We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ D.O.J., America.

DOJ CLOSED DUE TO CORRUPTION small copyI love this idea. Love, love, love, love, LOVE this idea. I present this article to you from The American Thinker in part, but heartily recommend it in its entirety. Bolds are mine.


May 22, 2016
Abolish the Department of Justice
By Bruce Walker

The Obama Justice Department has revealed its final descent into naked politics and totalitarian bullying. Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton, two transparently guilty criminals whose crimes are compounded by the fact that both are also lawyers, will face no indictments and no prosecution. The corrupt bosses of the Veterans Administration likewise face no sanction at all despite the manifest criminality of their actions.

Lying under oath to Congress, failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, conspiring to obstruct justice, and many other clear wrongdoings permeate almost every single crevice of the Obama administration, and yet no one who matters has faced any trouble from the Department of Justice. …

The hyper-politicization of the Department of Justice by the left has been used unceasingly as a bludgeon against conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists in America… (and) there is no real cure at the federal level. …The only effective solution is to do what may make many gasp, even many conservatives, and simply abolish the United States Department of Justice

How, then, would federal laws and regulations be enforced?

States have full authority to do just that, and Congress can return to state courts and to state authorities the enforcement of federal laws. This is perfectly proper, as many federal laws are already enforceable by state officers. Congress can confer on states the right to enforce its laws, and, indeed, it can confer upon state courts exclusive jurisdiction over “federal questions,” with the single caveat that the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction. This would solve many problems.

…It would mean folks like Lerner and Clinton, whose violations occurred in several states, would not be able to fix the system so that they are immune to prosecution. The powerful would suddenly find it impossible to game the system with fifty different states able to prosecute offenses.

…Returning the prosecution of federal offenses to state criminal justice agencies would have the practical effect of also devolving power back to the states. …This provides a practical check on the abuse of federal power… The diffusion of power that today is so concentrated in a few hands in Washington would be another vital and happy result of devolving back to states the power to enforce federal laws.

The president, of course, would still have the constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, but nothing in the Constitution says that he must be given an army of federal bureaucrats to do that …Abolishing the Department of Justice is a good place to begin the Herculean task of cleaning this horrid mess.

###

Trump is Bat Guano Insane

Not an hour ago, a grown man, who happens to be the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party for President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, said this:


What does one even say? I’m utterly speechless.

Kevin Williamson at NRO, a favorite writer of mine, summarizes the book on one Donald J. Trump’s manifest unfitness for any office of public trust. I could not agree more. Enjoy.


This Election Is Not an A/B Test
‘Not Hillary Clinton’ isn’t good enough
By Kevin D. Williamson — May 6, 2016

As soon as it became clear that game-show host Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee, the usual radio ranters and Fox News mouths began the inevitable litany: If you aren’t for Donald Trump, then you must be for Hillary Clinton — it’s Himself or Herself.

There is more to this than A/B testing.

“If you aren’t for Trump, then you’re for Clinton” is a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’d write that any thinking adult would be ashamed for falling for that kind of sixth-grade debater’s stratagem, but a Republican electorate capable of choosing Donald Trump as its standard-bearer is incapable of shame.

The angry insistence — him or her! — is, for the moment, mainly an attempt to forestall further criticism of Trump. That criticism consists of stating a fact that is not a matter of degree but a binary proposition, a yes/no question. It is not that Trump is less mentally stable than Mrs. Clinton (probably true) or that he is more dishonest than Mrs. Clinton (difficult to say) or that he might do even more damage to the republic, or any other point of comparison between the candidates.

The issue, instead, is this:

Donald Trump is unfit for the office.

He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.

A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.

His long litany of lies — which include fabrications about everything from his wealth to self-funding his campaign — is disqualifying.

His low character is disqualifying.

His personal history is disqualifying.

His complete, utter, total, and lifelong lack of honor is disqualifying.

The fact that he is going to have to take time out of the convention to appear in court to hear a pretty convincing fraud case against him is disqualifying.

His time on Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island, after which he boasted about sharing a taste with Epstein for women “on the younger side,” is disqualifying.

The fact that he knows less about our constitutional order than does a not-especially-bright Rappahannock River oyster is disqualifying.

There isn’t anything one can say about Mrs. Clinton, monster though she is, that changes any of that.

Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president. He is not fit to serve on the Meade County board of commissioners. He is not fit to be the mayor of Muleshoe, Texas.

