WaPo: Harvey Weinstein Helped Pay the Clinton’s Legal Bills

Once I saw the headline, I remembered: Harvey Weinstein was one of those Hollywood liberals who helped the Clintons cover their legal bills in the 90’s, and the Washington Post was the outlet that broke it.

Yes, the ironic fakenews bourgeoisie is sharing a WaPo story. Not really “in the tank” after all. Especially now, with all the attention Weinstein is getting lately. It’s been fairly easy to throw a stick and hit another Harvey story, so there’s no point in belaboring the topic. However, the story does remind the electorate how deep the Clinton’s network was built over the years. Over the years, Bill and Hillary Clinton have received nearly $30,000 in donations from Weinstein.

Of course, Harvey wasn’t alone. The Clinton Legal Defense fund, established in Arkansas by Clinton family friend David Pryor, saw over 17,000 donors, 62 of which gave the maximum $10,000. It was a list of who’s who, including Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, Michael Douglas, Ron Howard, Norman Lear, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw-Spielberg as well as studio executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, and Weinstein. By law, the operation was not allowed to solicit donations, but was promoted heavily at the time through Hollywood circles. The fund was closed in 1997, leaving the Clintons with more than $3 million in outstanding legal expenses.

It was a nice thought while it lasted. And apparently, it attracted some tawdry characters with it.

“Birds of a feather,” you might say.



BREAKING: Tom Price Fired By Trump

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price has reportedly been fired by President Donald Trump. Price has been under fire for his use of private aircraft at taxpayer expense.

Price ran up a charter flight tab of $400,000 for domestic travel. He had promised to pay the charter costs back when Politico reported on Thursday that Price had also used military aircraft on international trips with White House approval. The cost of the military flights was estimated at $500,000. President Trump had indicated that he would decide whether to fire Price and announce his decision by Friday night.

Now CBS News is reporting that Trump has reached a decision to fire the embattled HHS secretary, citing a statement by White House spokesman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. According to the statement, Don Wright, currently the deputy assistant HHS secretary, will be designated as acting secretary in the interim.


BREAKING: In Wake of Scandal, Sec. Tom Price Resigns

Secretary of the department of health and human services, Tom Price has tendered his resignation to President Trump, say sources in the White House.

In the last couple days, press reports revealed the former budget chief in the House of Representatives was found to have used private charter jets on the government dime. Politico was the first to reveal the excesses on September 19. Since then, the story has only snowballed. They further revealed this week that he also used military jets to fly overseas while the remaining members of his delegation flew commercial flights.

Other flights, among the dozens that are known, included travel to have lunch with his son, and visits with colleagues, outside his official capacity as DHHS secretary.

Upon being exposed for the charter use, Sec Price promised to pay back $52,000 of the roughly $1 million spent, uncovered by the investigation.

President Trump is expected to formally announce the resignation tonight.

Valerie Jarrett Pronounces Obama Scandal-Free

Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama, triggered a collective national “WTF” moment on Sunday when she said on CNN that the Obama Administration had been scandal free. Jarrett, who might have been playing Rip Van Winkle for the past eight years, said, “The president prides himself on the fact that his administration hasn’t had a scandal and he hasn’t done something to embarrass himself.”

Pardon us while we scoff.

The Obama Administration started off with a scandal as a plethora of Obama appointees, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, were revealed to be tax cheats. The problem didn’t go away after the original round of confirmations in 2009. In 2012, Investor’s Business Daily found that 36 Obama aides owed almost a million dollars in back taxes.

The president’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was tainted by backroom deals to get Democrats on board. The phrase “Louisiana Purchase” took on new meaning as the revelations of $200 million for Louisiana’s Medicare in exchange for Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote angered Americans. In the end, even with the secret deals, Obamacare required quasi-constitutional maneuvering to get through the Senate with no Republican votes.

Does Valerie Jarrett not consider it embarrassing that the president was awarded the dubious distinction of having told the Lie of the Year by Politifact for his statement that, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” As it turned out, many Americans could not keep their plans because insurers canceled them since they didn’t comply with the new law. Even plans that weren’t canceled weren’t the same after Obamacare. Premiums skyrocketed as new federal mandates went into effect.

How about the Solyndra scandal? Obama’s administration put hundreds of millions of dollars into green companies, many of which promptly went bankrupt. Does that count as a scandal?

