Being Not Hillary
Ruthless business partners locked in a marriage of convenience, the Clinton household has turned Tammany Hall politics, based on patronage and graft, into a devilish art form. Together, as their former tactical guru and confidant Dick Morris puts it, 'Billary' has become "a virtual racketeering organisation."
From the outset, the plan was that Hillary would provide the means for Bill to run for State Attorney-General and Governor, then President, before taking her turn in politics and in the White House. Bill entered into this financial dependence even before he returned to Arkansas with Hillary. In her memoir Hillary the Other Woman (2016), Dolly Kyle relates that while studying at Yale, Clinton moved in with his fellow law student Hillary Rodham "to sponge off her allowance." It was the beginning of a toxic relationship with negative repercussions for America and beyond; destructive repercussions that will be nuclear-tipped should Hillary Clinton — at once militant, paranoid and incompetent — be elected President this month. But whether she is or not, truth-telling in the Clintons' regard is at once necessary, cleansing and liberating. So let us continue on with that process.
The Enabler and The Co-dependent
Unlike her childhood friend and long-term lover "Billy" Clinton, Dolly Kyle eventually sought professional help to escape her compulsive sexual behaviour. Now a well-respected attorney and mother of three, she looks back with dismay at her sinfulness during those years. At the same time, a degree in psychology has helped her analyse the co-dependency of the dangerously dysfunctional couple she viewed from the closest of quarters in Arkansas; before they polluted Washington, American and International public life and affairs with the same venal-venereal sewage. In the following passage, Kyle sets out her terms of reference in this vital regard. It will help readers fathom the height, depth and breadth of the evil related herein:
Although I’m familiar with the term “co-dependent” and its variations, it occurs to me that many people have heard the term, but have never thought much about it. People who have not been consciously involved with an addict (whether a sex addict, drug addict, alcoholic, gambler, or whatever) do not understand the dynamics and consequences of such an insidious bond between the addict and the co-dependent.
Billy’s and Hillary’s symbiotic dysfunctions are integral to their coming together and remaining a “couple,” political or otherwise. One must understand a bit about co-dependency to understand the strong dynamic that operates between them.
Explaining that "nothing has changed over the decades, except the escalation of their dysfunctional behaviours, much of which has been seen in public," Kyle continues:
The word co-dependency appears on its face to suggest that two people are mutually dependent upon each other. That’s not it. Mutual dependence is not co-dependency; it is inter-dependency and it’s a good thing. Inter-dependency is what develops when spouses support each other in a healthy way, with each one contributing for the benefit of the other.
In co-dependency, however, there is one person who is an addict of some sort (a sex addict in Billy Clinton’s case) and that addict’s life is dependent upon and revolves around getting whatever “fix” is needed. There is a second person in the relationship whose life revolves around protecting and enabling or controlling the life of the addict. Hillary is the co-dependent because her life revolves around protecting, enabling and controlling Billy’s sexual addiction
Admittedly, this could get a bit more complicated by the fact that Hillary is a power addict in her own right. Billy, however, is not co-dependently protecting Hillary in her power addiction; he does not try to control her because he doesn’t care what she does. Billy is also addicted to power, and these power addictions work well together for two untreated, dysfunctional people who are known as a “power couple.”
Kyle goes on briefly to consider the "power couple's" respective childhoods, shedding more light on their individual and collective psyches. For ways in which Bill's unresolved childhood issues negatively affected his years in political office, she highly recommends Paul Fick’s "excellent and easy-to-understand book The Dysfunctional President. When I read it many years ago," she says, "I couldn’t believe that a PhD psychologist who never treated Billy Clinton as a patient could have such clear insights into his sick behaviours that affected everything from foreign policy to sexcapades in the Oval Office, including sexual assaults." Kyle looks forward to "a companion book from Paul Fick sometime soon about The Dysfunctional President’s Dysfunctional Wife"!
Leaving aside formative childhood issues for now, let us return to the start of the co-dependency and the baleful political 'pact' it ushered in:
Billy told me at the time [after moving in with Hillary at Yale] that he thought his sex life was over, but at least he had a roof over his head. He felt powerless then, and his seething, untreated need for power was percolating beneath the surface. Of course, necessarily without treatment, it would emerge soon enough in more sexual assaults.
It was Hillary’s early and continuing role in the Clinton “marriage” to provide finances for the political couple. This fact is critically important in understanding the long-term dynamic of their arrangement. Hillary’s role of providing financial security for Billy was part of her motivation for the series of financial crimes (yes, crimes) that she committed over the decades. Hillary was upholding her part of the deal to get Billy elected president, after which it would be her turn to be the first woman in the Oval Office.
"In essence," reflected Jeff Gerth, a former investigative journalist for the New York Times, "what happened is that Bill and Hillary, in their mid-20s, before they ever took their marriage vows, they took their political vows." In 2008, when Hillary was fighting Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, commentator and author Mark Levin summed up their "20-year plan": that "the Clinton's share power, and one will be president 8 years, and one will be president another 8 years, with a little Republican in-between perhaps."
Fed a heavily-censored diet of Clinton escapades down the years, the general public assumed that 2008 marked the end of this grandiose ambition. Those familiar with the uncensored version of the fairytale from hell, on the other hand, knew that the shock of losing to interloper Obama was never going to thwart their implacable plan. Even the birth of daughter Chelsea, the child Hillary never wanted, was calculated to that end. "Politically, it doesn’t look good. We need to have a baby so we can appear to be a normal couple," Bill told Kyle, adding: "We need to do something serious to take attention off the Warden’s lifestyle." ("The Warden" was his nickname for the controlling and paranoid Hillary, whose "lifestyle" — read lesbianism — we'll get to in due course.)
Despite Chelsea's cynical conception, Bill fell head over heels for his little daughter, doting on her. But Hillary, who detested being pregnant even more than she hated 'unsophisticated' Arkansas, asked an older female friend of Kyle (and Bill) who dropped by the governor's mansion after the birth: "How long do I have to stay at home with this kid? What would look right to the people around here?" Told that she should not go back to work for at least three months, Kyle notes that "Hillary was not pleased, but started counting the days" to getting "out of the house and back to work where she could feel important."
In our Brave New World of child-care-on-demand, a thoroughly modern "Ms" putting herself before her new born baby is hardly worthy of note. It is appalling, of course. Yet, being Hillary, it reveals far more, and far worse. To paraphrase Camille Paglia's brilliant depiction: being a wife and mother (...like being a liberator of women and a criminal oppressor of Bill's women; a champion of religious liberty and an enemy of Catholic conscience; a promoter of world peace and a warmonger...) is just another of the many useful card-shark personalities Hillary has shuffled through since Arkansas, in her quest for ever greater importance.
Though aggressive and cruel, it is this instability — the lack of "stable core values" behind the personality-shuffling, as Paglia notes — that also makes her "brittle." The editor of The American Spectator, Emett Tyrell, a seasoned Clinton observer and critic, agrees."We know Hillary’s an insecure person," he says. "Secure people don’t lie. They don’t lie inveterately the way she does. It’s a recklessness that’s born of arrogance, that goes back to her 1960s roots, and their narcissism. They [she and Bill] believe they are a rule unto themselves. I mean, every time Hillary’s been caught in a scandal, she really did it. No-one made it up."
Perhaps the passing parade of expedient political personas is a mechanism for surviving these endless scandals of her own belligerent making: a stratagem for masking the total self-absorption the scandals reflect? In any event, she is, as Jeff Gerth commented during the 2008 Democratic primaries, a person who is forever "struggling herself with... how to present herself to the American public. Because her own advisers told us her authenticity and who she is, is issue one, issue two, and issue three, for her. She’s continually trying to redefine herself, figure out who she is, and project an authenticity to voters who, of course, are wondering, 'who is the real Hillary'."
Eight years on and now pushing 70, she is still shuffling through her personality portfolio seeking "authenticity." And most voters are still protected from the naked truth about the "real Hillary."
Nowadays, thanks to alternative cyber-media, they do know she's a compulsive liar. But they lack the sort of deeper knowledge and understanding provided by the likes of Dolly Kyle. This is due both to the Clinton mafia's Putinesque control of the mainstream media — even as I write, CBS have just censored a remark Bill inadvertently let slip about the gravity of his wife's ill-health! — and Hillary's cyber-police — her virulent network of online smear merchants (like "Media Matters") who laughably present themselves as "non-partisan, progressive, unaffiliated" commentators. To bury facts readily available online, and distract from the sordid reality, this propaganda machine personalises discussion: reacting to each new scandal with ad hominem attacks, falsehoods, half-truths and censored reportage. The multi-millions of dollars invested in this cyber-manipulation speaks to its absolute necessity. For, her momentary public 'explosions' notwithstanding, the real Hillary is so dark and despicable — as those close to her readily attest, including her hapless Secret Service protectors, and the Arkansas State Troopers before them — that she could never be put on display.
This takes us back to the beginning of the first Clinton White House where stage one of their political pact reached fruition. As with the simple Dolly Kyle anecdote we recounted last month about Mrs Clinton's disdain for mentally disabled children at an Easter Egg hunt, it was (on the Clinton Richter scale at least) a relatively small scandal at the very outset of Bill's tenure that said it all: telegraphing everything we ever needed to know about Hillary's frightening inhumanity and cruelty. For this reason, and for how it encapsulates the Clinton's mafia-like modus operandi, it is worth recounting at length.
The Politics of Personal Destruction
The scandal in question was labelled Travelgate. As with Chinagate, Monicagate, Lootergate, Filegate and all the myriad Clinton scandals, affixing a "gate" on the end trivialised the wickedness of what transpired. In this case it involved the White house Travel Office, staffed by seven career civil servants who organised travel for the President's staff, serving Democrat and Republican administrations alike.
When the Clintons moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 1993, White House veteran Billy Dale was the Director of the Travel Office. Dedicated, amiable and well-liked by all, Dale had faithfully served seven previous Presidents, starting with JFK in 1961. Like all the other unsung career professionals working loyally behind the scenes in the White House, he and his six staff served "at the pleasure of the president." As he relates on the 2008 documentary Hillary: The Movie [HTM]: "The new administration is free to fire anybody that they want to, but traditionally that does not happen." It usually doesn't happen in order to maintain continuity and cohesion. If it does, there is a straightforward process of simply requesting resignations. But Dale, who had actually voted for Mr Clinton, soon discovered that Mrs Clinton makes her own rules, to please herself, and everyone else be damned.
On the very day of Clinton’s inauguration, 20 January 1993, Billy Dale got a call from an unknown woman, indicating that Catherine Cornelius, one of the President's distant "cousins" related to his putative "father" Bill Blythe (the illegitimate Bill took his name from his stepfather Roger Clinton), would be working in the Travel Office. He recalls:
I got to know who Catherine Cornelius was. She went to work in David Wadkin’s office, answering phones, but she never let up in her demands to take over the Travel Office. In the meantime, I get a telephone call from a gentleman [who] wants to know how he can get in on some of the White House charter business. And I said, "That’s what I do. I raise the charters." And he said, "I know but we can make some money here." If I had made arrangements with that gentleman, I suspect things would’ve been very different as they turned out.
That call was from Darnell Martens, a partner of Clinton’s close friend (and Hollywood producer) Harry Thomason, in a travel agency called TRM: an air charter business. "In the 1992 presidential campaign," writes Dolly Kyle, "the partners not only flew the Clintons around the country, but acted as image consultants for them as well." In addition, Harry had produced "an adulatory biographical film about Billy Clinton’s life" that introduced him at the Democratic National Convention in 1992.
In return for these and other post-election assistance to the Clintons, writes Kyle, "Harry asked Hillary to return the favors by letting his air charter service take over the business of the White House travel office. Harry was also looking at procuring some other government contracts."
Cue the aforementioned phone calls to Billy Dale. "At that time, I didn’t even know who Harry Thomason was," he recounts. "But we have since learned that Catherine [Cornelius] was reporting to him and he was reporting to the First Lady Hillary Clinton." In fact, this is what Congress discovered when they investigated: that Thomason had multiple conversations with Hillary about taking over the White House charters. In which case, all that was needed to place her lackeys in the Travel Office, was to request resignations and follow due process. As Kyle explains, this course was altogether too reasonable and humane for the new First Lady:
Hillary Clinton circumvented all the normal procedures for the firing of White House personnel. She didn’t even contact the Justice Department, which would have been the standard procedure to use if any irregularities were suspected.
Instead, Hillary instigated an FBI investigation of Billy Dale and his handling of the travel office, after his thirty years on the job. On May 19, 1993, Billy and his staff were fired.
The firing of Billy Dale and the staff was not enough for Hillary, who prefers to destroy her perceived enemies. Billy Dale was removed from the White House like a common criminal. He was taken outside and made to sit on the floor of an FBI paneled van that had no seats in the back.
That was still not enough to satisfy Hillary. Eighteen months later, Billy Dale was indicted on embezzlement charges. Hillary wanted to make sure that he was disgraced forever so that no one would question her original motives.
Pause to consider the depths of malevolence at play here:
They could have fired the man in charge; no fuss or bother.
They preferred to accuse him of a crime; to ruin his life.
I use the third person plural advisedly, since her husband was complicit. "Bill just wiped his hands of it, and would let her handle it," said Billy Dale, reflecting on the travesty years later. "And I got accused of embezzling $14,000, that I couldn’t account for because the logs were missing. At the same time, [White House spokesman] Bibi Myers is in the press room, briefing the White House press corps, telling them, that we were being fired for criminal misconduct."
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the gratuitous cruelty, let us briefly consider the personal toll it took on genial giant Billy Dale and his family.
"I dedicated 33 years of my life, to this job, and served faithfully, the Democrats or Republicans alike," he said. Then, suddenly, he found himself fighting for his life and future. With legal bills to defend himself running as high as $750,000, he considered a plea deal: a fine of $69,000, and a brief jail sentence. "Blanche and I had been married for 38 year at that time. I decided that I would have to sell my home. Could I ask her, to give up everything that we had worked for?"
As explained on HTM, "The plea bargain seemed just that: a bargain, in order to save himself, and his family from the unending ordeal. But when Dale was informed that he would not be able to proclaim his innocence, he realised he couldn’t bargain with the truth." This decision to fight back, via a lawsuit against unfair dismissal, left the Clintons vulnerable to exposure. So they immediately hammered Dale with their signature weapon: "I got a notice from the IRS, [that] said I was being audited." For the next 30 months, Dale was investigated, his son and daughter subpoenaed. A dozen years later, the wounds still raw, he found it difficult relating the trauma:
I remember Vicky, our eldest daughter, telling her mother, that, if I was found guilty... [pauses, welling up, then gathers himself, wipes his eyes, and begins again]. I remember there my child, Vicki, my oldest daughter, telling her mother, that if I was found guilty and had to go to jail for something that I did not do, then she didn’t know if she could live in this country any longer. When the government would be responsible for doing something like that, to her father.
When the case went to trial in 1995, a procession of White House journalists volunteered to serve as character witnesses for Dale. After a trial of 13 days, the jury took less than two hours to reach its verdict. "The jury came in and found me not guilty, on all counts," Dale recalled. "I laid my head down on the desk in front of me, and cried."
It was nearly two years from the date of the firing until the acquittal of Billy Dale. While he and another senior staffer were allowed to retire, five of the former Travel Office employees were reinstated in government jobs and transferred to other departments in the executive branch. As ever, the taxpayer picked up the Clintons' tab: the hundreds of thousands of dollars in reimbursement of fees and costs incurred by those falsely accused by their vicious syndicate.
The humiliation of Billy Dale and the rank injustice left a deep and lasting wound in the hearts and minds of other decent people in close proximity to what transpired. They knew far better than the spurious headlines fed to the public, such as one that read: "Mrs Clinton, for her part, denies any role in the firings and does not remember bringing any pressure on the staff." Interviewed years later, Gary Aldrich, who spent his last five years as an FBI agent doing background checks on White House staff, recalled that
The FBI had conducted investigations on all of these men, and had determined that they were qualified to work in the White House, and that they were honest individuals. I conducted some of those investigations. ... The experience, was a major event in my career, because it taught me that, powerful politicians can misuse law enforcement authority, almost whimsically. And because it was the First Lady ordering the investigations, well then, charges have to be found. That scared me. That was different from my experience in the FBI of 26 years. I thought, if we have reached the level, where a politician can get irritated with somebody, and cause them to, maybe end up in federal prison, we’ve got a serious problem.
In fact, as Arkansans already knew, and the rest of the country was to discover, and rediscover repeatedly right up to the present day, it was just Clinton business as usual; the scary tip of a "virtual racketeering organisation" that Dolly Kyle, in a play on the Ku Klux Klan, labels the Klinton Krime Kartel [hereafter KKK].
The L.A. Times, at least,was prepared to acknowledge that the action Hillary initiated against Billy Dale and his staff was a "transparently political prosecution." But the mainstream media generally "pooh-poohed it as some little tempest in a teapot, as the Clintons still do to this day," writes Dolly Kyle.
Certain individuals, wishing to advance their own personal agendas and financial self-interest, attempted to destroy the reputations of these employees by accusations of kickbacks and wrongdoing. White House staff and volunteers apparently misused their authority and initiated an F.B.I. investigation using unorthodox methods.
For all the pain and misery she caused, Hillary waltzed away. Again. Even her perjury was effectively glossed over. The office of the Independent Counsel’s final report on the firings merely noted that Mrs Clinton’s "sworn testimony" was "factually inaccurate." So: no prosecution of Hillary; no jail time. Again.
Although waved away by the trough-feeding Establishment and now buried beneath a mountain of even worse malfeasance, many find this saga especially telling.