If he indeed is the Republican nominee, Donald Trump almost certainly will face Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election. That fact, sobering though it is, does not suddenly make him fit to serve as president, because — to repeat — the problem with Trump isn’t that he is less fit to serve in comparison to Mrs. Clinton, but that he is unfit to serve, period.

Paul Ryan is right to withhold his support, and those who have suddenly discovered that attending the Republican convention conflicts with their cat-shampooing schedule — both Presidents Bush, nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — have in this matter chosen the better part, while former Texas governor Rick Perry has shown poor judgment. Trump, who long claimed (falsely) that he was self-funding his campaign and therefore was beholden to no one, has just named a hedge-fund boss and former Goldman Sachs partner to raise money, but donors are walking sideways away from him—as they should.

“Unite the Party” talk ignores the question: “Unite with what?” The answer, in this case, is a coddled, petulant, celebrity megalomaniac leading a small movement of cable-news-inspired populist drama queens whose motto is “Eek! A Mexican!” It is shallow, but celebrity is the most powerful force in American culture, more powerful than money and certainly more powerful than argument. Those of you joking about Kanye West running in 2020 shouldn’t laugh too hard.

But celebrity isn’t all-powerful. Trump had a smashing victory in the New York Republican primary, but he received far fewer votes than did second-place Democratic finisher Bernie Sanders, and barely half of Mrs. Clinton’s votes. The idea that a Trump candidacy is suddenly going to put into play states such as New York and New Jersey is fantasy. Those crying “Unite the Party!” might want to think about how closely they wish to be united with a candidacy that may very well lose 35 states and hand the Senate over to Chuck Schumer, who is of course another recipient of Trump’s many generous donations to progressives.

Those shouting “If you don’t support Trump, you’re for Clinton!” do not wish to speak or think very much about what the Trump movement and its enablers, from Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter, have done to the Republican party and to the conservative movement. They’re going to want to think about that even less as the months go by, and by January there’s very likely to be an outbreak of convenient amnesia. But the rest of us should be frank about what has happened.

The Republican party is preparing to nominate for the presidency a man grossly unfit for the office.

— Kevin D. Williamson is the roving correspondent at National Review.

###

UPDATED: Organized Hit Job on Hillary

***Second Update below, January 12th
**First Update below, same day, January 7th

January 7, 2016
Monday, January 4th, everyone returned from vacation. During this vacation, the finishing touches on a plan had i’s dotted & t’s crossed. Think I’m being cynical? Consider the following:

Tuesday, January 5th

  • A former DOJ attorney says that sometime “in the next 60 days” Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment by FBI Director Comey and if Attorney General Lynch doesn’t bring it, there will be a massive, loud, and public insurrection among the agents, prominently featuring “leaks” of incriminating evidence.

Wednesday, January 6th

  • Biden gives an interview saying he “regrets everyday” he’s not running for President.
  • Mainstream media confirms that “@atensnut” is, indeed, Juanita Broderick’s Twitter account.  She retweets the following:

  • And – last but certainly not least for January 6th – more than one of the cable &  network evening news demonstrated conspicuously unusual vigor by digging up 1994 footage of then-President Clinton declaring peace in our time thanks to his* nuclear non-proliferation agreement with North Korea. Why are we talking about 1994 North Korea nukes? Because the Pudgepot dictator of the Hermit Kingdom couldn’t hide a 5.4 earthquake caused by his test of an “H-bomb.”

Thursday, January 7:

  • The money is drying up and The Los Angeles Times (where all those evergreen-Democrat Hollywood checkbooks are) is reporting it. And finally, from the Hollywood-for-Ugly-People paper, The Washington Post, more evidence of the consumption of Journalism-Viagra, a respectable showing of column-inches on “Bill’s Women.”Clintons Going Down2

I thought back in October 2015 when Vice President Biden stood in the Rose Garden with President Obama at his side to announce he would decline to run, that this was not the original plan and we were seeing something weird. Here’s how I imagined the conversation between Barack and Joe: “I’m not ready. I want to run, Barack, but I’m still just too broken-hearted over losing my son Beau. I will run. I just need more time.” At that point, they scrambled. The speech Joe gave, which everyone – to a man – agreed sounded more like a launch speech than a not-launch speech – was quickly edited and the plan re-jiggered. What was the plan? Let Hillary twist for a while longer. Let grandma bust her considerable ass campaigning, doing all the hard work securing those Democrat votes, and then, on indictment or “sudden illness” Hillary is out, Joe is in.  They presume, correctly, that Hillary votes will transfer to Joe without a hiccup. The last minute no-go? Eh. Not exactly the plan, but still a win.  Joe’s gets more time to heal and gain his strength, the Democrat votes have still been nurtured and secured, and Hillary’s investment in what she’s about to lose is even deeper – thus making the pain all the more acute. It’s like a little Machiavellian bonus. Everybody wins. Except Hillary. Which was the plan all along.

