom to Iran, Brennan says, but according to details first reported by the Wall Street Journal, currency worth $400 million was flown into Tehran on a cargo plane around the same time that the Americans were released.
The plane was loaded with cash: Euros, Swiss Francs and other currencies, since any transaction with Iran in dollars is illegal under United States law.
Senior U.S. officials, Brennan reports, claimed the timing was coincidental: President Obama had planned to pay Tehran nearly 2 billion dollars to settle an outstanding legal dispute from before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” Obama said.
But the administration never consulted congress, according to Republican Congressman Ed Royce, who accused the White House of paying ransom to a state sponsor of terrorism, and as details of the cash became public Tuesday, there were instant reverberations on the campaign trail.
A few things to unravel here.
The money is ostensibly part of a $1.7 billion settlement of a $10 billion legal dispute from the time of the Shah, a dispute the US was likely to lose. The cash payment was because transacting with Iran in US dollars is illegal. If that were all that were going on here, it wouldn’t be that noteworthy.
But … it is noteworthy because Iran released four prisoners around the same time and is portraying the payment, at least to their populace, as a ransom. And the surreptitious way in which it was done tells you the Obama Administration knew quite well how it would be seen. They can squirm all they want but the difference between, “We’re paying you $400 million to release prisoners” and “we’re settling this legal dispute with you coincidentally at the same time you’re releasing prisoners” is academic. This is a ransom all but in name.
(A historical parallel: one of the conditions of settling the Cuban Missile Crisis was withdrawing nuclear weapons from Turkey. The Kennedy Administration was at least smart enough to delay the withdrawal so it didn’t look like a quid pro quo even though it was. The Obama Administration wasn’t even that smart.)
The last time we did anything remotely close to this, it was called Iran-Contra and we had years of hearings on it. Will the same happen now? I expect the Republicans to have some hearings. But I also expect the usual symphony of eye rolls, shrugs and “BENGHAZIIII!” denialism from the media and the Democrats. It’s likely that no laws were broken here. But, Good Lord, is this shady.
In the last election cycle, I ran a five-part series on the Presidential campaign detailing my feelings of the case for and against each candidate. I’m contemplating doing that again, if there’s interest. But it’s really hard to write something positive about these two jokers. Here’s a summary of what our Presidential candidates have been up to for the last few days:
Donald Trump attacked a fire marshall for enforcing fire code, responded angrily to the gold star father who criticized him at the DNC rally (saying, among other things, that’s he’s sacrificed for our country) and said he would support a $10 minimum wage. Oh, and he’s ready to sell out the Ukraine.
Clinton, meanwhile, gave an acceptance speech that went over like a lead balloon and was filled with trillions of dollar in promises. And this morning, she claimed that the e-mail investigation vindicated her:
Clinton on Fox re emails: "Director Comey said my answers were truthful and consistent w what I said w what I told the American people."
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 31, 2016
This is the complete opposite of what Comey said. In his announcement to not indict, he specifically called out multiple Clinton falsehoods (e.g., no classified e-mails were compromised). Wikileaks is also hinting at more leaks from both the DNC and the Clinton campaign itself. Apparently the Democrats think cyber-security is locking the door to your server room.
Sometime in the future, we’re going to find a document signed in blood on which a drunk Clinton and a blazed Trump wrote down their pact to make the 2016 election the worst ever. It’s almost like they’re trying to outdo each other, to see just how awful a candidate they can be and still get elected. Right now, Trump has the lead on pure insanity. But Clinton is highly competitive in the sleazy socialist category.
By the time November rolls around, there won’t be enough alcohol out there to keep the nation sane.
So far, the DNC has been … interesting. There’s been some drama with die hard Bernie supporters walking out and protests outside (more protests and more violent protests than we saw at the supposedly fascist RNC). DWS was booed out of the city. On the other hand, Bernie endorse Hillary. Michelle Obama’s speech was well-received. And Bill Clinton gave a nice rambling folksy speech last night. Support is slowly solidifying behind Clinton.