"What she did to the Travel Office, I mean in a way that is the most illustrative scandal," said Anne Coulter, discussing the Clinton White House during an interview. "Because it was such, an Evita Peron, um, act of maliciousness toward these ordinary people, running the Travel Office all these years: ‘Ahm gettin' them out, gettin' mah rich Hollywood friends in.’ It’s not even the most illegal thing they did. But it is the most contemptible thing they did."
Contempt — of upstanding innocent people and the rule of law — was indeed the essence of this 'inaugural scandal' which, along with the amorality, spoke to all that had passed in the Governor's mansion in Little Rock, and was still to come in Pennsylvania Avenue: the cynicism, brutality, ruthlessness, criminality (to include serial perjury) that preceded and followed it.
It exemplified, in other words, "the politics of personal destruction": the phrase popularised by the Clintons in the 1990s to describe righteous criticism of themselves, by what Hillary called "the vast right wing conspiracy"!
Fearful Partners in Crime
It also showcased the unimaginable lengths to which Hillary would go in order to deflect blame and avoid responsibility for her actions. In other words, since Billy Dale and his staff were highly regarded by the media, she set up a false charge of corruption and initiated a federal investigation, so nobody would criticise her for sacking them. And, inevitably, this unspeakable agenda was also linked to the same old same old: Bill's insatiable lusts. Commenting on Hillary’s attempt to pay back Harry Thomason for his favours (by giving him the lucrative Travel Office contract), Dolly Kyle wonders "if Hillary knew that Billy Clinton was also beholden to Harry for a very personal favor":
According to talk in Arkansas, when it came to light that former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen had accused Billy Clinton of raping her, she was whisked off to Canada via the air charter services of Harry Thomason. Elizabeth later changed her story to say that her sexual encounter with Billy Clinton was consensual. (Of course, most of the women who were threatened by Hillary and her goons changed their stories over time.)
It is very likely that Hillary did know about this, since protecting herself from the perilous ramifications of Bill's womanising was always her top priority. For, if Bill had been banished from public life and jailed, her own gilded life and ambitions, entirely dependent on him, would have come to a screeching halt. Hence her long history of terrorising the women he assaults and/or rapes. It is not the vengeful reaction of a long-suffering wife, but pure self-interest and calculation. In this context, she had extra incentive to pursue Dale unto ruination; in order to pay back Thomason for helping remove one of the rape victims from the scene.
As with Dale, however, this desperation to maintain her standing often backfires, ending very badly. The renowned Jones v. Clinton lawsuit exemplifies the self-destructive process.
A young government employee, Paula Jones accused Bill of sexually assaulting her while Governor of Arkansas, in May 1991. It involved Bill's trademark sexual behaviour: viz., bizarre and brutish. (He had first invited her to a hotel room in Little Rock, where he fondled, then exposed himself to her: conduct, according to Jones' lead attorney, that "constituted the offense of sexual assault which is a crime… under Arkansas laws, punishable by three to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.") On cue, like Billy Dale, right in the middle of her litigation against Clinton, the Internal Revenue Service initiated an audit of Paula Jones. As Anne Coulter once remarked, "I know a lot of tax lawyers, and they said the odds of someone like Paula Jones, with her [very low] income, being audited by the IRS, is like being struck by lightning, twice."
"In fact," writes Dick Morris, "Jones received notice of the audit several days after she refused a settlement offer from Clinton. But how would the sitting President know what was going on inside the IRS? Maybe he had a friend there. The IRS Commissioner at the time is still in the Clinton circle. Margaret Richardson, now sits on the Board of Directors of the front company headed by Hillary’s conniving brother, Tony Rodham, Gulf Coast Funds Management, LLC, which tries to get visas for wealthy Chinese after they 'invest' in their firm. And, no surprise, Gulf Coast was alleged to have tried to use political power to get the visas."
The Jones case also echoed the Dale saga in another respect: it could have been resolved quickly and quietly. Morris explains:
When Paula Jones, who accused him of making sexual overtures, offered to settle her suit for no money, no apology, and no admission by Bill, Hillary wouldn’t let him take the deal. Why not? Because Paula wanted Bill to say that he sent a trooper to invite her to his room. Even though the invitation could have been innocuous, Hillary was determined not to give credibility to an article in the right-wing Spectator Magazine that accused Bill of using troopers to arrange his illicit dates.
Bill, cowed, followed Hillary dictates, and the Jones suit went on and on. Ultimately, it led to his perjury [a federal judge found him in civil contempt of court for lying in the Paula Jones deposition], the revelation of the Lewinsky affair, his impeachment, his criminal misdemeanor conviction, his disbarment, and his disgrace. It also cost the Clintons almost $1 million. But Hillary was spared the embarrassment of an implication that Bill had cheated on her.
This rigid refusal to back down has been the nub of countless Hillary misjudgments and catastrophes. Not least during her term as Secretary of State, where her macho posturing and obstinate warmongering, against all the evidence and good sense, cost so many lives.
Dolly Kyle herself was subpoenaed to give evidence at the Jones v. Clinton trial; specifically, to testify about Clinton's admission to her, in May 1987, that he was a sex addict. Juanita Broaddrick was also asked to testify about her own allegations that she had been raped by Attorney General Bill Clinton in 1978. Although Broaddrick is far from alone, as we shall see, the press afford the Clinton rapes a vanishingly small number of column inches. For that reason alone it is important to raise them herein. Even moreso now that he might return to the White House as perjurious 'First Husband'; to take up where he left off with Monica ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"), and other hapless interns.
Reflecting on all that Bill owed to his mentor Senator Fulbright, who was also instrumental in Bill going to Oxford University through a Rhodes scholarship, Kyle writes:
I did not know until a couple of decades later that Billy Clinton had raped at least one woman while he was at Oxford, which explains why he left after two years and did not finish the three-year program there. I understand why his victim did not press the issue. Billy was not arrested, not tried, and not convicted of that rape in England, so he had no trouble getting into law school at Yale. Yes, it made me nauseous – physically sick to my stomach – to learn about Billy’s rapes, especially after what had happened to me. Imagine how you might feel if someone you loved turned out to be a sick, sociopathic criminal.
Kyle is particularly concerned about the rapes because she herself, as a 16-year-old virgin, was drugged and raped in August 1964 by one of Bill Clinton's friends. Twenty-three years later, when she finally disclosed this trauma to a close girlfriend, her friend knew of two other women this man had raped. Until then, the only other person she had told was Bill; ten years earlier, in August 1977. When she informed him what his friend had done to her, he merely replied: "I'm sorry that happened to you." The following year he raped Juanita Broaddrick.
While some brave women have come forward, we don't know how many others he may have raped or sexually assaulted because of the fearsome witness intimidation synonymous with the KKK:
Juanita Broaddrick and most of the other women who had been found and asked to testify in the Jones v. Clinton case were threatened by the Clinton’s minions to discourage their testimony. [...] Reluctantly, Juanita gave an interview to Lisa Myers of NBC. It was a powerful piece of journalism – that was FINALLY aired on Dateline NBC, on February 24, 1999.
Later, Kyle returns to the importance of this Myers-Broaddrick interview, suggesting that anyone who has "any trouble believing Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations that she was raped by the aspiring politician Clinton" should read the transcript (which can be found online) and watch those parts of the interview available on YouTube. She also notes how, typically, the Clintons stopped it airing in the first instance:
The pre-recorded interview with Juanita Broaddrick was supposed to be aired on Dateline NBC on January 29, 1999. The Clintons pressured NBC to sit on that explosive piece. A flood of inquiries, requests, and complaints from Internet news junkies finally forced NBC to air the show nearly a month later.
Not only do the dates and details of Broaddrick's accusation check out, Kyle insists that "No one with eyes, ears, and a functioning brain could doubt Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations of rape after seeing her interview." (Note: The same applies to the testimony and accusations of Kyle herself, whether in print or personal interviews. Journalists initially sceptical of her story, due to Clinton disinformation and smears, immediately accepted the manifest truth of her story once they had actually read her book, and/or spoken with her.) As for Clinton's partner in crime — complicit and duplicitous beyond all measure — Kyle writes:
It’s amazing to me that Hillary Rodham Clinton recently had the unmitigated gall to produce a television ad saying that women who claim rape and sexual assault should be believed! She should have added a disclaimer: “unless they were raped or sexually assaulted by my husband and coat-tail provider. In that case, they should be publicly ridiculed and humiliated.”
She adds these further vital reflections:
[...] Another important fact is this: If Juanita Broaddrick had filed criminal charges against attorney general Bill Clinton for raping her in 1978, she could also have filed criminal charges against Hillary Clinton as an accessory after the fact.
I was raped in 1964 by one of Billy Clinton’s friends. I did not file charges. Juanita was raped by Billy Clinton and intimidated afterward by Billy and Hillary. I understand why Juanita did not file charges.
... Billy Clinton’s decades-long evasion of justice, plus Hillary Clinton’s campaign ad saying that rape victims should be believed, must have piled on the last couple of straws to break Juanita’s long silence. These recent events certainly induced me to break my long silence and start writing this book.
I hope that other Clinton victims will feel validated now and will be encouraged to step forward. The accessory-after-the-fact crimes of threats and intimidation are still in play for anyone who is afraid to talk. If you were a victim of the Clintons and you are afraid to say anything, then the intimidation is still working. How long can people with information maintain a fearful silence?
The Private Investigators
Clearly, the silence reflects the repercussions. Not least apropos the press itself. As noted last month, the self-serving mainstream media shares the socialistic ideology and libertine purview of Bill and Hillary, whom they protect from serious scrutiny. Corporately, however, they also share the fear of other Clinton targets. From the outset, rather than follow the evidence and money wherever it led, they resolved to report only Clinton scandals and criminality that could not be avoided. Even then, it was and continues to be done in cursory fashion, via snippets of information, or more detailed but isolated reports quickly buried by the 24/7 news cycle.
The number of mainstream investigative articles remain few and far between, are often superficial, and rarely followed up. Why? Because among the armoury of weapons employed by the KKK are tax audits. Joe Farrah, founder of the trailblazing World Net Daily independent online news service, and fearless critic of the Clintons, has recounted his own experience of that IRS treatment, which can ruin individuals and paralyse a business.
The IRS audits are a Clinton specialty; guaranteed to keep the corporate media giants on their toes regardless of their shared socialistic outlook. But more rudimentary methods of intimidation are routinely employed, such as: dirt-digging, ruining reputations, terrorising witnesses, and savage beatings.
When Hillary moved to Arkansas, she began trying to keep tabs on her philandering husband. Based on her own intimate knowledge, Dolly Kyle states that "Hillary certainly began hiring private investigators in Arkansas in the late 1970s when Billy was governor. It’s possible she even hired investigators previously because she knew about Billy’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick that occurred while he was campaigning for governor." In explaining this development, she provides an insight into Bill's degeneracy: his "uncontainable and uncontrollable sex addiction":
As far as common knowledge goes, 1982 was the first year in which Hillary hired private investigators to track the women who had sex with Billy. It would be another five years before Billy admitted to me that he was a sex addict. Later, we had an odd conversation when talking about pro-basketball player Wilt Chamberlain’s claim to have had sex with about twenty thousand women. Billy seemed almost undone by Chamberlain’s stunning announcement. “That’s ten times more women than I’ve had!” he said.
There was disappointment, and admiration, in his voice.
Do the math. Billy’s admitted sexual encounters were limited to two thousand – back then!
Despite the rampant epidemic of HIV, AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases, Billy (notorious for not using a condom) seemed to have no concern for the health implications of his acts. Hillary didn’t seem concerned with the health implications of his outside sex conquests; I figured she wasn’t worried because she wasn’t having sex with him anyway.
No, Hillary was not at all worried about sexually transmitted diseases. Rather, she was obsessed with what effect Billy’s philandering behavior could have on their political careers.
To put this period of time in context: In 1980, Bill had lost the governorship of Arkansas after his first term; a rare occurrence in a state where terms were just two-years. Greatly disliked in Arkansas for her feminist arrogance, Hillary, as usual, took no responsibility for this defeat to which she greatly contributed. Instead, she was furious about losing the perks of office, and having to move out of the governor's mansion. So, by 1982, having "just spent two miserable years of living an ordinary existence and making ordinary mortgage payments on an ordinary house on an ordinary street," writes Kyle, "she had to get back on the political train that she had inadvertently derailed."
This is when she made a major accommodation. In order to keep the Clinton ambitions on the rails, she changed her married name from Rodham to Clinton. Like her future physical makeover, however, it was all showbiz, as she continued her ruthless pursuit of women who might spill the beans on her husband. "Ivan Duda was Hillary's first private investigator, as I recall," writes Kyle:
She ordered Ivan to dig up dirt, and he said he didn’t know why Hillary wanted the information on a dozen women who had been with her husband. Usually sleuthing like that is done to support a divorce, but that was not Hillary’s plan. She had something more sinister and criminal in mind.
Women who had been with Billy started receiving anonymous phone calls and threats. [...] Hillary’s use of private investigators, along with threats and intimidation, would escalate over time as Billy’s addiction and his risk-taking behavior escalated.
One private investigator of Hollywood notoriety, Anthony Pellicano, who is now in jail, was hired by Hillary to illegally wiretap, watch and threaten people such as Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers. The devastating impact on those subjected to the intimidation is bravely attested to not only by those women and Juanita Broaddrick, but also several others involved with Bill Clinton, including Kathleen Willey.
Willey was a White House volunteer, who alleges that President Clinton sexually assaulted her during a meeting in the private study off the Oval Office, in November 1993. The Washington Times headline of 20 March 1996 trumpeted: "Willey’s charge a clear crime in D.C.", going on to report that "Unwanted sexual touching — of the kind Kathleen Willey says President Clinton engaged in when he fondled her outside the Oval Office — is a criminal act in the District of Columbia and can net offenders up to six months in jail." In Hillary: The Movie, she recalled the moment of the assault:
I’m thinking to myself: what in the hell is he doing? That’s what I kept thinking. Which sounds silly at the time, but I was getting embarrassed for him, you know, this is just not proper. You have to remember, this is at the time when there was a lot of speculation about his womanising. And I was a loyal Democrat, and I would not allow myself to believe that that was true. I just, I just thought it was all just rumour.
As Willey speaks, a White House "Confidential Memo" about his womanising is displayed on screen, revealing the panic Bill's sexual assaults created behind the scenes early on. It read: "Subjects of concern are: Glencola Sullivan, Gennifer Flowers, Janet Holman." The list grew exponentially thereafter, putting the women abused by Bill at terrifying risk of the psychotic Hillary, whom Willey believes was well aware of the tactics used by the Clinton White House to intimidate perceived enemies. "There's scare tactics," she explains. "You know, being followed, being audited by the IRS, home’s broken into. I mean where does it end." In fact, there is no endpoint, as testified by the jailings, bashings and murders of people unfortunate or stupid enough to enter the Clintons' orbit.
For her part, Willey says that two days before she was set to testify against Bill Clinton, in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, a stranger confronted her while she was out walking:
We passed. And he stopped, and he said, “Hey Kathleen, did you ever find your cat?” And then he said, rather ominously, “Yeah that was a really nice cat.” And that’s what I thought, that something else was going on here. He stood back and he said, “You’re just not getting the message, are you?”
Willey says her car was vandalised, her house broken into, and a cat’s skull was left on her porch. There are corroborating witnesses to what she has endured. One of them, Jared Stern, a former marine and intelligence operative, later told Congressional investigators that he was hired to investigate Kathleen Willey, during a clandestine night time meeting. In Hillary: The Movie, he relates the sinister events:
Late at night, [a Clinton operative] called me, asked me to meet him here, in this parking garage. I met him. [He] said he had something very important to discuss. I talked to him about it. I discussed the tasking. And then I left to carry it out.
Stern declines to discuss what he was hired to do. But he admits that he was so uneasy about it, he called Willey, using an alias:
I made a telephone call to Miss Willey. I left a message on her answering service indicating that I’d try again the next day.
Willey confirms that Stern "left a message for me, saying, be careful, that there were people out to get me. Jared Stern is a first-hand witness to what the Clintons are doing, have done and are doing, to these women." Stern concludes that
The Clintons are a unit. They share a zeal for power, and a willingness to engage, in any and all, threat-neutralising strategies, legality be damned. No-one will ever say whatever happened to Kathleen Willey was an anomaly. That MO, can be seen throughout the Clintons’ political lives. It is consistent.
Dolly Kyle reveals that Kathleen Willey was taken to the home of "big-time Democratic operative Nathan Landow over a weekend to be pressured into silence after she reported that Billy Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. Kathleen had enough to deal with in her life after the death of her husband; she was not going to continue talking about Clinton’s assault on her." And so she joined the ranks of countless women who live in fear to this day: all baffled, like Willey, by support for unhinged Hillary:
I don’t understand how any woman in this country, could vote for a woman, who does that to other people. Who sets out to destroy and ruin these women, who have crossed paths with Bill Clinton. They’re power hungry. They stop at nothing.
As she repeats "They stop at nothing," HTM shows footage of Hillary in full cry: "If you put me to work for you, I’ll work to lift people up, not push them down!" she thunders. It is a powerful juxtaposition of the fearful reality and the propagandistic media image; one to bear in mind before shots of the smiley Hillary that hide another common thread raised by attorney Dolly Kyle: "that women who did reveal an incident about Billy and Hillary subsequently changed their stories":
Almost all of the women who were subpoenaed to testify in the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit were pressured or threatened to keep them from testifying. A couple of them fled the country. Many then signed false affidavits that were prepared by Clinton’s lawyers.