Now – here’s sub-plot nobody is talking about but I think is most definitely at work: this is a death-cage match between Hillary and Barack who hate, loathe, and detest each other. She’s got the goods on him and he knows it. (And he, clearly, has a nice, fat dossier on her.) Valerie Jarrett, Barack’s handler-consigliere-enforcer-brain, will take Hillary aside and tell her, “You want to avoid prison? You twist. You suffer until January 20, 2017 at 11:59am and Barack will give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you expose Barack you will die in prison. Got me, toots?”

Hillary Clinton: always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

*Wendy Sherman was at the negotiating table in 1994 for North Korea. You know where she was recently?  At the negotiating table for the Iran deal. Sleep tight!

**UPDATE 1 – January 7 – 7:23am
Heeeere we go! Now we’ve got LAW ENFORCEMENT sources, who, given the volume & specificity of the clues given in the article below, should be easy to track down, telling multiple reporters they have witnessed multiple occasions when Hillary’s HEALTH was disabling. If Hillary herself isn’t laying this groundwork as an eventual escape hatch, somebody sure is. Breitbart ain’t lefty, but people plant things in places without obvious fingerprints all the time.

The entire article is below.


 

Via January 6, 2016 Breitbart:

Law Enforcement Officials, Medical Professionals: There’s Something Seriously Wrong With Hillary Clinton’s Health

Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s disappearance from the debate stage last month left people speculating that the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from a previous brain injury.

These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist, suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive abilities.

All that said, however, Clinton’s campaign maintained to Breitbart News that she is in good health and can serve as President of the United States.

“Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary’s debate ‘bathroom break’ wasn’t that, but flare up of problems from brain injury,” wrote John Cardillo on Twitter.

Cardillo, who previously worked as an officer who provided VIP security details for the New York Police Department (NYPD), told Breitbart News that he knows of two additional sources who have commented about Clinton’s health problems, which have even impacted her ability to walk to her car after delivering a speech.

“I got this from both a [federal agent] … and I also got it from a New York [NYPD] guy who worked security at a Hillary event in New York City,” Cardillo told Breitbart News, adding:

These are two people that aren’t just personal friends. I worked with one and then post law-enforcement worked with another on some related things. So, these aren’t anonymous people. These are good friends. Both of them told me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk or a policy speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage – and have to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so fatigued, dizzy and disoriented.

Cardillo said these two security officials don’t know each other and do not live in the same state, but “their stories were almost identical.”

One of the men told him that Clinton was “very pale, kind of disoriented. He said she looked like she was about to faint. She was very pale, almost sweaty.”

Cardillo said one of the incidents occurred while she was Secretary of State. The event worked by the NYPD official was roughly a year ago.

Veteran Republican strategist Roger Stone, who previously worked with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, told Breitbart News that he has also heard about Clinton’s long-term health problems.

“A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina,” Stone told Breitbart News. “So far, she’s run a very controlled campaign,”

“I don’t think she has the physical stamina to be president,” he stated. “I have no doubt that won’t call her on it, but Trump certainly would.”

“We also know that in the emails, of course, Huma Abedin… says that she is easily confused,” Stone added, referencing Clinton’s close confidant Abedin comment in an email, “She’s often confused,” referring to Clinton.

Trump, Stone’s former boss, certainly hasn’t been shy in questioning whether Clinton has the “stamina” to be president.

“She goes out and she sees you guys for about 10 minutes, she sees you for a little while, it’s all rehearsed and staged,” Trump said in a recent interview on Fox News’ Media Buzz.

“They’ll pick a couple of people out of the audience that are like, you know, 100 percent. She’ll sit around a little plastic table, they’ll talk to the people for a while. It’s ridiculous,” Trump added. “And then she goes away for five or six days and you don’t see her. She goes to sleep.”