It’s almost enough to make you forget that the Democrats have rolled out one of the most radically Leftists agendas in modern political history.
Either through the platform or through speeches, the Democrats have called for trillions in new spending: free college, more healthcare, a public option, a $15 minimum wage, public funding for abortions, expanded Social Security, free pre-K, more money for schools, more money for “infrastructure”, more money for “alternative energy”, trade restrictions. They’ve had several speakers tonight talk about gun control — not the “expanded background checks” stuff they’ve talking about, but real gun-grabbing radicalism. They’ve blasted Citizen’s United (which involved a movie that had the temerity to criticize their candidate) and billionaires buying elections (even though the Koch Brothers are sitting this out while Soros has given $25 million to Clinton). Everything they’ve said so far — every single thing — has been about expanding government power. You have heard almost no advocacy for less government or more freedom.
Really, you could see it all in Michelle Obama’s speech. It was well-delivered. It was passionate. It was the right combination of fire and ice. And it was scary as hell. Because all she talked about was how we need to select a President who will “shape our children” over the next 4-8 years. Shaping our children is not the job of the damned President. That’s what we have a society for. The job of the President is to enforce the laws and keep the Canadian hordes from sweeping down through our cities. The President should be a role model. But asking him to “shape our children” is like asking the electric company to fold your laundry: it’s not their damned job.
Ordinarily, this would be a death-knell for the Democrats. And maybe it still will be — Trump is currently ahead in the polls. But I fear we are about to cement into American politics the idea of government as mother, government as father, government as savior, government as protector, government as provider. After two decades of pushing the country toward freer markets and greater prosperity, we are poised to plunge into a socialist abyss.
(I’m very curious to see where Trump goes on these issues. He has already conceded on Medicare. He has, in the past, expressed support for taxes on wealth and socialized medicine. He’s been kind of all over the map on abortion and gun control. One harbinger to watch for: what he says about the minimum wage in the debates. If he concedes that, he’s giving up the whole agenda.)
The most important, as I keep saying, is that the Republicans hold onto Congress. With Congress, they can stop most of Clinton’s agenda and perhaps set up a 2016 resurgence. But if they lose both houses and the White House, Clinton could do irreparable damage.
So the donkeys had day one of their freak show, and it looks like things went much better than I expected. We had the usual DNC operatives with bylines tell us all last week that the RNC was in disarray and that the whole event was a freak show, only for the democrats to really deliver one to us. On day one, no less.
Anyway, I could care less what those people do to each other. They deserve all the ill that comes their way. I suspect that we will find out some doozies as people get to read these emails and see what the machine that enforces PC culture and demands sainthood from everyone else really operates. I guess this is what social justice really looks like. But I am glad to see that this is going on.
People are turning against the establishment because that establishment has let us down. The establishment won’t do any soul searching: they will accuse the people of being the problem in the first place. And while they may indirectly be right, especially when talking about the people angry at the democrat establishment, these people are the spawns they created with their divide and conquer tactics. Identity politics has create some of the most narcissistic and broken people out there, and now they are rebelling against the very people that helped them come into being.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, known in these parts as Ms. Verbal Diarrhea, has apparently resigned from heading the DNC. This is a fallout of the hacked e-mails which shows the DNC trying very hard to favor Clinton and run down Sanders in the primaries. I suspect it was the condition of keeping Sanders in the tent.
I’m not surprised. But I am somewhat disappointed. Schultz was one of the best things that ever happened to the Republicans. Under her leadership, the Republicans retained control of both Houses of Congress, the majority of State Houses, many key Governorships and were poised to take the White House before they nominated a hamster.
So before I hose the RNC slime out of my brain in preparation for bashing the Democrats this week, I want to focus on what must be on the dumbest and most dangerous things Trump has said so far.
He even called into question whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.