Never have so many women spontaneously exercised the female prerogative to change their minds.
Clinton’s lawyers pressured me to file a motion to quash a subpoena so that I would not testify in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. I refused to cooperate with them, and I did my duty as a citizen as well as an officer of the court, which is what lawyers are. I testified truthfully in the Jones case about Billy Clinton’s admission to me that he was a sex addict. A sexual addiction is a far cry from being a womanizer or a guy sowing his wild oats. It is a serious, uncontrollable force that led him into rape and sexual assault as well as to countless sexual encounters of various types over the decades that he was putatively married to the Other Woman [Hillary].
There are many other women who had sexual affairs or were sexually attacked by Billy Clinton who are not known outside the small town of Little Rock. There are also plenty who do not even know that people know about them. ...
Hillary shamelessly travels from town to town and looks into television cameras and tells the women of America that she has been “fighting” FOR them throughout her entire career. I would like to know exactly which battle Hillary Clinton ever won on behalf of women.
Dick Morris would concur. "I finally parted company with Hillary Clinton, when I saw how she was using private detectives to investigate the women who were linked to her husband," he explained on HTM. "Not to change him. Not to reform him, not to make him a better person. But to cow the women into silence, so that he could get elected President. I do not want that woman controlling the IRS, or the DEA, or NSA, or the FBI, or the CIA. Not in a democracy I don’t."
Paranoia and Secrecy
This sick and criminal spying on private individuals and harassing them, clearly whetted her appetite for the dark arts, since Hillary now treats her political opponents in similar fashion; involving Watergate-style surveillance in clear breach of campaign law and the Constitution.
In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way (2007), even two Hillary-friendly Pulitzer Prize-winning authors concede that Hillary was involved in "down and dirty" activities that included listening "to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack." In the same "dirty" vein, but even worse, a 2010 Wikileaks document dump revealed that as Secretary of State she ordered diplomats, the Pentagon, FBI and CIA to illegally and surreptitiously collect DNA samples of United Nations members. The Daily Mail of 29 November 2010 reported that Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives:
Top secret cables revealed that Mrs Clinton, the Secretary of State, even ordered diplomats to obtain DNA data – including iris scans and fingerprints – as well as credit card and frequent flier numbers.
All permanent members of the security council – including Russia, China, France and the UK – were targeted by the secret spying mission, as well as the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon. Work schedules, email addresses, fax numbers, website identifiers and mobile numbers were also demanded by Washington. The U.S. also wanted ‘biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives’.
The secret 'national human intelligence collection directive' was sent to embassies and consulates around the world. The request could break international law and threatens to derail any trust between the U.S. and other powerful nations. Requests for IT related information – such as details of passwords, personal encryption keys and network upgrades – could also raise suspicions that the U.S. was preparing to mount a hacking operation.
The fishing expedition was ordered by Mrs Clinton in July 2009, .... [when she] called for biometric details ‘on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders’.
... America has always handed over information about top foreign officials to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). But the request by Mrs Clinton paves the way for officials to be more closely spied upon, with even their travel plans tracked by U.S. diplomats.
Since international treaties, such as the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities, ban all spying at the UN, the Mail reported that the affair "is set to lead to international calls for Mrs Clinton to resign."
As if! In a world suffused with Christian principles, morals and ethics, perhaps. But then, in such a world, Hillary would have been doing hard jail time, not running the U.S. State Department!
The moral of the story is that the Surveillance State is already dangerous enough without turbo-charging the situation by adding a President Hillary to the mix. Is it any wonder that Dick Morris so loudly proclaims his opposition to her as the election approaches. The fact that he observed her extreme paranoia at such close range over many years only adds to his deep concern about her assuming ultimate power.
Clear and Present Danger
One particular anecdote echoes and amplifies the lesson of the Mail report: the clear and present danger she poses to liberty.
In August 1996, in New York, homosexual activists disrupted her husband's speech at his 60th birthday party (actually a gigantic fundraiser for his re-election campaign). They demanded that he veto the Defense of Marriage Act and allocate more to AIDS research. Bill wasn't particularly fussed. But as usual, Hillary festered, convinced it was part of "the vast right wing conspiracy" she sees at every turn. Days later, when Morris met with her and the Convention Committee to finalise plans for the forthcoming Democratic National Convention, her foul mood exploded into a tyrannical rant:
"They [the homo activists] were planted there by the Republicans who paid their way so they would disrupt our birthday party,” she said, her voice rising in intensity and volume, her face crunching into a hateful grimace.
She was off. “They’re going to do that at our convention. They’ll plant people in the galleys and get them to scream and yell and disrupt the convention during Bill’s speech and mine.” She continued: “I want to know who is in that [convention] hall. I want IDs, Social Security numbers, background checks on every single person in that hall.”
Dick Morris could only ponder sarcastically what a story that would make: "having the FBI go around the country interviewing the friends, neighbors, business associates, and families of all our supporters and contributors. That would be great." In contrast, Bill would have none of it, prompting Morris also to reflect at the time, "Thank God he’s president and not her." Now she might be.
The same paranoia and obsession with secrecy were at play in Hillary's earlier mentioned refusal to let Bill accept the Paula Jones settlement, which would have avoided so much grief for herself and her husband. Indeed, the Clintons' life and times is one long testament to the destructive impact of her manias, including her manic stubbornness. "Hillary sees flexibility as a sign of weakness and holds to her established position like Krazy Glue," writes Morris, who spent years dealing with the obstinate fallout. "Her macho insistence on never giving in denies her key tactical flexibility. Like German and Russian soldiers in World War II who were ordered to take 'not one step back,' Hillary’s stubbornness denies her the ability to execute tactical retreats or even to maneuver." He provides many other examples of the destructive impact of these grave character flaws; potentially catastrophic traits for an American president. Here are three more:
1. The Washington Post demanded to see the Clinton family’s tax returns and threatened, if they were not forthcoming, to call for a special Whitewater prosecutor (to investigate the Whitewater [Development Corporation] real-estate scandal, centred on Bill using his influence as governor of Arkansas to secure a fraudulent $300,000 loan to the Clintons' partners in the riverfront investment). Hillary refused. Why? Because, explains Morris, "she did not want to reveal her winnings on the futures market until the statute of limitations on insider trading had lapsed." As a consequence, he notes, "We got our prosecutor, eventually leading to impeachment" — but not before Hillary, who had done
The insider trading scandal referred to above is worth a quick summary. It occurred at the outset of Hillary's public life and marked the small beginnings of the criminality now synonymous with a woman for whom corruption, Morris insists, "is a way of life." We also find there the same Arkansan payola that reached new heights between 2009 and 2013, when Secretary of State Clinton sold out her country while doling out favours to Clinton Foundation donors.
Briefly, in 1978, she invested $1,000 in cattle futures contracts and walked away with $100,000 the very next year. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994 that Hillary’s gains in the cattle futures market were "like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later." Two economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University calculated the odds of such winnings without outside fixing as 1 in 31 trillion. Having no experience in the futures markets, Hillary was guided in her investment by James Blair, a friend who was outside counsel to Tyson Foods, which company was then handsomely compensated for helping her. First, when Governor Clinton subsequently waived environmental standards to help Tyson's chicken industry in Arkansas. Then by President Clinton, who gave them a free pass in areas such as unsanitary slaughterhouse practices, and government assistance in others.
2. Morris believes that soon after Hillary moved with her husband to the White House in 1993, she "demanded that the staff pull the FBI files on prominent Republicans — like Nixon with his enemies list. In any event, they all ended up in the White House being reviewed by a former bar bouncer Hillary had helped to hire."
If you ever wonder why the Clintons always come up trumps, no matter how grave their complicity and crimes, these files — a blackmailers treasure trove — are surely a large part of it. Dolly Kyle confirms that the former bar bouncer, Craig Livingstone, "requested and received from the FBI nine hundred files containing private information on Hillary’s enemies, including members of both political parties."
When word of this wholesale invasion of privacy was discovered a couple of years later, there was a temporary media uproar. The big problem persists. Thousands of politicians in Washington still wonder what Hillary has on them. They don’t know if they are in the nine hundred or not. If they have any secrets at all, they must live in constant dread of being publicly exposed. ... With her silent threats to the nine hundred, who is going make a peep?
Craig Livingstone resigned, taking full blame for whatever violations occurred. For a while, Hillary went into her usual serial denial: 'I don't know him'; 'I didn't hire him', 'I'm not responsible.' Kyle continues:
When the files were subpoenaed, Hillary fumed that she did not want reporters rummaging through her papers. That’s when she famously declared, “We are the president.”
The missing FBI files were subpoenaed, but they could not be located. It’s important now to remember that right after deputy White House counsel Vince Foster [mysteriously] died in the summer of 1993, boxes of papers were immediately removed from his office by Hillary’s staffers.
The nine hundred files remained missing until Hillary “discovered” them on a table in the private quarters in the White House. The only fingerprints on them were those of Vince and Hillary, but she had no idea how the files came to be where they were.
Needless to say, Craig Livingstone took the fall for obtaining the files. Hillary was exonerated of any wrongdoing for having (and overlooking) nine hundred files on a table in her residence!
"Frankly," writes Dolly Kyle, echoing Dick Morris, "I’m concerned that if Hillary gets access to FBI files again and uses the IRS to attack her perceived enemies, again — as she did the last time she was in the White House — it’s going to get even uglier than it has been for those of us who will be perceived as her enemies."
(The brave Kyle for one will certainly be on that list! Facing down the Clintons, she even filed her own federal R.I.C.O. [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] lawsuit against then President Clinton "and a half-dozen others in the Klinton Krime Kartel for trashing me to prevent the publication of my first novel." She also filed "a criminal contempt action in federal court charging Billy with perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice." As President Hillary targets go, they probably won't come much bigger!)
3. As for Hillary's obsession with secrecy, which feeds and complements the paranoia, it was First Lady Clinton's ludicrous insistence that her health care task force meet in secret with sealed records that gave her programme an inauspicious beginning from which it never recovered. (Perhaps the most renowned of her disastrous forays into public policy, her hallmark bad judgment in applying this secrecy protocol was compounded, as always, by the sheer inability she tries to mask with her born-to-rule arrogance.)
Unsurprisingly, Mrs Clinton denies the charge of secrecy. "I think I'm probably the most transparent person in public life," she said in 2008 with a perfectly straight face, responding to protests about the draconian difficulty of obtaining information about her from a Clinton-dedicated, taxpayer-funded facility!
A Newsweek report told the story: "Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened [in Little Rock, Arkansas] — and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act — barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives." ("Hillary's Secret White House Papers," 20/10/07).
As Mark Levin states: "This is the mentality of a tyranny. And yet the media treats this as if it’s no big deal. It is a very, very big deal. We paid for those documents at that library. Much of our money goes into that library. It is a federally run operation." Yet it is so hard to extract information from it, that the Clinton Library is known locally as Little Rock’s Fort Knox!
Regally waving away the protests of journalists and researchers, Her Highness breezily proclaimed: "We’ll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the national archives permits." Before the contemptuous dismissal, Anne Coulter responded: "This idea they’re claiming now: ‘Oh, we’re trying to release them, we’re trying to as fast as we can. But the library just won’t let us release them.’ You want the papers released, order the papers released. They’re your papers."
Unfortunately, it is impossible to hear such simple correctives when you are noisily attributing your own dysfunction to others. In this case, Hillary preferred to decry "The tendency of this [Bush] administration from the top, all the way to the bottom, ... to withhold information, to resist legitimate requests for information, to refuse to be forthcoming about information, that is significant, and relevant to the job that all of you [journalists] do in the interests of the American people."
Truly, the woman gives hypocrisy a bad name!
Case-studies of Clinton Impunity
This self-defence mechanism — projecting her faults onto others, rather than facing up to her shortcomings and taking responsibility for her actions — is both reflexive and essential; a necessary response in order to cover up so much failure, ineptitude, and crime. As a result, she continually repeats the same mistakes over and over; defeating herself time and again. All the while corroding and corrupting American life like no other. The fact that she is never punished for her actions, which also incur huge costs for the taxpayer, gravely undermines public trust in the representatives, institutions and processes of all branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
Since any one of her innumerable unpunished crimes would require an entire edition to treat in depth, let us instead summarise two examples that encapsulate this Hillary Effect: firstly, her most recent foot-shooting episode; followed by the one that kicked off her formal entry into politics in 2000, via the senate.
1. The State Department E-mails
"There is no better example of the Greek tragedy than Hillary’s e-mail scandal," writes Dick Morris, "— a totally unnecessary precaution that ended up causing so many more problems for her than it prevented. Why doesn’t this woman ever learn?"
Apparently perplexing, the simple answer to that query lies in the delusions of grandeur and lust for power that blind her to everything else. Also, social psychopaths who hire lawbreaking private investigators to stalk, hack, wiretap and/or obtain the DNA of innocent individuals and public officials and dignitaries, are simply untreatable. How else to explain her indefensible use of a secretive, unsecure and easily hackable email system while heading the U.S. State Department?
Just prior to the FBI report on its "criminal investigation" into Hillary's dereliction in that regard, Morris noted that "The threat and fear of punishment is intended to deter the offender from repeating the prohibited conduct. But in Hillary’s case, evading the punishment, once again, will have the opposite effect — it will embolden her. It will be the final vindication of her lifelong certainty that the rules don’t apply to her, that by having a thick skin and, perhaps, no superego, she can make it through anything. The famous quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 'Conscience doth make cowards of us all,' has nothing to do with Hillary. Hillary is animated by a deep sense of entitlement. She feels herself to be so superior in morality to mere mortals that rules and laws don’t bother her. They’re for other people."
Shortly after, FBI Director James Comey delivered the findings of his investigation to Congress, letting Hillary off the hook yet again. Incredibly, despite her receiving classified information on a secret e-mail server she had set up in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, in blatant breach of the law and of national security, he did not recommend her indictment. She was, he said, "extremely careless." A mere wrist-slap — and cold comfort for the family of a nuclear scientist executed this year in Iran for treason. For, among the e-mails on her private server there were conversations among Hillary's senior advisers about this gentleman, prompting Republican Senator Tom Cotton to describe her as not just "careless" but "reckless," and "not suited" to be president.
Naturally, Hillary lied her head off about the e-mails:
• She swore in writing and under oath, citing the phrase "under penalty of perjury," that she surrendered all of her work-related emails to the State Department. In fact, as Judge Andrew Napolitano noted, "When she left the State Department, she effectively took all of her emails with her. Then, when the FOIA [Freedom of Information] cases began, she returned about half of what she had taken, claiming that the other half was personal."
• Asked by a Congressional Committee about Clinton's assurance that she used one device when she worked at the State Department, FBI Director Comey replied that this was not true: "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State."
• She also insisted that no classified information was ever transmitted on her servers. "Then," writes Dick Morris, "her story changed to insist that she never personally sent or received classified e-mails. Then, at least 104 e-mails were released by the State Department that were classified [at least two dozen of which were at the highest level of protection the government accords its secrets!] that Hillary wrote and sent herself. So then her story changed again to say that she never sent or received e-mails with “classification markings." But emails reveal her directing her staff to remove the classification markings to get around the problem by a technicality, despite many of the documents containing material that was obviously classified.
The lies went on and on, much like the numbers, which tell the shocking story. In 2014, 30,000 e-mails were handed to the State Department by Mrs Clinton's lawyers (said by Hillary to constitute all her work-related e-mails). Every new and regular 'find' thereafter screamed obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence:
Hillary compounded her lying with numerous felonies, including the intentional destruction of evidence after being served with subpoenas to produce the evidence. She "bleached" her deleted emails so they can't be recovered. She broke numerous mobile phones with a hammer!
In the same arrogant manner, despite constant warnings from State Department security never to use her unsecured private phones on overseas trips (because any unclassified Blackberry is high risk for hacking e-mails, listening to conversations, etc.), it transpired that Hillary recklessly refused a government issue Blackberry, routinely using her own Blackberry all over the world, even in Russia and China. (She denies that her Blackberry was ever hacked. But Romanian hacker "Guccifer", who was known to have infiltrated e-mails sent to Hillary by one of her confidant's, claimed that he hacked directly into Hillary’s e-mails, too, and that her server was easy to hack for anybody. This year, while serving time in a Romanian prison for hacking, he was temporarily extradited to the U.S. where he doubtless repeated his claim under FBI interrogation about his hacking of other prominent figures.)
Collusion on High
Since this scandal only served to further highlight her hallmark lack of judgment and competence — "two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy," as Donald Trump rightly pointed out — why on earth did she create and pull down upon herself this almighty maelstrom (bearing in mind that the e-mail investigation itself was spawned by the House probe into the fatal 2012 attacks in Benghazi, also directly related to her serial misjudgments, negligence and incompetence). According to Dick Morris:
The most benign reason is her paranoia about secrecy. She never wants anyone to see anything. And, of course, she knew that she would run for president and wanted to make sure nothing transacted over e-mail would be a problem for her in the future. The more nefarious reason is that she wanted to transact business that could benefit her family financially. Transactions like helping the U.A.E. and the Saudis, who were the most generous benefactors to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton bank accounts through speeches and other business arrangements.