Neurologist Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., reviewed news reports of Clinton’s head injury in light of the recent information revealed from the security sources that are raising questions about her current health status.

Kassicieh, who has run his own Sarasota, Florida, practice for 20 years, is a board-certified neurologist and the medical director of the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center. He is a doctor of osteopathic medicine, which is similar to a medical doctor but can involve at a minimum of 100 more classroom hours of specific training. That additional training is focused on the osteopathic—or the musculoskeletal system—aspects of medicine. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology (FAAN) and a Fellow of the American College of Neuro-psychiatrists (FACN). Kassicieh is a registered Republican in Sarasota, but his purely medical analysis is troubling for Clinton.

“They were trying to poo-poo this off as a minor concussion, but I would just say that reading it and trying to take all the politics out of it, and just read it purely from a medical standpoint,” Kassicieh explained:

Considering the point of what happened with Hillary over this time period… the timeline… and then what has happened here more recently… the break at the debate, I saw that and even the commentators that were sitting there made a comment that, ‘Gee, that seems awful long for a break.’ Just looking at it from a neurological standpoint, the risk factors for developing post-concussion syndrome, one of them is age, and she was 65 when this happened… just from a physiologic standpoint that’s an older individual. Being female is a risk factor for post-concussion syndrome as well.

“For someone who has treated many post-concussion syndrome patients and that’s what I really believe she’s suffering from based on reading these reports and reading what’s happened,” Kassicieh said. “I think she has latent post-concussion syndrome, and I can understand that as a politician they would want to be covering that up.” He stated:

I would say as a neurologist having seen many post-concussion syndrome patients that I would not want a president who I knew had post-concussion syndrome being president because their super high-level cognitive abilities are clearly impaired and even their routine multitasking high-stress abilities are affected because post-concussion syndrome patients in general don’t tolerate even moderate work, stress-related environments.

Kassicieh added that if suffering from post concussion syndrome, Clinton’s symptoms could appear “well beyond a year” after her concussion.

“A transverse sinus thrombosis [blood clot] is a rare condition of a clot forming in the venous sinus cavities surrounding the brain,” Kassicieh told Breitbart News, referencing an ABC News report from 2012 that detailed Clinton’s head injury and blood clot following a fall. He explained:

These venous sinuses drain blood out of the brain. The [injury] incidence is only about 3 per 1,000,000 adults. The transverse sinus is less commonly affected than the main sagittal venous sinus. The cause of transverse sinus clots is not well understood although trauma and dehydration have been described as risk factors. Mrs. Clinton suffered from both.

Dr. Nicholas C. Bambakidis also analyzed the facts for Breitbart News. He is he director of cerebrovascular and skull base surgery, and the program director of neurological surgery at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and a professor of neurosurgery and radiology at the CWRU School of Medicine in Cleveland,

“These types of clots are usually formed spontaneously without an obvious cause,” Bambakidis said in an email:

They can be associated with dehydration, a predisposition to blood clotting disorders, are more common in women and may be associated with oral contraceptive medication, severe head trauma, brain surgery, or infection. If untreated, they can progress and lead to bleeding in the brain or swelling, and a stroke or even death. The treatment is generally anticoagulation and treatment of any underlying cause.

Bambakidis said that if treated early and quickly, there are no longstanding issues with a person’s health.

“Typically, if caught early and treated adequately (as seems to have been done in this incident) there is a full recovery without any consequences (normal cognition, memory, etc),” he said.

Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the politically conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also reviewed the 2012 ABC News report about Clinton’s concussion and blood clot. She said she thought the ABC report appeared medically accurate.

“Factors predisposing to clots include air travel, dehydration, hormones, immobilization as during surgery, blood abnormalities, cancer,” Orient said. “Concussions can cause long-term damage including cognitive problems, even when standard studies including CT or MRI look normal.”

“Not saying Mrs. Clinton has any of the above–just speaking generally and hypothetically,” she clarified.

One former member of Orient’s group is , an ophthalmologist. He was a member of AAPS for more than 20 years before his election to the U.S. Senate. He is now also running for president on the Republican side in 2016.

Neurologist Kassicieh agreed with Orient about the possibility of Clinton suffering from long-term cognitive symptoms.

“Concussions in older adults can be more serious, resulting in a condition known as post-concussion syndrome. This condition can be characterized by symptoms of persistent dizziness, complaints of memory difficulties, forgetfulness, loss of ability to focus on complex tasks or concepts and indecisiveness,” Kassicieh explained. He added, “Latent depression and overt anxiety are also common in this condition.”