For example, asked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”
Hot Air has the full transcript of the interview and this is not a misquote. Trump says he doesn’t want Putin to know what he’d do and then waffles on defending NATO nations that haven’t “paid their bills” (which is rich, coming from a man who has routinely stiffed contractors). The issue of NATO nations contributing more to their defense is legitimate; waffling on whether we would defend them if attacked is … not.
Trump defenders are saying he would defend the Baltics since they are up to date. But Gingrich said the Baltics weren’t worth a war. And the Trump defenders are ignoring the biggest problem with Trump’s remarks: it’s not about whether he would defend the Baltic or not; it’s about the uncertainty he is creating in a volatile region.
I have no idea how to convey the enormity of Trump's NATO comments to readers. They literally make World War III more likely.
— Zack Beauchamp (@zackbeauchamp) July 21, 2016
Trump has done this repeatedly on foreign policy, refusing to give straight answers to straight questions because, he says, he wants to be “unpredictable”.
“Unpredictability” is a good thing if you’re the Offensive Coordinator for Ohio State. It’s a bad thing in foreign policy. It’s a very bad thing. Because uncertainty about the US’s intentions and actions encourages bad actors to act badly. It encourages aggressors to test our resolve. Many of the bloodiest conflicts of the Cold War erupted because the Communists didn’t know if we’d support our allies.
Morrissey again, from the link above:
This kind of talk from prospective Commanders-in-Chief is no mere academic or political exercise; it’s actively dangerous. In fact, one needs no better example than the fumbled diplomacy of the George H. W. Bush administration in regard to Kuwait and Iraq, and that didn’t even involve Bush directly. As Hussein built up forces along the Kuwait border in the summer of 1990, the Bush administration seemed to go out of its way to express its indifference.
All of the incentives for Putin are set up for another “liberating” action, except for the fact that the US has pledged to act to defend the Baltic states militarily. One can argue that Putin’s expansionism has been set in motion in part through the vacillation and incompetence of the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton “reset” policies with Russia and doubts about Obama’s intestinal fortitude after the Syrian “red line” retreat. But at least Obama has never publicly suggested that we would fail to honor Article V in Europe itself.
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia have already done quite a bit for us lately. Anyone aspiring to lead the US shouldn’t have to have that, or the ramifications of a retreat from Article V, explained to them on the campaign trail.
We want the world to know what we will do. We want them to know we will defend our allies. We want them to know we will respond when attacked. We want them to know that we will not tolerate bald aggression. We want the response of the world’s most powerful nation to be as predictable as the sun rising in the East. Because that keeps bad actors at bay. If aggressive leaders know that our response will be quick, decisive and overwhelming, that makes them far less likely to challenge us.
We know this. Republicans know this. If Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or Barack Obama had said anything like this, the Right would be going apeshit (and, to be fair, many conservatives like Morrissey are).
This is what I mean when I say that Trump could start a war by accident. It’s not just that he’s inexperienced and ignorant; it’s that he’s shown absolutely no interest in becoming unignorant. Trump has been running for President for a year and been the presumptive nominee for months. He should know more about these issues than … well … than I do.
This problem is only going to propagate. This week, we are going to see the DNC roll out one of the most breathtakingly socialistic platforms we have ever seen from a major candidate: public option, expanded Medicare, expanded Medicaid, “free” college, $15 minimum wage, “free” daycare, “free” pre-K, expanded Social Security. It is possible to turn the public against a candidate offering them a boatload of free stuff. But it takes skill and knowledge. I have seen little evidence that Trump has either. It would not surprise me at all if, in the debate, he went ahead and ceded major portions of the DNC’s agenda.
So … as I keep saying, here we are. Two leftists vying to see whether they can bankrupt us before the next great war. Charming.
Post Scriptum: Trump’s comments, in combination with a possible Russian role in the hacking of the DNC’s e-mails, has lead to conspiracy theories that Trump is a Russian stooge. I find these theories … far-fetched to say the least. Trump is many things but he’s not a traitor.