For his part, Judge Napolitano considers that "Clinton's persistent problems with personal honesty have brought her face to face with three more criminal investigations. One is for public corruption. The second is for perjury. And the third is for misleading Congress." Like so many other legal experts, he was aghast at FBI Director Comey finding that Hillary was only "extreme careless", feeling that his report laid out a sufficient basis for the prosecution of Mrs Clinton. As he pointed out:
Comey acknowledged that Clinton sent state secrets to non-governmental colleagues who lacked national security clearances, that those people were hacked by hostile intelligence services and that she used her numerous non-secure mobile devices recklessly while inside the territorial borders of those hostile governments. If all that is somehow extremely careless but not grossly negligent, then many who have done far less than Clinton — and have been prosecuted and convicted — were wrongly prosecuted.
There lies the deep and lasting damage done to the American justice system and the common good by both Clintons for so very long. On 7 July 2016, in his opening statement before the FBI Director, the Republican Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, spoke to this Clinton Effect. He told Comey that the FBI's decision revealed a "double standard" for powerful people. Had the "average Joe" done what she had done, he said, he would go to prison. "If your name isn't Clinton, or you're not part of the powerful elite, then Lady Justice will act differently," Chaffetz said, adding that the FBI had set a "dangerous precedent" in letting Clinton off the hook without consequences.
How could the political, judicial and investigatory powers possibly allow and pull off such a damaging travesty?
In the end, Hillary got away with it through the usual mix of dirty Clinton tricks, and rank self-serving and collusion, led by her implacable enemy Barack Obama, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Veteran Clinton observer Ed Klein explains how it went down in his new book Guilty as Sin, released last month:
Uniformed FBI agents on Attorney General Loretta Lynch's protective detail had informed Comey that Lynch had locked an armful of documents on the FBI investigation into her briefcase and delivered them to the White House. More than once, Lynch had brought along a Justice Department prosecutor who was working on the Hillary case to brief the president's staff.
These briefings between Lynch and the White House (which Lynch publicly denied because they were unethical) had been going on since Comey's investigation began in the summer of 2015. Comey was aware, of course, that his criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton was inevitably linked with the highest possible stakes in American politics. If his agents turned up evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Hillary's part, it would ignite the greatest political firestorm since Watergate. And more likely than not, that would derail Hillary's candidacy for the White House.
In other words, the Obama White House and Lynch Justice Department were working in cahoots, over and above Comey's FBI. Clearly, Obama had resigned himself to gifting a Get Out of Jail Free Card to Hillary (whom he can "barely tolerate," says Klein): firstly, because he was stuck with her as the party's presidential nominee; secondly, because the alternative was unthinkable:
If Hillary was indicted, it would convulse the entire political system, monopolize media coverage, and wreck Obama's final months in office. Even if Hillary hung on and ran for president while under indictment (which she was privately vowing to do), she would almost certainly go down to defeat. A Republican would waltz into the White House. A Republican president, with a complaisant Republican Congress, could undo all of Obama's signature achievements — Obamacare, the Iran nuclear deal, and hundreds of Obama's executive orders.
This is why Obama suddenly found himself spinning yarns and telling lies to defend the detested Hillary from her indefensible actions. Such as his telling "Sixty Minutes", during an October 2015 interview, that "This [e-mail scandal] is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered."
Before such dissembling and falsehood, Comey demanded to see Obama. As multiple sources who were later briefed on the meeting informed Klein, although an effusive Obama tried to butter up Comey in the Oval Room, Comey made it clear that his investigation could not possibly be rushed or tailored to suit anyone. According to Klein, Obama's senior adviser and best friend, Valerie Jarrett, later told one of her friends that right after the meeting: "I've never seen Barack look angrier."
"A Corrupt Bargain"
He needn't have worried. All too predictably, Comey himself finally caved in to pressure; refusing to sacrifice his elite job in the service of truth and justice: Hillary's indictment. Perhaps Bill Clinton's contribution to ensuring his wife's acquittal did for Comey in the end. It involved the usual Clinton offering of political patronage for favours. On this occasion, offered to Attorney-General Loretta Lynch; in plain sight.
With signature Clinton contempt for law and ethics governing criminal investigations, Bill 'accidentally on purpose' met Loretta Lynch on the tarmac of Phoenix airport.
On 12 July, before the House Judiciary Committee, Lynch was strenuously criticised for not prosecuting Mrs Clinton. One Republican charged that her rubber-stamping the FBI's recommendation "does not seem to be a responsible way to uphold your constitutionally sworn oath." Not only did Lynch refuse repeatedly to cite facts in defence of her decision to close the Clinton email investigation without criminal charges, she also described her Phoenix encounter with Bill Clinton as "a conversation that was held on the airplane, on the tarmac. The former president indicated that he wanted to say hello, and I agreed to say hello. And we had a social conversation." She also pledged later that "the matter was handled like any other matter."
At the time, no half-alert person accepted this account. It was a monumental bare-faced lie by the person responsible for administering American justice. On 30 June, speaking on the Steve Malzberg TV show, Dick Morris commented: "Clearly this was inappropriate. Could you imagine in a criminal proceeding if the husband of the defendant met with the judge? Impossible." As he noted: "Her job ends in five months — and even a warm handshake and routine words of praise from the husband of her possible boss could mean the world to Loretta Lynch. It could mean she can stay on as attorney general. It could mean that Hillary would put her on the Supreme Court."
Elsewhere, referencing a report in The New York Times stating that Clinton might extend Lynch's job, Morris said that "coming after the meeting between Lynch and Bill [it] is as close to a sales receipt on a bribe that you can imagine."
"Obviously, Lynch met with Clinton by prearrangement," Morris began. "Obviously, it's not coincidental. ... I'll bet you at the end of that meeting, Bill Clinton shook hands with Loretta Lynch — taking her hand in both of his — and said: 'Loretta, I just want you to know how proud I am of you ever since I appointed you. I just want you to know how Hillary and I think you have done a wonderful job as attorney general — and we hope you will be able to continue to serve with us in the new administration'."
In fact, two days later, Clinton's aides were quoted by the New York Times as saying she may re-appoint Loretta Lynch.
"Lynch only had four more months on the job, so her first priority was to keep her job," said Morris. "She obviously did that. This is a corrupt bargain."
The Clinton Playbook
Larry Nichols, an ex-Green Beret black-ops veteran, knew exactly what happened on the tarmac. As a former (repentant) Clinton 'fixer', he wrote the playbook on how they went about such conspiratorial matters. A man Bill Clinton fears for his toughness, courage, and insider knowledge of everything about the Clinton machine from the time he first ran for Governor, Nichols discussed the Lynch encounter on 2 July, during an online radio interview with Alex Jones of Infowars.
Jones first noted that "The scary part is how overt the meeting was between those two. I don't identify with either political party," he said, "but this incident just shows how corrupt and deceitful the political structure has always been in the land of Uncle Sam. A two party system controlled by the corporate oligarchs."
Now let me tell you, one of two or three things happened. Cause that’s what I used to do for ‘em, so I know fairly well what happened.
Bill Clinton met with Lynch, and he was there to assure her, that when Hillary gets to be President, she’ll get to keep her job if she enjoys it. Number one.
Number two: I would imagine he gave her a slip of paper. A slip of paper that had on it a couple of things about the career prosecutors that are working the case. What was on that, Alex, were the things they have on ‘em. You know, the drugs, women, men, whatever. And she is to show them what they’ve [the Clintons] got if they indict or don’t do what she says, that’s what’s coming out. So he gave her that slip of paper.
Now, the third thing is that they want Loretta Lynch to prosecute some of the protestors against Hillary. Those of us who are speaking out against immigration, against Muslims, etc. etc.. Bill Clinton told her that he wanted her, they need her to step up, and indict somebody, for hate speech, because that will clear the row for the rest of the way for Hillary, to back down the ultra-conservative people, the normal Christian conservative people that they figure are gonna raise their voices, they’re gonna put that down.
"That’s what the persecution of tens of thousands of churches, and conservative and libertarian groups, with the IRS was about," interjected Alex Jones, referring to the Obama administrations blatant use of tax audits to oppress his opponents. This is just one more reason why the result of the coming election will reverberate internationally. A hardening of this American crackdown under another Clinton presidency will further embolden illiberal liberals everywhere in their push for similar measures: i.e., total tolerance for the anti-Christian left; zero tolerance for the 'intolerant' Christian right. To underline the precarious situation, Jones produced a 2015 article that confirmed Loretta Lynch's desire to persecute people for freely criticising those who comprise the Clinton's constituency. It read:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary Dinner she will take aggressive action against the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric." She told the group "we stand with you" and promised the Justice Department will protect Muslims from "violence" and discrimination. "When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted." Lynch did not clarify what "actions predicated on violent talk" means and did not draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and violence. She also did not pinpoint individuals or groups….
They never do, of course. The more vague and subjective the threat and accompanying legislation, the easier it is to criminalise whatever and whomever you want. In the hands of SNITs (Snout-in-Troughers) like the Clintons and Loretta Lynch — careerists who would sell their souls for money, power and prestige, after the base fashion of communist apparatchiks — there is then no limit to the evil that may be perpetrated by the State, whose reach becomes ever more vast and arbitrary.
"So you’re saying that from working with the Clintons and handling them for many years, that’s what you believe happened on the airplane," Jones asks Nichols, who replies:
That’s what I know happened. Now, I wasn’t there, of course, but I wrote the book that they use, and I did it so many times, Alex, that I know the MO [Mission Objective]. That the strange meeting, the quick meeting, "accidental on purpose" meeting. You know, Bill Clinton wasn’t in Atlanta or wherever this was [Phoenix], supposedly playing golf. He was no more playing golf than the man in the moon. He was there to deliver a message. And he was the one that they chose to deliver it. You know for yourself, Loretta Lynch, all that she is, she ain’t stupid. She would have known, if she met with Bill Clinton, that this kind of fervour was going to happen.
"Well that’s why they had the FBI tell the press to turn the cameras off," said Jones. "This is arrogance."
The assessment of Morris, Jones and Nichols was recently complemented by Ed Klein's account in Guilty as Sin. Although presenting the airport meeting as unplanned and opportunistic (very unlikely, as playbook-writer Nichols insists), he provides these further insights, as reported in the Daily Mail of 4 October:
The former president told his pilot to abort a takeoff, according to Ed Klein in his latest book, Guilty as Sin, when a Secret Service agent told him Lynch was about to land.
"Don't take off!" Bill shouted.
The meeting, which began minutes later and lasted a half-hour, took place just one week before FBI director James Comey announced publicly that the Democratic presidential nominee was in the clear.
One of Clinton's most trusted legal advisers told Klein that he took a call from the former president. The New York Post published a book excerpt spelling out what happened.
"Bill said, 'I want to bushwhack Loretta'," the adviser told him. '"I'm going to board her plane. What do you think?"'
"And I said, 'There's no downside for you, but she's going to take a pounding if she's crazy enough to let you on her plane'."
"He knew it would be a huge embarrassment to Loretta when people found out that she had talked to the husband of a woman – the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party – who was under criminal investigation by the FBI,' the adviser explained to Klein.
"But he didn't give a damn. He wanted to intimidate Loretta and discredit Comey's investigation of Hillary's emails, which was giving Hillary's campaign agita."
Bill Clinton ended up telling his Secret Service agent to call Lynch and set up a meeting on the tarmac.
The adviser, who was not on the plane, said Clinton told him later that he noticed "beads of sweat" on Lynch's upper lip as she and her husband listened to the former president talk – sending a message that Hillary had a power base that included "the full weight of the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party, and the White House."
"Bill said he could tell that Loretta knew from the get-go that she'd made a huge mistake," the adviser said.
"She was literally trembling, shaking with nervousness. Her husband tried to comfort her; he kept patting her hand and rubbing her back."
Ultimately, Klein reports, Lynch told the former president that there was no chance of his wife being indicted or prosecuted for exposing state secrets to hackers and foreign adversaries.
She made the same pledge to President Barack Obama and his key adviser Valerie Jarrett, even though the Department of Justice is nominally independent of the White House.
And the easy-going Comey, whom many observers pegged for a principled good egg, turned into a pragmatist driven by, according to Klein, "huge ambition and an instinct for political survival." Not only would he risk his political future by recommending criminal charges against Hillary, but a not-guilty verdict would mark him as one of American history's greatest fools.
A week after the secret Clinton-Lynch meeting, Comey stood before cameras and laid out a forensic case why Hillary and her top aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Lynch, an old friend of hers told Klein, sat in her office seething. She had promised Bill there would be no black eye for his wife. She cursed him. She covered her eyes rather
Then, in the blink of an eye, Comey turned 180 degrees.
Although the U.S. Espionage Act doesn't require harmful intent in order to charge someone – mere "negligence" is enough – Comey insisted that this standard had only been used once before in history.
"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he declared.
Klein concludes that "Hillary was clearly guilty as sin, and the right thing would have been for Comey ... to make her pay for her sins. But he didn't."
2. The Senate Campaign Fraud
He did not. Just as his predecessor failed to make her pay for her criminal campaign funding during her run for the New York senate in 2000. At the time the biggest campaign fraud in U.S. history, it was yet another scandal that should have ended her political career and seen her exchanging pantsuits for an orange jump suit and manacles. Especially since her criminal involvement was caught on both video and audio tape, and documented on "Hillary Senate 2000" letterhead, by one Peter Paul.
Mr Paul, who had previously served three years in jail for fraud, did a deal with Hillary. In return for donations to her senate campaign, he would get access to her husband for business opportunities once Bill left the White House. Subsequently, he organised on Hillary's behalf the largest and most lavish fundraiser ever staged in Hollywood. Paul later learnt that "in directly, personally, and indirectly, through her agent, conceiving the event, in soliciting the money to pay for the event, and then co-ordinating the expenditures for the event, clearly the two of them were violating federal law."
Just two days after the "magic" evening, involving over a hundred stars and the entire Democrat leadership, the stardust evaporated when the Washington Post started asking questions about Paul's criminal history. Paul got a phone call from a Clinton crony informing him that Hillary would say "she hardly knew me and she didn’t give any money, and if I was smart, in order to maintain my ‘deal’, that I would go along with that." The mendacious Clintons immediately implied they weren't aware of his criminal past.
Interviewed about the scandal on Hillary the Movie, Paul countered: "I had been vetted six times. My house had been prepared for a presidential sleep over. And the President allowed me to put my name on 25,000 invitations. Impossible to think that they didn’t know that I had federal convictions, which, anybody who uses the internet can find within four clicks."
Amazingly (or in their case perhaps not), the Clintons continued to solicit money from Paul, even after publicly distancing themselves from their newfound friend! On 24 August 2000, Hillary finance director, David Rosen, sent a fax to Paul, on Hillary's letterhead, with an illegal request for him to wire $100,000 worth of his company's stock.
Like one incriminating phone call from Hillary to Paul, this gift-wrapped smoking gun document was never used against her.
Paul is also filmed passing an independent polygraph test, answering "Yes" to everything he has charged (e.g., "Did Hillary Clinton pledge President Clinton’s support for your business interest?" – "August 13, 2000, at Barbara Streisand’s home, did you talk with Hillary Clinton about supporting her campaign provided President Clinton help you in your business interest?"). Ray Ezell, the Department of Justice-certified Polygraph Examiner who conducted the test confirmed his finding that "Mr Paul has been truthful in his answering the questions concerning the issues administered in the polygraph."
"When I became Hillary’s biggest donor, no-one made any reference to concerns about my credibility, my truthfulness, or my ability to honestly do business," says Paul. "You know, Hillary has no problems with me as long as I’m writing cheques." A final chuckle speaks to his resilience, since his world immediately crumbled after Crooked Hillary abandoned him. His company collapsed. He was indicted on two felonies in connection with trading in his company's stock. And Interpol arrested him in Brazil, where he languished for two-and-a-half years in a hell-hole prison, awaiting extradition.
The FBNI and DIJ
This is the oft repeated fate of those who mix with the Clintons. Peter Paul was not the only one associated with the Hollywood event to end up doing time. Aaron Tonken, a homeless conman who quickly became the Clinton’s chief fundraiser, was sentenced to more than five years in federal prison for defrauding donors and underwriters of star-studded charity galas he organised. It was through Tonken that Paul received the offer to help Hillary in return for business assistance from Bill. Interviewed by phone while in jail, Tonken was asked about his involvement with the Clintons. "It was a growing new relationship," he said. "I don’t know where ultimately it would lead, but I suppose not to a good place, because all the people that I met around them, that I dealt with at different events, have all gone to prison. And these are very close people, mainly to the President."
Mr Tonken says then-Senator Clinton and her finance director both knew of his illegal financing schemes, including how he reimbursed celebrities who donated to Hillary’s senate campaign. "They wrote a cheque where I told them to write it, 'the Senate 2000', in the invitation they received, and then I reimbursed them either one or two thousand, depending if one or two people came. I told her national finance director David Rosen, and he just said 'Don’t tell me anything like that', and I told the FBI."
He should've saved his breath. When it comes to Crooked Hillary, the quivering Federal Bureau of Investigation and quaking Department of Justice morph into the FBNI (Federal Bureau of Non-Investigation) and the DIJ (Department of Injustice). Similarly, many other supposed investigative and enforcement bodies should adjust their acronyms to reflect their supine accommodation of Mrs Clinton; handing her Get Out of Jail Free Cards year after year, decade after decade.
In this particular scam, while others with far less culpability served time, she walked away with a lone penalty for her multiple offences: $35,000 in fines for having under-reported the cost of the gala; a paltry sum that hardly reflects the scale of the deception. As Dick Morris explains,
It was the most lavish affair of all. But the campaign said it cost $400,000 — not $1.1 million — so that they could use the other $700,000 for the campaign, and use it to buy advertising. Now the question is: did Hillary know it was a mistake? Of course she did. Number one, she was there. She knew it couldn’t have only cost $400,000. Number two, she frequently urged Peter Paul to hold down the expenditures. Number three, after the forms were filed with the FEC [Federal Election Commission], Peter Paul told her they were inaccurate, and Hillary continued to file inaccurate forms. And finally, the FEC investigated it, and concluded it did cost $1.1 million.