Kassicieh noted that although a Clinton spokesperson told the press that Clinton “got over this quickly,” another ABC report quotes former President Bill Clinton saying that his wife’s injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”

“Other reports in the same article show an interesting timeline for Hillary over the next several months, showing that she was not fully functional in her capacity as [Secretary of State],” Kassicieh added:

As a neurologist, I would interpret these and more recent events involving Hillary as possibly showing signs of post-concussion syndrome. This condition could have serious impact on the cognitive and intellectual functioning of an individual, particularly a high level job as [President of the United States].

Dr. Drew Pinsky, a nationally syndicated talk show host and internal medical physician, also spoke to Breitbart News about Clinton’s health and explained that experiencing symptoms for more than a year after a head injury is very serious.

“In my clinical experience, it’s very common for them to have six months and even up to a year of exercise intolerance, and sort of [needing] frequent rest, and can easily get overwhelmed,” he said of head injury patients. “But after a year, that’s something else.”

He said symptoms like Clinton’s, as an elderly person in her 60s, “are very serious.”

“Those are not trivial symptoms,” Pinsky stressed:

If my patient came in with that, the first thing I would do is put them on a treadmill. I would get a sleep study, make sure they don’t have sleep apnea. I would do all sorts of metabolic studies and make sure there wasn’t something metabolic. I would actually do some extensive cancer screenings. Why is this person suddenly having exercise intolerance?

Pinsky added that if Clinton is overworking herself, “I hope she has a medical team attending to her.”

Breitbart News sent a detailed set of questions regarding these questions raised by law enforcement and medical professionals to Clinton’s campaign.

The specific questions sent to Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, include:

1.) Does Secretary Clinton have difficulty with fatigue, dizziness and being disoriented? Does she have difficulty after speeches and during debates continuing for lengthy periods of time–or for instance walking back to her car after events?

2.) Is she suffering from latent post concussion syndrome?

3.) Is she being completely honest with the public about her health? Does she have a clean bill of health?

4.) Is she able to conduct high level cognitive abilities on the same level she has been able to throughout her life? Is she able to conduct routine multitasking high stress abilities on the same level she has been able to throughout her life?

5.) Does she have or did she have a transverse sinus thrombosis, or blood clot?

6.) Is she capable of serving as President of the United States with these conditions and symptoms?

7.) Has she done tests with a doctor on a treadmill? Has she gotten a doctor-supervised sleep study? Has she worked with a doctor on metabolic studies? Has she gotten cancer screenings?

8.) Does she have a medical team attending to her? What are the details of that?

In response, Merrill told Breitbart News that Clinton’s doctors have already answered the questions in Clinton’s health statement.

“These questions are all addressed in her health statement,” Merrill told Breitbart News, referring to a letter from Clinton’s doctor, Dr. Lisa Bardack—the chair of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group in New York.

The letter, labeled a “healthcare statement” and dated on July 28, 2015—which was released along with Clinton’s tax filings—is two full pages long and includes a complete description from Dr. Bardack clearing Clinton as fit to serve as president.

“This letter summarizes the health history and current medical evaluation of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Dr. Bardack wrote. “I am an internist and the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mount Kisco Medical Group in Mount Kisco, New York. I have served as Mrs. Clinton’s personal physician since 2001, during which time I have been involved in all aspects of her healthcare.”

The letter states that Clinton is a “healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies.”

“Her past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012,” Dr. Bardack continues.

“In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated, fainted and sustained a concussion,” the doctor wrote:

During follow-up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis and began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefitted from wearing glasses with a Fresnel Prism. Her concussion symptoms, including the double vision, resolved within two months and she discontinued the use of the prism. She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs. Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders. As a precaution however, it was decided to continue her on daily anticoagulation.

The letter continues by detailing her current medication list, which includes Armour Thyroid—a hormone used to treat an under-active thyroid– plus various antihistamines, Vitamin B12 and the blood-thinner Coumadin.

“She was also advised in 1998 to take Lovenox, a short-acting blood thinner, when she took extended flights; this medication was discontinued when she began Coumadin,” Dr. Bardack continued:

Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced no side effects from her medications. She takes no other medications on a regular basis and has no known drug allergies. She does not smoke and drinks alcohol occasionally. She does not use illicit drugs or tobacco products. She eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises regularly, including yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.