At the time he told his story on HTM in 2008, Peter Paul was awaiting sentencing for securities fraud. He vowed to spend the rest of his life trying to expose Hillary’s chronic pattern of corruption:
She’s never called me a liar. And she’s never said that my allegations are false. What she has sworn to is, that she can’t remember some conversations that we had, in detail.
Well, I think like William Saffire said in The New York Times, Hillary’s a “congenital liar”. ... If she can do this as publicly, and in such a gross and unvarnished way, then, imagine if she got additional power in the White House, what she would do with that. I can’t think of any other politician in history who has shown such a disrespect and a contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, as Hillary.
She’s not accountable, she’ll never be accountable for anything, personally that she does. And her personality is such, that she believes that the end justifies the means. No matter what those means are. I’m not asking anybody to like me, or to trust me, or even to believe me. I’m asking people to look at the record, as undisputed, and to come to their own conclusions, regarding the suitability of Hillary Clinton to acquire the highest office in this country.
Criminality Without Consequences
The above summaries neatly bookend Hillary's official public life to date: i.e., as an elected rather than self-designated official (of 'co-governor'/'co-president' stripe). The two cases are seamlessly connected, since 2000, by many sources and tributaries from and through which filthy lucre flows into Clinton pockets.
In Part I, Pat Buchanan alluded to the jaw-dropping uranium sellout: where Hillary signed off the sale of 20% of America's invaluable uranium deposits to Russian interests, who then contributed $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. But this barely touches on the multiple conflicts of interest and cash for favours involving Secretary of State Clinton and her Foundation-cum-Piggybank. There were scams like the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP) in Canada, for example, that sent money from 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation. While amid $165 billion worth of U.S. arms sales, one also finds Clinton Foundation ties to money from countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates: all cleared by the State Department to buy American-made weapons, despite being on its list of countries tagged for offences ranging from corruption to violations of civil liberties. Associated 'donations' include the handing of $10 million to the Clinton Foundation by Boeing, after which they got the green light to sell $29 billion in fighter jets to the Saudis.
This malfeasance has a much longer pedigree, of course, recalling the dirty money garnered by the "co-presidency" in the 90s, when yet another cast of characters 'paid to play' with Bill and Hillary. As with the Clinton State Department, "The [Clinton] White House was like a subway turnstile. You put the money in, and you got in," said Johnny Chung, a businessman whose 'tokens' were large enough to see him convicted of illegal campaign fund-raising. The Washington Post reported that "Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a 'hustler' seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates." But it was far worse. He was also collecting money from a Chinese intelligence officer, in an attempt to influence American elections to China's benefit.
In the Clinton Whitehouse, "The campaign fraud was so extensive," noted columnist John Fund, "that 120 people either fled the country to avoid being interrogated by investigators, pled the Fifth Amendment, or otherwise avoided questions."
ADFA and Mena
Going back further still, it is all redolent of the Little Rock days; where it all began with lucrative Clinton fronts like the Arkansas Financial Development Authority [ADFA].
Long exposed by its original director, Larry Nichols, the ADFA was set up on the pretext of providing "low interest loan bonds to schools, churches, charitable organisations, libraries, etc." Nichols was there but two weeks before he realised "they don’t ever make loans to any of that. The only people that were getting loans, were companies that were just regular companies." Yet it turned out Arkansas already had a development commission for providing low cost loans to companies. ADFA, said Nichols, was a convenient facility set up to afford it "all the protection and all the funding of a State agency" — in other words, as a fraudulent piggy bank for the Clintons and their backers; Don Tyson, for example. The owner of Tyson Foods (mentioned earlier in connection with Hillary's insider trading scandal), Don received a loan from the ADFA, but never had to pay it back.
According to Nichols, ADFA also laundered drug-money: cocaine to a value of $10 million a week flown in from Mena Airport in Arkansas. The money was laundered via ADFA to a bank in Florida, to a bank in Georgia, to a bank in New York, and from there it was transferred out of the country. Bill Clinton's best friend, Dan Lasater, led the operations. Lasater and Bill's brother, Roger Clinton, spent time in jail for drug related crimes.
Like Whitewater and numberless other Clinton scams, the extensive web of corruption involving the ADFA swindle alone would take a book. Larry Nichols provides a quick glimpse of the labyrinthine corruption:
The first loan ADFA approved was to "Park-O-Meter" ... When I investigated the company, I found that the secretary and cashier was Webb Hubbell [a managing partner of the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who practiced law with Hillary.] Guess who wrote the law proposition... which made ADFA possible. Webb Hubbell. Guess who drove the law proposition which looked into and admitted [Park-O-Meter's] request: "Rose Law Firm". Who signed the admittance? Webb Hubbell and Hillary Clinton.
When journalists started investigating the loans to Park-O-Meter, explained Nichols, they discovered that the company did not make parking meters, but removable airplane nose-cones, delivered to the airfield in Mena. Located in a remote corner of the Ozark mountains, the Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport was the hub of a massive arms and cocaine smuggling operation that started in the early 80s, under the oversight of the CIA and DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) no less, for their own covert ends.
Pilot Barry Seal was a CIA/DEA agent (informant) who operated out of Mena from 1981-85. Working on Bill Clinton's patch undisturbed, he smuggled up to $5 billion dollars worth of drugs into the U.S.. He was assassinated in 1986 in a CIA-sanctioned 'hit' by the Medellin drug cartel (— the private phone number of George H.W. Bush was later found among his possessions!). Before his death, Seale had told police investigators that he had used the (Park-O-Meter) nose-cones to smuggle narcotics into the country. In other words, cocaine-user Clinton and his buddies heavily participated (with the U.S. government) in pushing drugs onto American streets. And this circle of criminal associates, says Nichols, followed Bill all the way to the White House.
As for Webb Hubbell, while both he and Hillary were found during the Whitewater investigation to have double-billed Rose Law Firm clients (probably the least of Hillary's crimes in that far-reaching affair, the half of which has never been told), guess who finally did a stretch, and who didn't? "Webb Hubbell served his time in prison and in a halfway house," answers Dolly Kyle. "He never opened his mouth about the Clintons. He moved away from Little Rock, and he now writes books. He can also say, 'No one shot me'."
Many have not lived to make that boast.
Terror & Murder Inc.
To terrorise and/or terminate witnesses and whistleblowers, actual or potential, are Clinton hallmarks. Hillary's intimidation of Bill's women spills over to any witness to their crooked dealings.
A measure of the fear thus instilled is provided by Susan McDougal, a partner with her husband and the Clintons in the ill-conceived and ill-fated Whitewater real estate deal in north-west Arkansas. In 1998, her husband died in prison in suspicious circumstances, while serving three years for fraud and conspiracy. Mrs McDougal, however, "was sentenced to prison for criminal contempt and obstruction of justice because she refused to answer questions from a federal grand jury about Billy and Hillary Clinton," writes Kyle. "This was after Susan had been given immunity from prosecution in the Whitewater fraud matter. Therefore, it had nothing to do with covering her bases on her own fraud." Scared witless and fond of life, Susan refused to answer questions about:
Susan McDougal kept her mouth shut about Hillary and Billy Clinton and spent twenty-two months in prison, still keeping her mouth shut. She received a full presidential pardon from Billy Clinton in the final hours of his presidency.
One gratuitous and bestial beating dished out by Bill's thugs explains precisely why a person would prefer to take their chances in jail than cross the Clintons.
Gary Johnson, an attorney, lived at the Quapaw Towers apartments in Little Rock, where he was a next door neighbour of Gennifer Flowers. After watching the Clinton machine gang up on Larry Nichols during his 1990 legal suit against the Clintons (brought after Bill lied about Nichols' activities at ADFA), Johnson offered to represent Nichols. Part of the Nichols lawsuit revealed the extra-marital affair between Clinton and office secretary Flowers. Bill, as usual, denied the affair. But neighbour Johnson knew he was lying. Shortly after moving into Quapaw, he had set up a security camera near the front door of his residence. This camera also happened to capture Clinton visiting Flowers.
Since Bill had denied bedding Flowers, Johnson was visited by Clinton's people, who stole his security tape and beat him savagely, leaving him for dead. Both his elbows were dislocated; both collar bones broken; his spleen and bladder ruptured ("with holes the size of half-dollars," says Larry Nichols); his nose and sinus cavities crushed.
Watching Johnson quietly recount his brutal ordeal during a filmed interview is to confront the nightmare faced by countless other Clinton victims. "I was hit almost immediately they came in," he says. After a long silence, he goes on:
They looked like state troopers, I’ll say that. …. Yes, they asked me for, the tape …. That’s the way things had historically been done in Arkansas. It’s just a small state, a one party state, and … what tends to happen in small states like that I think, is, the longer the person remains governor, that, … I think, the greater the abuses are. And I think the abuses were very, very widespread under Bill Clinton. …. Whitewater is just, ah, it’s… it’s a scandal, but if they really look into the way the State was run under Bill Clinton, they would be, people in other states would be just amazed. … I’d been Gennifer Flowers' neighbour. I knew Bill Clinton wasn’t telling the truth about that. Bill Clinton, I think, would do just about anything to save his political hide. I wasn’t afraid of Bill Clinton. I’m still not. Even with all that’s happened.
Subsequent to the bashing, on 25 January 1992, Nichols dropped the lawsuit, after Gennifer Flowers went public with her story of the affair, thus vindicating Nichols. (In public, Nichols says he dropped the suit because "the media have made a circus out of this thing and it's gone way too far." But he told reporters that he decided to drop it after meeting with Clinton's notorious security chief Buddy Young. According to Arkansas Committee researcher Mark Swaney, Nichols said that Young told him that if he didn't, he was a "dead man." Though a hardened assassin himself, Nichols knew when to draw the line.)
The Death List
Speculation links the Clintons to more murders than they could have possibly sanctioned. But as someone wrote: "If all those deaths associated with people who had the power to bring Clinton down were simply coincidence, Bill Clinton is the luckiest president in history." Not to say the luckiest Attorney-General, the luckiest Governor, the luckiest ex-president.... And as Dolly Kyle explains, the couple make good terroristic use of their notoriety:
Even people who carry guns for a living are afraid to let it be known what they know and what they really think about Hillary Clinton, as if she were the ruthless wife of a merciless dictator in a Third World country. They have all seen the “Clinton Death List” that is still circulating on the Internet, and they take it more seriously than most higher-up law enforcement officials seem to do.
I’ll say this about the Clinton Death List. A lot of it is unsubstantiated baloney. I find it disgusting that the accidental deaths of many fine people in Arkansas have been added to this list by conspiracy theorists who jump on any tangential piece of information. Billy Clinton knew thousands of people in Arkansas, by name; it is statistically certain that a lot of them would die.
On the other hand, there are many ridiculously explained deaths in Arkansas (and beyond!) that would make spectacular topics for episodes of [TV's] Cold Case Files.
Clinton operatives, knowing that the Death List is exaggerated, used it to intimidate people anyway. Linda Tripp comes to mind, as well as Monica Lewinsky. Both were threatened with that scary list.
What if you knew something terrible about your boss or about a higher-up in your organization? What if several people in your organization had lost their jobs or been transferred to the boonies after hinting that they “new something” about the boss?
How would you feel then if a Death List showed up on your office chair when you returned from lunch?
Certainly, there are many names on 'The List' that scream direct Clinton involvement. The following summary examples are offered to counter the fanciful notion that the Clintons would not go as far as murder to protect themselves and the KKK.
Gary Parks, son of Jerry Parks, Bill Clinton’s Campaign HQ Security Chief and Little Rock private investigator, is in no doubt that Clinton had his father killed in September 1993, on Highway 10, on the Little Rock city limits. Someone pulled alongside his father and started shooting at him. He was shot five times: once in the arm, once in the leg, three times in the chest. In a YouTube video, Gary explains why:
My father had a file on Bill Clinton’s infidelity and his affairs, that ran from approximately 82 to 83 to somewhere between about 90 to 91. The file consisted of pictures, of time, dates, places of where Bill Clinton was at, where Roger Clinton was at, the type of drug use Bill Clinton and Roger Clinton were involved in. I actually saw several of the pictures. One was where they were exiting the Quapaw quarter apartments, Quapaw towers. I was with my father when he took this particular picture.
I was the only person who would ever go with him when he would do his private investigative work. And I remember four to five times that I was with him, and that was what he was keen on. I’d been with him at the Quapaw quarters several times, and several other apartment complexes, and all of them did involve Bill Clinton and/or Roger Clinton. I saw Clinton with a lot of different women, a lot of different types, sizes, shapes, colours. I saw him with everything from Asian women to American women.
Roger Clinton, Bill Clinton and several other of their associates would use drugs. And it was just, you know, I was just like, ‘Wow!’ It was more neat than anything else. That, you know, that, somebody that was this famous, this bigwig, can get away with this, and guys that make $18,000 a year can’t get away with it? It just blew my mind.
I believe my father was assassinated because he was the one link that could actually close everything, and completely shut Clinton down. If I could come up with the file, Bill Clinton would not be our president right now. I feel Bill Clinton had my father killed to save his political career.
After he was murdered, Jerry Parks' home was raided by the FBI and the Arkansas state troopers. All of his video and audio evidence of Bill's debauchery was stolen.
One of the best known cases concerns Vincent Foster. Despite his family's insistence he committed suicide, his death showed clear evidence of foul play. Among other things: he still had the gun
Though perhaps a little too generous in Foster's regard, Dolly Kyle's take serves as a case-study of the motive and modus operandi in many other accidental-but-oh-so-convenient deaths:
Vince Foster died on July 20, 1993.
Vince was the deputy White House counsel at the time.
A childhood friend of Billy Clinton and a former partner of Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Vince Foster knew the facts about Hillary’s double-billing practices that had enabled her to receive questionable foreign money with strings attached.
Vince Foster knew all about Whitewater and the Clinton partnership with the McDougals [Jim and Susan].
Vince Foster knew all about Hillary’s ordering the firing of the White House Travel Office staff and her vicious attacks on Billy Dale, using the FBI to do her dirty work.
Vince Foster knew about FBI files that had been taken illegally for illegal purposes and would later be found with Hillary’s fingerprints on them.
Despite his friendship with the Clintons, Kyle viewed Foster as a man of integrity. She believed that he was "about to resign because of what he had seen in his first six months of the Clinton co-presidency." A resignation that "would have raised a lot of probing questions." She elaborates:
Vince Foster spent the weekend before his death at the home of big-time Democratic operative Nathan Landow. [— the same residence to which Kathleen Willey was taken and pressured into silence about Bill's sexual assault].
Vince, on the other hand, more than likely responded to the weekend pressure by giving voice to his concerns about ethics and morality and the right thing to do. That would not have been comforting to the co-presidents when they heard Landow’s report about the weekend meeting with Vince, who died two days later.
Hillary Clinton’s White House assistants removed boxes of files from Vince Foster’s office before the possible crime scene could be examined by those investigating his death.
Vince Foster’s office safe was opened and emptied by Hillary’s people.
Vince Foster’s death was ruled to be a suicide.
No, I do not believe that Vince Foster committed suicide.
You don’t have to believe what I believe, but know this. The news of Vince Foster’s death was being talked about in beauty shops here in Little Rock before his dead body was found in Fort Marcy Park [Washington].
Secretary of Commerce during the first term of President Bill Clinton, Mr Brown died on 3 May 1996, along with 39 other people when the T-43 (a converted 737 used by the Air Force) carrying the group on a trip to Bosnia crashed while approaching the Dubrovnik airport. In 2004, Jack Cashill released Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future. As one reviewer noted, the biggest mistake Brown made in his life was getting involved with Bill and Hillary. "They used him like a cheap car. He became Bill's 'bagman' collecting untold thousands of dollars from foreign governments to finance Clinton's relection campaign. And when things got tight, they discarded him."
On the verge of being indicted and having stated publicly his willingness to make a deal with prosecutors, Ron Brown's death brought to an end his ability to testify. The very next day, his personal lawyer was murdered in a drive-by shooting. A few days later, the Air Traffic Controller who had been in charge during the plane crash was found dead (a .45-calibre bullet wound to the head), and declared a suicide. In his objective presentation of the facts, Cashill reveals that Brown's head wound was also perfectly round and perfectly sized for a .45-caliber bullet hole.
But perhaps the most revealing item of all is a very brief but invaluable online video of Bill Clinton leaving Ron Brown's funeral. He is first seen in the distance, laughing and joking, like a man on death row who has just earned a last minute pardon. Then, spotting the distant camera, he immediately feigns sadness; even wiping away fake tears from his obviously dry eyes. As self-incrimination goes, that footage is as flagrant as it gets.
The Mena Murders
Multiple murders associated with the Mena Airport drug smuggling also involve Clinton complicity. Among them, two young boys out walking late one night in August 1987, in the surroundings of the airport, were found dead on a railroad track. A notorious medical examiner, sent by Clinton, said it was an accident. Forensic investigators later found the boys had been stabbed, and the head of one crushed with a rifle butt. A grand jury investigation finally ruled it a definite homicide.
Six other persons, who had talked to the police regarding the murder of the boys, were themselves killed. The ones who left town because they knew too much were traced and shot to death.
Although the Mena mega-scandal is far bigger than Bill Clinton's complicity alone (involving Bush Snr and Reagan as well), these murders happened while he was ruling Arkansas and using his AFDA to launder massive amounts of drug money.