Dr. Bardack noted that Clinton’s family history also complicates matters: her father “lived into his 80s and died after having a stroke” while her mother “lived into her 90s and passed away after having congestive heart failure.” One of her brothers—it’s not clear whether it’s Tony or Hugh Rodham, according to this letter—“had premature heart disease,” Dr. Bardack wrote.

“Due to her family history, she underwent a full cardiac evaluation, which was negative,” the doctor wrote. “She had a coronary calcium score of zero and a normal carotid ultrasound.”

She’s also had cancer screenings: “Her routine health maintenance is up to date, and has included a normal colonoscopy, gynecologic exam, mammogram, and breast ultrasound.”

She had a physical on March 21, 2015, which revealed, according to Dr. Bardack, that Clinton was in top-notch health.

“In summary, Mrs. Clinton is a healthy female with hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies, on long-term anticoagulation,” Dr. Bardack wrote. “She participates in a healthy lifestyle and has had a full medical evaluation, which reveals no evidence of additional medical issues or cardiovascular disease. Her cancer screening evaluations are all negative. She is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States.”

Clinton’s own campaign manager Robby Mook wouldn’t commit during a mid-June 2015 interview on CBS’s Face The Nation to release Clinton’s full health records.

“I will let Hillary decide that,” Mook replied when John Dickerson asked him if Clinton would release her full healthcare records. “But I can tell you she has been hitting the campaign trail hard.”

The letter from Clinton’s doctor—not her full healthcare records, but just a mere statement—came after that Mook interview.

### end ###


***UPDATE 2 – January 12 – 3:10am (I know, I know… But I was up!)

Well, well, well… Looky here. Look what’s splashed nice and big across The Drudge Report.

Drudge Hillary 1 When you click it, it only gets worse.

Drudge Hillary 2

Grandma’s not going to like this. Better hide the ashtrays.

###end###

The National Archives, The Clintons’ History Scrubbers

This isn’t the first time somebody’s been asleep at the switch at The National Archives. Twice in recent memory they’ve screwed up. HUGE. And both times it helped the Clintons.

Funny that, huh? Who do they have in-pocket over there? Do they? I’m just wondering. Spit-balling. Thinking out-loud. But these two things, connected or not, fairly scream: Who’s in charge over there???? Anybody?????

NARA LogoThe first time they screwed-up it benefited Bill Clinton; presumably, by erasing from our institutional memory, his inaction in the face of the gathering threat leading up to 9/11.  Most recently it was to benefit his wife, Hillary Clinton, who used a secret, private server for all of her emails.  Now, you may ask, ‘Why blame the National Archives?’  Well, I’m not saying they deserve all the blame. Certainly not. I’m no liberal.  I don’t blame the gun when someone gets shot; I blame the shooter. Bill & Hillary Clinton are to blame for their crimes. Period.  But that doesn’t mean they didn’t have enablers, accomplices, if you will, either witting or unwitting.  Part of the Archives’ job, part of the documentary traffic their mandate requires they keep, is email.  How is it possible that they didn’t notice, for four years, that she hadn’t even bothered to set-up at .gov email account?  How is that possible?

So let’s walk down memory lane, shall we?  We’ll deal first with Bill’s janitorial job on America’s institutional memory, then we’ll deal with Hillary’s.

Recall, via the February 21, 2007 Washington Post article “Berger Case Still Roils Archives, Justice Dept.” that (article edited for clarity and brevity, bolds are mine):

During a meeting, November 23, 2004, (the Inspector General of the National Archives and Records Administration, Paul Brachfeld), in a chandeliered room at the Justice Department, (along with) the longtime head of the counterespionage section, the chief of the public integrity unit, a deputy assistant attorney general, some trial lawyers and a few FBI agents all looked down at their pant legs and socks.

(They were discussing) Brachfeld’s contention that President Clinton’s former national security adviser Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants… Brachfeld wanted the Justice Department to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger’s actionsin combination with a bungled Archives response — might have obstructed the commission’s review of Clinton’s terrorism policies.

The Justice Department spurned the advice, and some of Brachfeld’s colleagues at the Archives greeted his warnings with accusations of disloyalty. …A report last month by the Republican staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said for the first time that Berger’s visits were so badly mishandled that Archives officials had acknowledged not knowing if he removed anything else and destroyed it. The committee further argued that the 9/11 Commission should have been told more about Berger and about Brachfeld’s concerns…

The commission’s former general counsel, Dan Marcus, now an American University law professor, separately expressed surprise at how little the Justice Department told the commission about Berger and said it was ‘a little unnerving’ to learn from the congressional report exactly what Berger reviewed at the Archives and what he admitted to the FBI — including that he removed and cut up three copies of a classified memo.

In an April 1, 2005, press conference and private statements to the commission, the Justice Department stated instead that Berger had access only to copied documents, not originals. They also said the sole documents Berger admitted taking — five copies of a 2001 terrorism study — were later provided to the commission. (end)

But we now know that’s not true.

Via “information culled from The New York Times” in a WND piece entitled, “What Did Sandy Steal,” (not normally a site I would cite*), is analysis that is spot-on and widely believed among the non-kool-aid drinkers (Again, article is edited for clarity, and bolds & underlines are mine.):

Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton

Sandy Berger and President Bill Clinton

Sandy Berger was director of the National Security Center in the Clinton administration, and as such President Clinton’s top adviser on all national security matters. On Sept. 2, 2003, in a secure reading room at the National Archives building in Washington, Berger was reviewing classified documents from the Clinton era, in his capacity as Clinton’s point man in providing relevant materials to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

One such document was a copy of a White House “after-action” report that he himself had commissioned, while still National Security director, to assess the Clinton administration’s performance in responding to the so-called millennium terrorist threat before New Year’s 2000. (I am relying throughout on reports from the New York Times.) Berger put the document in his pocket and walked out of the National Archives with it.

Exactly a month later, on Oct. 2, 2003, in another visit to the Archives, he stuffed four copies of other versions of the same report into his clothes (some reports have specified his socks) and again walked out of the building with them.

At his own office later that day, Berger cut three of the copies into small pieces. Two days later staff members at the Archives took the matter up with him. He said the removals were inadvertent, and returned the two remaining copies of the report, but said nothing about the three he had destroyed.

The burning question here, of course, is what was in the three documents that Berger destroyed. We can be sure that Berger won’t tell us, or more precisely that we will never know whether anything he chooses to say on the subject is a lie. The documents are irretrievably gone, and Berger can carry the secret of their contents to his grave.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren’t Bill Clinton’s secret recipes for chicken a la king. In fact, as a practical matter, there is only one thing they could have been, given the huge risk that Berger took in stealing them from the National Archives and destroying them.

Consider. All five were copies, or (as the Times puts it at one point) “versions,” of a single document: an assessment of terrorist threats produced during the Clinton administration. These copies had presumably been distributed to various major figures in the administration, and later collected and placed in the Archives. What interested Berger about five copies of the same document? Presumably, notes scribbled on them by the recipients. And what could have impelled him to destroy three of the five copies, and return the other two? Surely, that the notes on those three copies made it all too clear that somebody high up in the Clinton administration had perceived a threat very much like what happened on Sept. 11, but then failed to do anything whatever about it.

For whom would Berger be willing to risk a jail sentence? For himself, no doubt, and for President Clinton, and that just about completes the list. (end)

Now the wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. What the hell happened? Well, when you don’t have Inspectors General at either State or the Archives, corruption and incompetence can run amok. Well, more amok than usual, because, really, this is the federal government, right? The whole place needs fumigating. But I digress.

From The Washington Times, June 3, 2015,”Acting IGs at State Dept., National Archives Ignored Looming Clinton Email Scandal”  (And, again, edited for clarity and brevity and bolds are mine):

A years-long vacancy in the State Department’s Office of inspector general allowed Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server to hide her public records to continue unchecked, experts told a Senate committee Wednesday.US-Department-of-State-Logo

Daniel Epstein, president of nonpartisan watchdog Cause of Action, pointed to another empty inspector general office — this one in the National Archives and Records Administration — as a potential cause of the breakdown in transparency that occurred during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.

James Springs, who now serves as the National Archives’ permanent inspector general, oversaw the agency in an interim capacity from September 2012 until March of this year.

That means the watchdog position was effectively empty as Clinton made her transition out of the State Department.

Epstein told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that the National Archives, under Springs’ oversight, “either was aware of the failure to preserve Mrs. Clinton’s emails or was extremely negligent in its efforts to monitor senior officials’ emails.” … (and, further suggests) the National Archives “had reason to know that the State Department was seeking legal justification for noncompliance with applicable regulations relating to email records,” Epstein said.