Collective Failure of Authority
Such criminality, without end or consequences, practically invites bloody revolution from a general populace struggling to live within a system rigged in every sphere and at every level to the advantage of the Clintonistas, and the filthy rich 1%. And yet we cannot pin all the blame for this shocking state of affairs on corporate media cover ups, or FBI and Justice Department collusion and self-serving. If these institutions have continually failed in their duty, the political class has passed up regular opportunities to flush the Klinton Krime Kartel from the public square, especially after Bill 'pulled the chain' on the presidential office with Monica. In this regard, Dolly Kyle notes that
The Clintonistas would have us believe that the media were tough on President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the late 1990s. For a while there, the smell of blood in the water had even some of the liberal sharks circling. If Clinton was going to be dead meat anyway, they wanted a fresh bite. When it appeared that he would live to commit other atrocities, professional courtesy forced them to swim away.
Many 'conservatives' followed in their wake.
So much cowardice and self-interest; so many missed opportunities to lance the Clinton boil and excise its malignance from the body politic. In consequence, America stands on the brink of re-establishing a second Clinton reign in Washington: as Hillary takes 'her turn' to be #1, and Bill #2.
Make no mistake: it is this — the sharing of the presidential office like a personal toy they variously use and abuse on a whim — not the Trump factor, that is the stuff of banana republics and soap operas. Even the risible 2004 Skull & Bones 'competition' between Bush and Kerry (two candidates from the same Yale secret society!) seems fit, proper and perfectly normal by comparison. And let us never forget that the couple have always viewed and touted themselves (cringingly and publicly) as a presidential 'package.' As Dolly Kyle underlines:
Many people remember (and many don’t remember) that Bill and Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 1992 on a slogan of "two for the price of one." Hillary claimed to be a co-president along with Billy in their White House years.
In fact, this "co-presidency" is the main "accomplishment" on Hillary's resume and travelogue; the one she touts as her peerless qualification to lead America. "There is one job we cannot afford on-the-job training for: that is the job of our next president," she cried out with typical bombast during her first run for president.
This delusion of grandeur — that she could hit the ground running based on her vast experience — is beyond farcical. It is pitch-black comedy. Those fretting over Trump's political inexperience would do well to ponder film critic Michael Medved's reflection: "If she weren’t married to Bill Clinton, what is there that she has accomplished in her life that would lead you to believe that she should become the most powerful person in the country?" Dolly Kyle, too, notes that "Hillary Rodham was hired by the Rose Law Firm when her husband Billy Clinton was the attorney general of Arkansas. Hillary was named its first female partner when Billy became governor. Who couldn’t see through that?"
We know that a botched attempt at a national health plan was all she had to show for all those years clinging to Bill's coat-tails in the White House. Seen as a liability by her husband's administration following that fiasco, she was consigned to ceremonial duties from the mid-1990s onward (more Pat Nixon than Eleanor Roosevelt).
"She was essentially out of the White House in 1995-96," recalls Dick Morris. "I know because I was there most of that time. She was visiting China, she went to 70 foreign countries, she wrote a best-selling book, did book-signings. Then, when the Lewinsky scandal broke she came back to Washington. And in '98 and '99 led the effort to keep her husband in office. And in '99 and 2000 spent her time running for the senate in New York."
The Senate Years
For reasons of space we must pass over all the false promises made by Hillary on her way to winning her Senate seat. "I do have a plan," she cried at one campaign rally in 2000. "I have an economic plan for upstate New York to try to make sure that we keep our young people here, that they can have jobs in this area, that they can stay and raise their children." Suffice to repeat that she has only ever had one "plan": to take her turn in the Oval Office. Everything else is a cruel and calculated deceit to that end. As her former confidant Dick Morris states: "She’ll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purpose at the moment." That is, after all, what sociopaths do.
And so, having momentarily promised the world in order to reach her next (senatorial) stepping stone to ultimate power, she promptly washed her hands of voter concerns. Worse, she proceeded to vote against vital measures like the cutting of taxes and red tape; the sort of actions that would have greatly aided the economic recovery she promised for hard-pressed upstate New York. As a result, between 2000-2006, over one million people moved out of the region for economic or financial reasons.
Even if she had cared enough to help the hoi polloi achieve financial independence, Hillary's champagne socialism would shun such measures. Although the candidate of Wall Street and the Banksters, who have enriched her, she seeks to increase the size and reach of government by increasing taxes and red tape. Cutting them would only serve to reduce the ranks of welfare recipients and their government dependency, undermining the raison d'etre of the Democratic Party. In 2008, Morris emphasised that
Hillary is really the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist. She really believes that government should vastly expand its efforts in the areas of health care and education, and she wants to increase taxes to do it, from 33% as it is now, up into the mid-40s and high 40s as it is France and Germany.
In other words, for Hillary, a social-engineering SNIT who feeds from both public and corporate troughs (increasingly indistinguishable), the "common good" means government. It means Washington. Because government not only 'knows best', it keeps her in the manner to which she has become regally accustomed, not least by facilitating cash-for-corporate-favours.
Last month we noted her singular lack of achievements throughout her stage-managed public life: how it has necessitated constant fabrications, inflations and (when found out) revisions of alleged accomplishments — all duly regurgitated in the press. Commenting eight years ago on her stint as New York senator following the White House years, author Mark Levin observed that, in fact, "Hillary Clinton has basically done nothing of note. She's not been a leader in national security, she's not been a leader on economic issues, she's not been a leader on anything." Dick Morris concurred, neatly setting out the bald and comical truth:
Hillary says we should elect her president because of her tremendous accomplishments in the United States Senate. Well, she's passed roughly 20 bills. Let me tell you what some of them were. To commemorate the 225th anniversary of the American Revolution. To express our appreciation to Alexander Hamilton. To name the Thurgood Marshall courthouse in Lower Manhattan. To honour the men's, and the women's, lacrosse high school team from Syracuse high school. To express the sense of Congress that Harriet Tubman, who died over a hundred years ago, should have received a federal pension. But is that the legislative gravitas and qualifications on which to elect a president of the United States? Is she kidding?
The State Department
Later, as Secretary of State from 2009-2013, "Hillary flew nearly a million miles around the world, and gained nothing for the United States of America," writes Kyle. "We are still learning about what she gained for herself and gave away to the detriment of our country." Clinton Foundation depredations have exposed the extent of that traitorous self-interest. Less publicised, though, is how her plunderous tenure merely reflected the dissoluteness of her department in general.
Widely reported beyond the mainstream media, one blog summary described the Clinton State Department as not only "a criminal enterprise" but "a litany of pornographic peccadillos." It sources "a blockbuster report from The Enquirer [that] revealed in June 2013 how Hillary had covered up a series of shocking sexual scandals during her stint as Secretary of State. Sources say she even hid it from Bill, but when he found out he advised her to distance herself from the sordid mess." In July 2013, The Western Center for Journalism [WCJ] confirmed that under Hillary's watch, the U.S. State Department was rife with corruption and sex crimes:
On 10 June 2013, Yahoo! News reported that the criminal investigations of "one ambassador — perhaps more — were covered up, or perhaps ignored, to keep the department from being embarrassed." In a 14 July 2013 post, Dr Eowyn of Fellowship of the Minds elaborated:
Most serious of all is U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman. According to a suppressed State Department Inspector General (IG) report, in Brussels, Belgium’s capital, Gutman routinely ditched his security detail to solicit prostitutes, including under-aged minors. [...] As reported by S.A. Miller and Geoff Earle of the New York Post, instead of throwing Gutman in jail as a sexual predator, Hillary’s deputy, Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy, ordered the IG investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place until he departs from the ambassadorship on July 23, 2013.
All this was contained in the IG report, which outlined eight cases of problems within the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) that provides protection and investigates crimes involving any State Department workers overseas. But the cases were removed from the IG report by the department’s senior officials, including one instance of interference by Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
Inevitably, the Clinton intimidation factor soon kicked in:
IG senior investigator Aurelia Fedenisn turned whistleblower and revealed the massive cover-up. For that, she was subjected to a campaign of intimidation.
As reported by John Hudson for Foreign Policy, FBI agents camped in front of her house, bullied her children, and demanded that she sign documents—in effect a confession—that she had stolen confidential State Department documents. Fedenisn refused and has paid the price, becoming one of the many hounded and intimidated whistleblowers pursued by the Obama regime.
[They] even went after Fedenisn’s attorneys — the law firm Schulman & Mathias. As in Nixon’s Watergate break-in, the law office of Schulman and Mathias was broken into multiple times in a single day. Even though there was money, even silver bars in the office, the only thing that the “burglars” took were computers — computers containing the files of Fedenisn’s case on Hillary Clinton’s coverup of the criminal behaviors of her State Department underlings, including pedophile Gutman.
Hillary also put the National Security Agency [NSA] mass surveillance apparatus to use in this regard.
As Edward Snowden famously revealed, nobody is safe from NSA snooping. They can remotely turn on the microphone and camera on your iPhone, even when the iPhone appears to be turned off. ("I, sitting at my desk [could] wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email," he claimed). Two programmes, PRISM and XKeyscore, compile virtually everything that travels over wire, fibre optic cables, or satellite links. Phone calls, e-mails, texts, Facebook posts, even web browsing and Google searches. All your emails in your inbox can be read anytime by an NSA geek somewhere. And with a key stroke, he can delete everything you have ever sent or received.
Former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Atkisson, for one, looked on in helpless horror as sensitive files (involving government complicity in scandals and crimes on Obama's watch) disappeared from her laptop courtesy of government spook-geeks. Similarly, State Department whistleblowers were harassed and hacked under Clinton. Such as former State Department Chief Investigator, Richard Higbie, who, like Aurelia Fedenisn, blew the whistle on Hillary's perfidy. After suing her "In her official capacity as Secretary of State," in the US District Court (Northern District of Texas), he also paid the price.
On the same day in June 2013 that Edward Snowden’s huge cachet of NSA documents were released, a hacker group, most likely the NSA, stole, then deleted 4 years-worth of Higbie's emails. These included correspondence with other whistleblowers, and a treasure trove of evidence on a Clinton State Department that was corrupt to the personal and departmental core.
Projection as Distraction
Truly, were Donald Trump's achievements even a small fraction of his boasts, they would still dwarf whatever trivialities Hillary Clinton has actually managed to accomplish without skirting the edges of the law, or breaking it. Ditto their respective scale and level of lying. And as regards moral degeneracy and criminality, especially violent crime, Hillary makes The Donald look like a saint — and a pre-conciliar one at that!
It is only the saturation publicity afforded to her opponent's moral transgressions that makes Trump, rather than Bill and Hillary, seem beyond the pale. Once again, this is just the hackneyed Clinton ruse of projecting their own far worse sins onto others, while simultaneously distracting attention from anything that puts them in a bad light.
The Trump Tape
Firstly, at this late stage of our Hillary opus the reader will hardly be surprised to learn that the 2005 tape of Donald Trump making obscene comments about women while waiting to make a cameo appearance on a soap opera, appeared the day before the second debate between Trump and Clinton. At the same time, it completely overshadowed simultaneous and far more damaging revelations about Hillary. Leaked the same day by Wikileaks, just after the mainstream media leaked the Trump tape, they contained details from Hillary's secret speeches to Wall Street groups. Among the revelations: Clinton said she wanted to create a nation of "open trade and open borders."
Thus, for the umpteenth time over several decades, the Clinton machine deflected attention from explosive information: in this case, Hillary furtively pandering to the Soros-Goldman Sachs crowd — the One Percent — for ruinous uncontrolled immigration and trade. With the populace easily distracted by the Trump tape, the firestorm of protest her Wall Street speech would and should have ignited was avoided, saving her campaign from meltdown.
Secondly, this kind of X-rated boasting made by celebrities is often made "off-the-record." According to accepted journalistic canons, therefore, it is off-limits for publication. But since this demonised Trump and assisted Hillary's cause, the Washington Post and NBC colluded to reveal them at the most opportune time for her — with wanton disregard for the infinitely bigger issues raised by her Wall Street speeches.
"The political class and the media has to make this about Donald Trump," commented Ben Carson, the respected surgeon and 2016 Republican presidential nominee. "They cannot make this about the issues. They’re getting desperate because they’re seeing the crowds that Trump is attracting. They see the enthusiasm gap between the candidates and they know how that’s going to translate on Election Day. Their goal now is to dribble out all of these things like this tape. This won’t be the last thing by the way."
Carson urged Trump’s supporters to remember that the direction is about the "direction of the country" — not Trump or Hillary Clinton. "It’s about the elites and the status quo being desperate to maintain their position and this direction vs. a change in direction that’s desperately needed." He added that Trump and his team, as well as their Democratic rivals and the liberal media
have known about these lewd comments for ages. They’ve been waiting to drop these things out periodically because for one thing, this Hillary open borders thing came out. This is obscuring that. Why aren’t we talking about what the implications of that are? It will change the nature of everything in this nation. They were very clever, and because they have the arm of the media it makes it very easy for them to get across what they’re doing.
The tactic also worked to further fracture the Republican establishment. Self-righteous Republican notables with enough collective skeletons to fill every cupboard in the country, rushed to disown the vulgar Trump. Among them John McCain, a notoriously foul-mouthed Senator, and the Bushes, whose immorality would hardly withstand a media microscope (not least George Bush Snr! — but let's not go there, for now).
Even the First Lady vented her indignation during a Clinton rally. Never mind the multiple crises facing America and the world thanks to her husband's non-leadership (to include the war he is facilitating with Russia), Mrs Obama has been brought undone by a lamentably lewd private exchange between two heterosexual men. "I can't stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted," she sobbed, like a black Sarah Bernhardt wiping away faux tears. "No woman deserves to be treated this way." In which case, why does she fete foul-mouthed rappers and invite them to the White House? Their hip-hop lyrics are strewn with X-rated language and extreme violence against women far beyond anything said by Trump. Unfazed by her steroidal hypocrisy, she insisted, "It's about basic human decency. It hurts. I can tell you the men in my life do not talk about women like this."
Well, maybe that's because her "man" is too busy thinking and talking about other men! When he's not using and abusing them.
Despite the media's non-coverage of her husband's homosexuality (and drug abuse), among much else it includes: his sex & drug trysts with Larry Sinclair; frequenting Man's Country 'gay' bathhouse in uptown Chicago; membership of the "Down Low Club" [DLC] matchmaking service for 'gay' married black professionals at his "Black Liberation Theology" church; the associated assassinations of three DLC members in late 2007, including choir director Donald Young, her husband's reputed lover, conveniently found riddled with bullets at the height of Barack's run in the 2007 Democratic presidential primary; two young male editors of the Harvard Law Review who signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal after they filed complaints about her husband's aggressive sexual harassment during his tenure as President of the Review in the late 1980s (allegedly taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices); a third male editor who told Associated Press (on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation) that he also considered filing a workplace complaint over aggressive and unwanted behaviour by Barack Obama when he worked under him in 1991 at the University of Chicago, where, for example, her husband would tell him that he had confided to colleagues how attractive he (the editor) was, and invite him to his apartment outside work.
Like Hillary, do you think Michelle might drop the duplicity and dramatics if the corrupt media suddenly dropped its censorship of this long and repulsive history, and subjected her husband to the same intense scrutiny it affords Mr Trump? Just saying.
Accessory After the Fact
Suitably chastened and apologetic for his indefensible comments, Trump himself said in response to the tape: "This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close."
I'll bet! On a tit-for-tat scorecard of lewd revelations, either Clinton would outscore Trump many times over. In a competition with each other, on the other hand, it would be a close call!
Years ago, early in the Whitewater scandal, an Enquirer headline screamed: "Clinton: The Cheating, Lying, Dirty Phone Calls and Steamy Sex." Today, you'd need a number of very large warehouses to store all the similar reports and books written about the Dirty Duo. Since it is not a fair race, however, the Trump exposé was not balanced by the plain truth about potty-mouthed blasphemer Hillary and her vicious, haughty ways. This anecdote related on Hillary The Movie might have balanced the media ledger somewhat. It was provided by Lieutenant Colonel Robert ‘Buzz’ Patterson, who served as the President’s Senior Military Aide in the Clinton White House (also carrying the nuclear football for President Clinton):
When she [Hillary] was moving about the White House corridors and hallways, the edict was for us to avoid eye-contact with her, so as to exclude her from making exchanges like ‘good morning’, ‘good afternoon’, and therefore those of us her worked in and around herself and her husband would oftentimes dive into open office ways, doorways, to avoid her stare.
I saw her vent on her husband many, many times. In one situation we were at a fundraiser. We entered the elevator to go to the top floor. Mrs Clinton lit into her husband with every profane, four-letter word you’ve ever heard in your life, and as a military guy I’ve heard them all. It really took me by surprise how vicious it was, and how profane it was, and then of course, we got to the top floor and the hotel elevator opened and they were holding hands and smiling and waving, like they could turn it on and off in a heartbeat.
And yet, responding to the Trump tape, Hillary dared to post this contrived outrage on her campaign's Twitter account:
This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president!
So cries the monster who enabled her own "man" to become president despite his horrific record of violating women! The creature who, scrambling to save his (her) career in the wake of Lewinsky, proclaimed in 1998: "Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he is." Really? She needs to read The Clintons' War on Women!
Released in 2015 by Roger Stone and Robert Morrow, she will find there all that she already knew and knows. For instance, that the first alleged rape (as opposed to 'mere' sexual assault) by her "faithful, true and honest" husband was here in England: involving 19-year-old Eileen Wellstone, whom he sexually assaulted after they met at a bar near Oxford. (He got away with it because he claimed it was "consensual", her family didn't want to pursue the case, and a report filed at the time by a State Department official was ignored by superiors, who clearly didn't want a Rhodes Scholar saddled with a rape charge.)