What’s more, transparency appeared to suffer at the State Department under another temporary inspector general.

Harold Geisel served as the agency’s interim watchdog while Clinton was secretary of state. Geisel had been named an ambassador by then-President Bill Clinton and donated to President Obama’s first presidential campaign, records show.

The Government Accountability Office raised concerns in April 2011 that Geisel’s career membership in the Foreign Service “resulted in, at a minimum, the appearance of independence impairment.”  (Annie note: YA THINK????) Yet Geisel continued to serve as acting inspector general until shortly after Clinton left office…” (end)

So, in summary, it appears the Clintons had janitors where they needed them.

And absolutely nothing will be done about.

God Bless America.


*That I would not normally cite WND as a source is a comment on others’ perception of the site, not mine.  They have people over there who actually know how to use a card-catalog at the library, value the importance of primary sources, and ask important questions.  While every collection of reports & reporters has flaws, I consume all media with a presumption of guilt (as it were), thus, as far as they present proper sourcing and and ask important questions I might not have otherwise thought of, I have no problem with them.

G.W.B. Was Never THIS “Incurious”

“Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t accidentally “run into” each other anywhere.  Ever.”

Remember how 99% of the political class at ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. sniffed at how “incurious” President Bush was?  When, in fact, it turns out his G.P.A was a point higher (not much but it matters!) than John Kerry’s?  And it has later emerged that President Bush is an avid, voracious reader (It’s been reported a book a week, typically, favoring non-fiction, and these are books well over 300 pages & without pictures, for any snot-nosed progressive who might be reading this.)

Well, we’ve reached peak “incurious.”  

And, once again, sadly, it is as it relates to those who cover presidents, and not, predictably, as it relates to the intellectual capacity of a president himself  – with or without a “D” after his name.

The most white-hot story in politics right now is Hillary Clinton’s rogue email server. There’s nothing more important or interesting in political circles right now – off-the-air, that is.  

Oh, there’s been some coverage of this profoundly criminal and dangerous breach of national security on the alphabet networks, and even MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has had some honest coverage of it (but that’s only because they want another Democrat to win, not Hillary, who is insufficiently radical, to them, which is kind of horrifying all by itself.)

And, to be sure, The New York Times has done extensive reporting on the issue, even “breaking” the story back in March (but that’s only because they were fed all the details by that no-necked-short-furry-Machiavellian-troll Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s handler-consigliare, who also hates Hillary, also because she is insufficiently radical – and other reasons.)  

The New York Times has subsequently done some other reporting, from other reporters there, trying to white-wash the whole mess, and it’s a safe bet the white-wash reporters got expletive-laced, screaming, threatening phone-calls, just like the original March story reporter got, who dutifully changed the text without attribution (You’re supposed to tell your readers when you change the meaning of the text of an original story.  The New York Times didn’t. That’s bad.  It’s “Journalistic Ethics 101.”).  The Washington Post appears to have had the same trajectory.  So while hat-tips are owed to MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for covering at all, their motives are suspect; cleary, deeply, cynically, suspect.

So here we are.  It’s the dog-days of summer, Obama’s on the Vineyard, and a Clinton is in legal trouble.  All is normal.

Except it’s not.

It’s really, really not.

The two men who have treated Hillary to her two biggest public humiliations, Bill, who serially cheated on her, and Barack, who beat her from her “inevitable” crown in 2008, “ran into each other” on the golf course.  “Accidentally” says the press.

WHAT?

Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t meet “accidentally” anywhere. Ever. Their Secret Service details know.  Are we to believe nobody on the Obama detail called their buddy on the Clinton detail or vice-versa?  Seriously?  That’s silly, childish even.  That’s unicorn territory. No.  This was a purposeful meeting.  And the fact that there are pictures is also no accident.  Obama has proven capable of keeping the overwhelming majority of his time on all his golf outings private – if he wants to. There’s no way a picture of the two presidents would happens unless Obama wanted it to.  No way.  

So!  What are we to believe about this?  Here are some ideas, as curated by Twitchy, that seem right to me, and gave birth to this blog post of mine. How is it POSSIBLE we have such an incurious press?  I can think of a dozen questions, (without jiggling my blob!) I would love to ask, if only to see the looks on their faces, which might be all the answer we need.  Good grief!    

 

   


BOOM! (That’s what I think.)