The list of his accusers is endless: Kathleen Willey, Connie Hamzy, Juanita Broaddrick, Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Lencola Sullivan, Susie Whitacre, Bobbie Ann William, et. al.. Appealing to them all, Dolly Kyle writes:
I do hope that more and more of the untold numbers of Clinton sex and intimidation victims will come forward now and break their long silences. There is no need to let the secret wounds fester to the point of malignancy. The Clintons are the festering sores on the face of America, and it’s time for a cleansing.
Since God writes straight with crooked lines, it seems fitting that that the Clinton-cleansing process should be kick-started by a man like Trump (who, stressed Juanita Broaddrick, has at least apologised for his past actions: "I've never heard one apology for what Hillary Clinton did to me after she threatened me after her husband raped me."). It is hard to imagine any other Republican candidate having the guts to respond to a Clinton-engineered media beat-up over a dirty tape by inviting three of the above women (Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey) to a press conference. Also on the podium was a woman raped as a 12-year old, whose rapist was defended by attorney Hillary despite her full knowledge of his guilt (as revealed by a tape on which she admits and laughs about the fact). Trump also brought these women (who all expressed strong support for his presidential bid) to his second debate with Hillary.
We have noted how such women as these have been hunted down, smeared and destroyed by Hillary since the early 80s, when she first hired private investigators to look into their lives. Stone and Morrow further reveal that Hillary once told private detective Ivan Duda to give her the name and addresses of all of Bill’s girlfriends, so she could "get rid of all these bitches he’s seeing." By 1992, according to Gail Sheehy in the book Hillary’s Choice, cuckold Hillary and Betsey Wright (Governor Clinton's chief of staff in Arkansas) had a list of 26 women with whom they were positive Bill had either had adulterous affairs, or had sexually assaulted. In Hillary's view, these women were, at various times, "bitches," "whores," "sluts," and, if they were a threat to talk, they were to be "destroyed" (— as with Dolly Kyle, whose Clinton-supporting brother phoned her to pass on the threat: "Billy wants you to deny the story [that had emerged in the press about their relationship]. If you don’t deny it, we’ll have to destroy you"). This is why Roger Stone views Hillary as more than a mere 'enabler'. During an online radio interview last May, he explained that
It is far more than her being an enabler. It is the fact, as I say, that she’s an accessory after the fact. It is Hillary who hires the heavy-handed private detectives, who break into people’s homes, threaten their children, kill their pets, slash their tyres, tell them that they’re in danger, constantly telling them ‘do you know you’re in danger?’. These are part and parcel of the Gestapo tactics used by the Clintons and people need to recognise the truth.
Far more morally "horrific" than Trump's smutty tape of a dozen years ago, therefore, is the possibility of Hillary The Enabler and Accessory becoming president. Indeed, more than once she knew about Bill's rapes while he was committing them; including his 1978 rape of campaign volunteer Juanita Broaddrick. As revealed in The Clintons' War on Women, according to former Clinton insider Larry Nichols, Hillary came running into the Clinton HQ and said: "You won’t believe what the motherf****r [Bill] just did. He tried to rape some bitch!" Worse still, after the initial rape, during which he bit and nearly tore off her upper lip (a savage 'signature' he has used more than once), Broaddrick alleges he raped her a second time, as she lay frozen on the bed.
Against all the above, consider the unconscionable duplicity of Hillary's pledge to crack down on campus rape, and her encouraging words to sexual assault survivors: "Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard … to be believed. And we’re with you." In fact, Stone and Morrow argue, Mrs Clinton has enabled rape and denigrated sex victims; "allegedly psychologically raping these women in the aftermath in order to silence them lest they interfere with the Clintons’ rise to power."
If the mainstream media has covered over her criminal war on Bill's women, and her gargantuan duplicity as a feminist crusader, they have done likewise in respect of her lesbianism, which perversely complements Bill's heterosexual degeneracy.
Yes folks, that is the simple truth of the matter about Hillary; a revelation as unsurprising as the outing of Liberace, or Peter Mandelson (Tony Blair's mincing spin-doctor). An open secret for many years in Washington circles, various celebrities (like the late Joan Rivers) have also alluded to Hillary's deviant 'lifestyle'. But so have Bill Clinton's former lovers Sally Miller and Gennifer Flowers, and Larry Nichols — who all got it from the horse's mouth!
Asked during a video interview (available online), "So where did you hear she was a lesbian? Has anyone told you that," a laughing Sally Miller replied: "Bill told me!" – "Really?" queries the naive interviewer. "Oh Bill," she replies, "because I said: ‘why do you think she is so cold? Why do you think she is so uninterested in kissing and holding and just being close, physically. He said that when she was in college that she and some girls experimented, and she liked it."
Gennifer Flowers has also stated that Bill told her of Hillary's lesbianism. While during a 24 June 2015 online radio interview with Alex Jones, Nichols confirmed that she was even worse than Bill (who, we recall, effectively lays claim to thousands of 'conquests'!):
Hillary hated Dick Morris, she hated me more. In that day, she was AC/DC [bisexual]. It was hard enough to cover up for the affairs of Bill. But it was extremely difficult to cover up for Hillary and her lesbian affairs. And it was tough. She was tough. She’s a butch, in a lesbian affair. She’s the male dominant. And buddy, she is dominant. And Bill Clinton said, time and time again, that she’d had more women than he had.
Nichols then underlined the depravity of the 'power couple' who forever shame and drag America into the sewer:
To show you what kind of woman this is, two secret service agents in the White House heard all this racket up in the living quarters. They go up, there’s stuff breaking, they don’t know whether to go in cause they’re not supposed to, but things are breaking. They barge in, and there it was: Hillary in bed with [a well known female star of a 1980s TV series]. They were in bed together and Bill pulled up a chair and wanted to watch and Hillary was throwing ashtrays and lamps at him. That’s the sicko people we call the Clintons.
He knows what he's talking about. Jack and Witt Stephens, friends of Bill "who ran Arkansas Louisiana Gas and were the king-makers in Arkansas," turned to Nichols for help when "they wanted to make a young man, Attorney-General Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas."
At their very first meeting, Bill was too busy fondling the waitresses to listen to Nichols. From his experience working with the State, Nichols also observed that everything Bill said was a lie. Afterwards, he told the Stephens it would be tough to get Bill elected because he was not just a ‘womaniser’ but "a sexual predator and a pathological liar." But they said not to worry and just get him elected. "So I did," says Nichols. Today, he is still trying to convey to the public the gravity of that very first, definitive assessment:
Bill Clinton is a sexual deviant, folks. Sexual deviant. He’s not just a ‘good old boy’ chasing women. No. He’s sick. He is sick. And I hate to tell you all this — Hillary: sick.
And Bill may now have hit rock bottom, judging by his links with registered billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein; now in prison for keeping dozens of under-age girls on his Caribbean island estate. Court records show they were extremely close, Epstein possessing 21 different phone numbers for Clinton. Fox News has reported that Clinton has taken dozens of trips aboard the Lolita Express, Epstein's Boeing 727, "even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights." These trips "included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers.... The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."
Virginia Roberts claims that Epstein turned her into a sex slave at 17, forcing her to sleep with her powerful friends, as part of his sex ring that serviced politicians and British royalty. One of at least 20 other under-age Epstein girls, including a 13-year-old, she has given evidence that Clinton, sitting at the table with two other under-age sex slaves, didn’t seem to mind the arrangement of Epstein’s sexual proclivities, or the child porn plastered on the walls, or the frequent orgies at Epstein’s estate. The girls were paid off by Epstein to keep quiet, especially about Clinton’s exploits at the estate [per 77WABC Aaron Klein, Investigative Radio].
According to a further Political Insider report on Next News, Roberts claims that Clinton stayed in one of the many villas on Epstein’s Virgin Islands estate, where group sex was a regular occurrence. In a 2011 interview obtained recently by Radaronline.com, Roberts told her lawyers: "I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’" She says he laughed it off and said, "Well, he owes me a favour." "He never told me what favours they were." She said Clinton was accompanied by two of Epstein’s regular girlfriends, and "two young girls that I could identify. I never really knew them. Well anyways, it was just two young girls from New York."
As the Next News Network anchor summarised: here we have a former American president, who has visited an island, of a convicted paedophile, allegedly to sleep with under-age girls. This isn’t a husband with a wandering eye, this is pure evil. And this is the man who is married to Hillary Clinton, who’s on the campaign trail." The man who could well be the new "co-president," in fact. Since, make no mistake: Hillary is Billary is the "two for one" presidency.
Trump in Perspective
Despite this looming return of the Degenerate Duo to the Oval Office, with all its sordid and destructive potential, the prejudicial Fourth Estate is missing in action. Adding insult to its injurious caricature of Trump as a political liability and danger to world peace, the mainstream media would now have us believe that The Donald, not the rampant Hildebeast, is the sexual pervert!
The more the media have ignored the Clintons' criminality and degeneracy, the more they have latched on to female accusers trotted out by Clinton cronies like infamous pro-abortion attorney Gloria Allred, to claim Trump physically "groped" or otherwise belittled them (including one ludicrous complaint that he made a rude comment about a beauty contestant's weight!).
Whether the more serious claims are true or not, as Infowars' Alex Jones put it while calling for "the same standard of measurement" to be used against the Clintons: "Worst case is Trump is guilty of boorish behaviour. He never raped anybody, sexually assaulted anyone. He never bit anyone. He never sent anybody to prison because they saw him use drugs, because Trump doesn’t use drugs." Nor, to our knowledge, does he hang out with fellow billionaire Epstein's underage girls.
Last January, Trump himself put Bill's behaviour and his own in perspective. Asked by the NBC's Chuck Todd if he was issuing a threat over the possibility of using former President Clinton's past if his wife continued to attack him as sexist, Trump replied:
Of course. I can call it a nicer name. She was saying he has a tendency towards being sexist. … And I said, wait a minute. She's married to an abuser. A woman claimed rape and all sorts of things, horrible things.
When Todd noted that attacking Clinton's past with women would open himself up to similar attacks, including his messy divorce with his first wife, Ivana, Trump said he wasn't concerned — and has said before that his own past is fair game — but added that his case is different because he was a private citizen:
I wasn't the president of the United States and I wasn't dealing in the Oval Office, all right? A big difference.
Hillary the Warmonger
Larry Nichols considered Hillary just as morally sick as Bill. Yet unlike her husband (in everyday terms "a very pliable, workable guy") she was as cold as ice to boot. Shortly after, in another online interview on 2 August 2015, Nichols recalled the Benghazi hearings, during which Mrs Clinton repeated "I do not remember" 250 times! Decades earlier, it was Nichols himself who had helped train Hillary to avoid prosecution by always saying 'I don't remember,' rather than 'yes' or 'no', when under oath. For Nichols, though, just as telling was her infamous outburst:
Most of y’all saw it or have seen it, and that is Hillary in the Benghazi hearing when, basically I’m paraphrasing, she said, about four people who had died, ‘what difference does it make. They’re dead.’ The way she said that. The coldness with which she said that, is Hillary. That is the Hillary I knew every day during ten or so years I was with ‘em. Every day that was Hillary. She was the coldest woman, she was probably the coldest individual, I had ever been around. She did not believe in the art of, you know just gettin' along. She didn’t.
Indeed she does not. Which brings us to the most frightening of all the many scary potential outcomes of a President Hillary: war with Russia. How unsurprising that the candidate with no regard for faith and life — who insists that we "must" change religious beliefs that oppose abortion — is also the one whose record of misjudged, self-serving military aggression could easily trigger a nuclear war, once she has access to the nuclear button. For, among the multiple personalities shuffled by brittle Hillary, the macho warmonger features highly. In Armageddon, drawing on his intimate knowledge of Hillary's psyche, Dick Morris is in no doubt that "she will get us into wars":
A hawk by nature, Hillary will perpetually feel pressure to show strength as the first woman president. Faced with options of diplomacy or force, she will wilt under charges of weakness and will opt for military action every time. The woman who backed both wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, and intervention in Syria will get us into more wars to prove her toughness— by shedding our blood. She can’t stop; she won’t.
Elsewhere, he summarises the rise of this hawkish character in her repertoire of pragmatic personalities:
She took office in January 2001, just eight months before her adopted state of New York was devastated by the horrific terror attacks of 9/ 11. Eager to prove herself worthy of being trusted to be the senator from a state in which she had never lived, she postured herself as a hawk during her tenure in the Senate. When time came to choose committee assignments, for example, she broke with the pattern of liberal Democrats and opted to join the Senate Armed Services Committee. And when President Bush sought congressional approval for the war in Iraq, she joined 29 of the 50 Democrats in voting for the use of force, putting her squarely on the hawkish end of the Democratic policy spectrum.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump opposed the war in Iraq, predicting, accurately and depressingly, that it would land us in an open-ended commitment from which we would have great difficulty extracting ourselves. He also predicted that thousands of Americans would never be extracted but would perish in the war and that hundreds of billions would be squandered, not to disappear but to be included for years on end as part of our national debt.
Hillary went down the line supporting the war in Iraq and also voted for the Patriot Act and most of the appropriations to fund the war.
As the years rolled on, the Iraq War bogged down. In 2007 Senator McCain pushed for a "surge" in American forces to drive back the dissidents and establish control over the country. President Bush adopted the idea, but the Left fiercely opposed it. Hillary flip-flopped and joined them to vote against it. In view of her earlier support for the war, this surprised supporters of the surge. But observers came to understand her switch in positions was pure self-serving, explains Morris, "after Bush’s and Obama’s Defense Secretary Bill Gates quoted in his book a conversation between Hillary and Obama in the Oval Office shortly after she became secretary of state." A dismayed Gates revealed that:
Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.
As Secretary of State she went on to push for wars all over, repeatedly showing dilettantish disregard. For example, on the spot Libyan assessments by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the likes of Human Rights Watch [HRW] found no evidence of a possible genocide. A non-governmental organisation dedicated to battling genocide, HRW found only "around 350 protesters" had been "killed by indiscriminate fire of government security forces" in Libya, that "didn’t rise to the level of indicating that a genocide or genocide-like mass atrocities were imminent." But Hillary discarded the hard evidence to pursue her fevered genocide narrative, urging Obama to fight. Until finally, says Morris,
Under unrelenting pressure from Hillary, Obama agreed to participate in the NATO no-fly zone over Libya that led to Gaddafi’s killing. The Washington Post called it “Hillary’s War” and, after the dictator fell, the former secretary of state proudly paraphrased Julius Caesar, “We came, we saw, he died.” [laughing her head off as she said it - Ed. CO]. Is Julius Caesar to be the role model for the new president?
As Morris notes,
The fact is that the Libya invasion opened the door to Islamist terrorists, the very ones who killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi. Many of the weapons we supplied to the rebels in Libya ended up in ISIS hands during the ensuing years. The Libya invasion may yet lead to another ISIS-controlled state, all because Hillary wouldn’t let well enough alone and insisted on sending in the cavalry.
Her epic miscalculations are repeated over and over. As with Iraq and Libya, Hillary also clamoured for American arming of the rebels against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The White House resisted, but she was intent on finding "moderates" to arm, hoping that they would serve as a counterweight both to Assad and to the Islamists. Initially, Obama resisted this course, but eventually did decide to try to arm and train the Syrian "moderates" on a limited and secret basis. A disastrous decision. Yet it was one that Hillary had advocated with all her might; one more appalling and costly wrong call against all the evidence to the contrary. As Leslie Gelb, a former Assistant Secretary of State (in the Carter administration) said, the moderates in Syria "are not a viable fighting force. They couldn’t win no matter how many arms we gave them. That has been the story war after war, I don’t know why we have to learn this one lesson administration after administration. We learned this in Iraq."
Hillary, however, never learns. As we have seen throughout, she conjures up her own reality and truth, then pursues it doggedly in detached and sociopathic fashion to the death: or, more precisely, to the injurious and/or deathly cost of others. "One thing is most likely," warns Morris. "If Hillary is elected, we will probably get into at least one war." It could very well be the big one.
Trump vs. The War Party
Between Hillary and war stands the much maligned Donald Trump. His plain-talking commonsense view of America's foreign interventions and entanglements stands in stark contrast to her clueless, reckless war cries. Unlike her, he knows failure when he sees it, and he is not inclined to have his country keep punching itself in the face. In an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, he put it very simply: "If you look at Libya, look at what we did there— it’s a mess — if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look at what we did there — it’s a mess — it’s going to be the same thing."
When Todd asked if the Middle East would be better if Gaddafi and Saddam were still in power, Trump didn't hedge his bets but answered forthrightly: "It’s not even a contest, Chuck. It’s not even a contest. Of course it would be [better]. You wouldn’t have had your Benghazi situation which is one thing which was just a terrible situation. But, of course, nobody even knows what’s going on over there. It’s not even a country anymore." Dick Morris rightly points out the simple truth the media likes to ignore:
Donald Trump has understood from Day One that Hillary Clinton’s vote on the war in Iraq and her hawkish record is a big negative. [He] is under no compulsion to show his macho qualities by wading into wars. He has been reluctant to back a no-fly zone in Syria and is demonstrating a maturity in restraint in the use of force we know will be absent in Hillary Clinton.
It is this attitude of restraint and his horse-sense that puts the wind up the military-industrial complex: the oligarchs and corporations and all the hangers-on (not least the huge number of highly paid, high-ranking ex-military security "consultants") that thrive on war. In Oliver Stone's 2010 documentary South of the Border, former Argentine president Nestor Kirchner recalled his discussion of global economic problems with George W. Bush:
I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got very angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalise the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.
Oliver Stone's propagandistic movies and documentaries are hardly receptacles of truth. Nonetheless, based on the evidence of our own eyes, who would seriously doubt Kirchner's statement? Moreover, it surely explains why another perfectly proper view expressed by Trump, about European nations paying their way in matters of mutual defence, sent oligarchic interests into a frenzy of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation of his views.
The NATO Brouhaha
In a New York Times interview, Trump said the U.S. must be "properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost" of defending other countries, many of which are "extremely rich." Without such deals, he added, "I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, ‘Congratulations, you will be defending yourself’."
For sensibly asking whether NATO had outlived its usefulness, and daring to point out the cost, he was depicted as Hitler. Never mind that "Every president has been saying that the NATO countries do not pay their fair share," as Newt Gingrich pointed out.
In the view of Professor Stephen Cohen, an acclaimed author and expert who teaches Russian history and politics at York University and Princeton, Trump raises pertinent questions. And instead of giving answers to the substance of the question, he says, we denounce him, when, in fact, others have asked the same questions. Unlike the shamelessly pro-Clinton CNN, Cohen has no connection to either the Clinton or Trump campaigns, which is why his assessment during a CNN interview last July, against Hillary and her lapdog media, is so blistering. In reply to the CNN suggestion that Mr Trump was a Putin stooge, Cohen replied thoughtfully:
Vladimir Putin wants to end the New Cold War, and so do I. Let me say, that I have no ties to the Trump campaign, or the Clinton campaign. But if I were to write your headline for you today, I tried on the way down here, I couldn’t fit it on the front page. But it would go like this:
We’re in a new and more dangerous cold war with Russia. We’re approaching a Cuban missile crisis nuclear confrontation with Russia, both along Russia’s borders, and possibly over Syria. There is absolutely no discussion, no debate about this in the American media, including, forgive me, on CNN.
Then along comes unexpectedly Donald Trump, who says something that suggests he wants to end the New Cold War, cooperate with Russia in various places – what we used to call détente – and now, astonishingly, the media is full of what only could be called neo-McCarthyite charges that he’s a Russian agent, that he’s a Manchurian candidate, that he is Putin’s client.
So the real danger, is what’s being done to our own political process. This is a moment, when there should be, in a presidential year, a debate. Because Mrs Clinton’s position on Russia seems to be very different, has been a long time. Trump speaks elliptically – you gotta piece together what he says – but he seems to want a new American policy towards Russia. And considering the danger, I think we, as American citizens, deserve that debate. And not what we’re given in the media today, including on the front page of the New York Times. [...]
I’m old enough to remember, that during the last Cold War, all these issues were debated, in that you had a proponent with each point of view. But you’ve now got accusations both against Putin, both against Trump, which needed to be debated.
Let’s go back to what you [the interviewer] said Trump said about NATO. Trump said early on, he wanted to know, sixty years after its foundation, what was NATO’s mission today. A hundred policy wonks in Washington, since the end of the Soviet Union, twenty-five years ago, have asked the same question: Is NATO an organisation in search of a mission. For example, it’s a mission for the past twenty years to expand ever closer to Russia. So people have now asked: why isn’t it fighting international terrorism. That’s a legitimate question. But we don’t debate it. We don’t ask it. We just say, ‘oh, Trump wants to abandon NATO’.
I don’t defend Trump. Trump raises questions. And instead of giving answers to the substance of the question, we denounce him as some kind of Kremlin agent. It’s bad for our politics, but still worse, given the danger, we’re not addressing it.
I end by saying, that these reckless, brandings of Trump, as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign. And they really need to stop.
They would never heed this request, of course. The very idea of Trump wanting to talk to Putin, rather than rattle his cage, is enough to give the oligarchs palpitations. Trump told the New York Times that "Putin and I will get along very well," and that he’d love a good relationship between the U.S. and Russia so that "instead of fighting each other we got along." He's a deal-making businessman, after all: finding agreement is what he does. Bull-at-a-gate Hillary, on the contrary, can be found in many online video clips repeatedly pushing the neo-con military mantra — and still they wonder why Putin is gearing up for war in the event of her election!
How the establishment hates to hear Trump's honest views, so alien to both the character and track record of their preferred candidate. One prominent Republican fundraiser typified the Status Quo furiously defending its turf. Meg Whitman, chief executive of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, endorsed Clinton's White House bid, calling Trump an "authoritarian character" and a threat to democracy! But Trump is undeterred by the huge pressure brought to bear by the concerted smears and misrepresentations. To his further credit, his warning to NATO allies followed successful efforts by his campaign team to remove proposals at the Republican convention for a future administration to arm Ukraine in its conflict with Russian-backed separatists. Instead, the platform amendment pledged to offer only "appropriate assistance." A far cry from Mrs Clinton's butch belligerence.
Also unlike Hillary, Trump told the New York Times he would not "lecture" NATO ally Turkey about purges of political adversaries or crackdowns on civil liberties after the attempted coup in that country, saying the U.S. had first to "fix our own mess." In respect of which he added: "When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger." Ditto every other self-righteous liberal fiefdom in the dying West!
Zionism: Trump's Achilles heel?
Utterly refreshing, Trump's stance makes the bipartisan Cinton-Bush set very nervous, since he imperils their money-spinning war scams in a way Hillary, their mouthpiece, never will. Hence they have clubbed together and pulled out all stops to prevent him assuming the presidency. Mimicking Meg Whitman above, neo-con Max Boot, writing in the Jewish neo-conservative flagship Commentary, called Trump "the No. 1 threat to American security." As James Bruen retorted in Culture Wars: "So much for Iran, North Korea, ISIS, ISIL, al-Qaeda, Russia, and all the other neo-con punching bags"!
Again, Trump is not for turning. Reiterating earlier campaign promises — such as building the wall on the U.S. border with Mexico; destroying the Islamic State and radical jihadism; banning refugees from countries that support terrorism — he told a North Carolina crowd that he took pride in making "the powerful, and I mean very powerful, a little uncomfortable now and again. Including some of the powerful people, frankly, in my own party, because it means that I'm fighting for real change."
But is Trump too good to be true? Certainly, we should hope and pray that he really is fighting for wholesale change. It is difficult to swallow entirely, however, in view of his Hillary-like commitment to Israel; the dog-wagging tail that dictates American foreign policy via lobby groups gathered under the powerful umbrella of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
"The only [candidate] that's going to give real support to Israel is me," Trump declares. "The rest of them are all talk, no action. They're politicians. I've been loyal to Israel from the day I was born. My father, Fred Trump, was loyal to Israel before me."
Admirably honest, it is also a revealing and troubling statement. Renowned Zionist critic Henry Makow, for one, is convinced that Trump is nothing but a false-flag Zionist candidate to get Hillary elected. He provides this interesting and pertinent familial background:
Donald's father Fred moved in the circle of a corrupt powerful New York political fixer and power broker attorney, Abraham (Bunny) Lindenbaum. Fred and Bunny were political insiders of [Masonic] Tammany Hall through Brooklyn's Madison Club.Tammany Hall, ... was a New York City Democratic political machine entangled and mired in racketeering, corruption, graft and patronage.
Don didn't go into how or why his father had been so loyal to Israel since the day he was born (1946), but his close personal association with Bunny Lindenbaum may provide some answers. Bunny Lindenbaum was an orthodox and fanatical Zionist Jew [who] presided over New York Major Robert Ferdinand Wagner, Jr.'s [corrupt, Tammany Hall] city planning commission. .... Lindenbaum and Scandalous Fred C. [Trump] were clandestinely using the federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and state funds to build a haven and Jewish power base in Brooklyn for eastern European Mystical Hassidic Chabad Lubavitch Jews at enormous and substantial profits at the taxpayers' expense.
.... Fred and Bunny were secretly working with SS Baron Otto Albrecht Alfred von Bolschwing, Israeli Defense Force (IDF), MOSSAD and the newly formed CIA.... [They] ran the largest and most costly corporate welfare fraud-embezzlement system in this nation's history. [Donald Trump] is a product of that corporate welfare bread line straight out of state and federal treasuries. [He] is nothing less than a sideshow and a counterfeit medieval medicine man offering cheap miracle and ILLUSIONARY fixes for America's problems here and abroad.
Makow also notes that Trump's daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism in 2008 before marrying Jewish real estate developer Jared Kushner. "Last year," he adds, "Kushner was part of a group that bought Israeli insurer Phoenix for $500 million." In that light, Makow speaks for many when he opines:
The way I see it, it matters not who wins the next election, because whoever it is you can bet they will serve Israel and the globalist agenda long before they serve America. As George Carlin notes they will have been bought and payed for long ago.
... [T]his is nothing more than the old tried and true "split the party vote" to get Hitlery elected. We've been down this road once or twice before and look where it has gotten us. We still have a Federal Reserve, Never Ending Wars, a Federal Bureaucracy that grows daily, and Constitutional Rights that disappear every time we turn around. We are not free Americans who elect mighty leaders, we are slaves who cast a vote for the new boss in hopes he's not like the old boss.
No matter who wins this next election, they will not serve you or work in the best interest of America. They will serve the global Zionist just as they have always done.
Fall of the Oligarchs
It is hard to argue with that viewpoint. But should Trump miraculously be elected, we will know the reality soon enough.
Meanwhile, let us assume that the powers genuinely believe Trump means business. The two Presidents Bush, for starters, who say they’ll sit out the 2016 election rather than support Trump. What a surprise! (As James Bruen quipped, if only they'd sat out the 1988, 2000, and 2004 elections!) The Bushes not only personify the Republican establishment — aka "The War Party", as Pat Buchanan labels the Neocon/Zionist coalition — they also embody the cross-party establishment.
Smoke, mirrors and empty rhetoric are thrown up to present a great separation in U.S. politics. Like so many Tories, however, Blairite Republicans are essentially indistinguishable from their Democratic counterparts. Together they form a cross-party bloc that protects their own Washington turf and privileges, and with it both the cultural Marxist continuum, and the corporate military-security gravy train. The passing of the Oval Office back and forth between the Bush and Clinton families like a private living room-cum-bank vault, exemplifies the stitch up and the continuity. Despite several 'conservative' Bush administrations and so much Republican pro-life blather, for instance, the Supreme Court is still run by pro-abort Judges, while the 1% still get richer and richer, and the American empire continues to expand, filling the corporate war coffers of Clinton, Bush and Obama backers alike.
In the lead up to the British EU referendum, commentator Paul Craig Roberts, a member of Reagan's first administration whose deep insights on Brexit we ran in our the August-September number, addressed this chimerical divide in America and elsewhere, during an online radio interview:
Throughout the West there’s no left wing. It’s all dead and gone. I mean, look at Tony Blair and this pastoral Labour government. I mean, really? I mean it’s more right wing than Ronald Reagan. Look at the so-called Socialist Party in France. Hollande, Sarkozy… these people are essentially fascists. There’s no respect anywhere in Europe for democracy. You don’t see it. The whole ideology is to accept rule from above. In the United States it’s completely ruled by private oligarchic interests. Wall Street. We have the military-security complex. The Israel lobby. Agribusiness, you know, Monsanto. We have the extractive industries, energy, mining, timber. These are the people that write all the laws, make all the regulations, staff up the Treasury, staff up the Federal Reserve, staff up the Environmental Protection Agencies. They rule.
Similarly, vested EU interests — notably the European Round Table of Industrialists (comprising the CEOs of Europe's leading corporations) — fascistically dictate the European agenda to the European Commission. By disturbing this oligarchic business-as-usual, Trump ensured a bitter reaction to the threatening resonance of his message with American voters. As former 2016 presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee put it:
Here is a guy who has said some very inflammatory, very intemperate things and rather than it hurt him, it has actually propelled him because that's how people feel.
People are angry. I think we're seeing nothing less than the overthrow of our government… It's a peaceful overthrow so far. We're going to do it by ballots, not bullets, thank God, but this is a revolution. The people are that upset with the ruling class and frankly, they ought to be.
Just as Trump's unapologetic approach has earned him voters' admiration, it was the rare and exhilarating sound of Leave campaigners actually speaking truth to Brusselian and Westminster power on prime time TV (to the rare sound of vigorous applause and support from studio audiences far more representative than usual), that galvanised local voters; especially in the neglected, fed-up Labour bastions of the North. For once, the all-powerful liberal media could neither control the narrative nor stop the momentum of the Leave campaign. Ultimately, the defiant Brexit vote precisely mirrored Huckabee's assessment that "nothing would be better for this country than to have an utter disruption of the ruling class in Washington."
As the trans-Atlantic continuation of the spirit of Brexit, Trump has evoked similar patriotic sentiments to those that saw British voters respond to the patriotic cries of Leave leaders who, unapologetically and righteously, placed their country over and above the corrupt, unaccountable and ever more tyrannical EU superstate. Trump said it himself back in June, the day after the referendum:
[The British] took back control of their country, just like we will take America back. No games! People are angry, all over the world — over borders, over people coming into the country and taking over. They're angry about many, many things.
The Brexit result, added former Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, showed how "people are sick of their elites" — do we take back control of our country, "or do we continue to allow lawyers and diplomats and bureaucrats to set the path for us?"
Seeing the writing on the wall, extreme liberal and Blairite conservative organs alike (whether the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal) ganged up on Trump; joining in the U.S. version of Project Fear (— slavishly triggered by David Cameron to scare the public into voting Remain after Barack Obama gave him his marching orders). For, as Pat Buchanan put it: "Trump's nomination represents not only a rejection of their legacy but a repudiation of much of post-Cold War party dogma."
That dogma has lined the pockets of the War Party and its corporate backers at unspeakable cost in American blood and treasure. It continues to wreak havoc all over: not just in terms of untold numbers of dead, maimed, and displaced Muslims, but also through the ongoing global blowback from typically disastrous CIA 'projects' like the cultivation of jihadis (variously trained, armed and financed by America ever since the mujahideen were first coopted during the 1980s as anti-Soviet guerillas).
As Secretary of State, inept Hillary fervently pursued the same failed policy. As a result, among Muslims and non-Muslims alike, even the propaganda spewed forth from the largely CIA-controlled American and European media has not been able to cover over Washington's homicidal self-serving: namely, the fighting and financing of Israel's wars, in order to keep corporate insiders in clover. The aims and motivations are not complicated. Like most political affairs, to understand them just follow the money. As Major General Smedley Butler, one of America's most decorated soldiers, famously thundered after he finally saw the light at the end of his distinguished military service:
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
WAR, in other words, is a racket precisely tailored to the sociopathic, racketeering Clintons. Since the next world conflict is shaping as the last push of the button for everyone, that is perhaps the most compelling reason to pray, and hope against all hope, that 'Billary' — the deviant, violent, traitorous 'co-presidency' — does not return to Pennsylvania Avenue in January 2017.
The Stench of Satan
Ultimately, one is left breathless before the deep-seated evil of this Couple from Hades. "The biggest problem is that the problem is so big," writes Dolly Kyle. "Most people find it intellectually difficult to believe that all this happened and no one reported it at the time. I lived it, I watched it, and even I didn’t comprehend the full extent of the Clinton travesty as it unfolded before me."
Together, Hillary's insatiable lusts for power, money, abortion, and other women, combined with her altogether malign nature, represents a potent and wicked brew. How to explain such thoroughgoing malevolence?
There are, of course, many natural causes at play. Kyle factors in the familial, social, cultural and environmental influences, providing keen insights on the formative influences of both. In the present writer's view, however, the heightened degree of Hillary's sociopathy displays signs of much darker inspiration. In support of this contention, I leave the reader to ponder the following two items. The first anecdote, completely ignored and buried, was related by Larry Nichols during an interview with Infowars:
I know about once a month Hillary would go out to Los Angeles. And she did it so regular that it became a bit of an issue. Why’s she always going? Bill told me she was going out there, she and a group of women, and she would be part of a witches church. And man, when Bill told me that, you could’ve hit me with a baseball bat. I tried to point out to him, do you realise what would happen if that got out? Of course my job was to make sure it didn’t get out. Now I don’t know today if Hillary still partakes in the witch ritual. I don’t know that I even know what the ritual was. But, for the better part of many years, Hillary would go quite often, whether as regularly as once a month or once every couple of months, she would go out of a weekend, simply to be a part of it.
Complementing this revelation is a recent 14 October post by Fred Martinez of the Catholic Monitor blog. During an interview he conducted with Kathleen Willey, for her book Target, on her sexual accusation and the ensuing cover-up, he related that
David Schipper, chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, recalled a priest came to see him after the [1998 presidential] impeachment, who said he was an exorcist. The priest said to him “There are satanic influences in the White House, and they all want you out of here.” “Yes, Bill Clinton is a bad guy,” Schipper acknowledged. “No, not him,” the priest said. “Her.”
Martinez then asked Willey: "In your book, Schipper said he thinks Hillary "is evil." What do you think?"
Willey responded: "I can't disagree with that analysis. If I could exorcise the Clintons from my life, I'd be happy to do so."
On 8 November, the electorate can make Kathleen Willey, and every God-fearing American soul, "happy": exorcising the nation by ballot box. For, as commentator Mike Scheuer says:
Hillary lives in a completely deviant world sexually, socially, personally, and politically and there are only two cures for her, one is electoral defeat.
As for Donald — herald of great hopes; subject of serious doubts — in the end, he is not Hillary. For now, that's enough.