How about Fast and Furious? Obama’s ATF released illegal guns into Mexico where they were used to arm drug cartels. One of those guns eventually killed a US Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry.

Is the politicization of the IRS worthy of being called a scandal? The targeting of political opponents by the Internal Revenue Service is positively Nixonian. The main difference is that Nixon’s IRS commissioner refused to comply with similar unethical orders from the Nixon White House.

Is it scandalous or embarrassing that the Obama Administration spent $800 billion on a stimulus package that failed miserably? The only thing that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act seemed to stimulate was the growth of the federal government.

Maybe it’s embarrassing that Obama negotiated a deal with Iran and then couldn’t get it through Congress. If that isn’t embarrassing, how about the fact that Iran is already violating the deal?

Has Ms. Jarrett heard of Benghazi?

If none of this is embarrassing or scandalous to Ms. Jarrett, how about Hillary’s secret server? Obama apparently knew about the server which left national secrets vulnerable to hacking by foreign governments.

Ms. Jarrett is undoubtedly aware of these and other scandals that have rocked the Obama Administration. As a White House aide, she is not ignorant.

Maybe it just takes a lot to embarrass the president.

BREAKING: DOJ Told FBI to ‘Stand Down’ in Clinton Foundation investigation


Hillary Clinton is being hammered in the final days before the election. The news of renewed interest in the FBI probe of her handling of classified information shook the campaign last week. Now comes a new report that FBI agents investigating the Clinton Foundation thought that they had enough information to warrant more aggressive measures, but were allegedly told to “stand down” by the Justice Department.

The Wall St. Journal reports that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation began as a result of the book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer. The investigation began in the summer of 2015 and is ongoing.

Citing multiple sources from several different agencies, the Journal reports that there was a conflict between the FBI and the Department of Justice over the strength of the case.  The investigation into whether Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was perceived as weak by the upper levels of the FBI and DOJ, but investigators believed that there were promising leads that they were not allowed to follow.

The discovery of a trove of emails on a computer belonging to Anthony Wiener, the husband of Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, may have revealed some of the limits placed on FBI investigators. Politico reported that the agents had never asked Clinton staffers for their personal email devices and may have even lacked subpoena power.

Much of the debate stemmed from secret recordings of a suspect in a public corruption case. In a recorded conversation, the suspect, whose identity was not disclosed, discussed alleged deals made by the Clintons. The investigators could not corroborate the details of the deals, but wanted to investigate further. Prosecutors disagreed. The Justice Department felt that the information was hearsay and too weak to warrant a more aggressive investigation.

The FBI agents and the DOJ became more frustrated with each other as the investigators continued to try to pursue the case. The FBI pushed for more leeway while DOJ officials were irritated by the failure of the FBI to act discreetly and follow instructions. In February, the DOJ allegedly told FBI investigators to “stand down” according to the Journal sources.

The Journal reports that Robert Capers, the US Attorney for Brooklyn, was at the center of the brouhaha. Sources say that Capers told both sides what they wanted to hear, which exacerbated tensions. At one point, Capers allegedly told DOJ officials that the FBI “won’t let it go,” prompting a call to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on Aug. 12. In the call, an unnamed senior DOJ official complained that the FBI was not following instructions on the case. McCabe allegedly asked, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” The DOJ official answered, “Of course not.”

Regardless of whether the case was truly too weak to pursue or the Justice Department was actively running interference to protect the Clintons, the result is the same. Both the DOJ and the FBI have egg on their face and the reputation of their agencies have been tarnished. Rather than having the problems of the Clinton Foundation aired a year before the election, Mrs. Clinton’s once-assured victory may be fading with yet another October surprise.

FBI Never Asked Clinton Staff For Email Devices

The FBI’s on-again-off-again investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information has shaken the presidential race. Now new revelations are coming out about the way that the investigation was handled last spring that shed light on how the normally efficient FBI could have missed 650,000 emails on a computer belonging to the husband of Secretary Clinton’s closest aide.

According to a report in Politico, the FBI never asked for devices used by staffers when Clinton was Secretary of State. The report, based on an anonymous source, said that while agents did try to obtain the computers that were part of Clinton’s private server as well as laptops where Clinton received and reviewed emails, they never made an effort to gather the smartphones and computers that were used by staffers in her State Department office.

“No one was asked for devices by the FBI,” Politico quoted the source, who is familiar with the investigation.

There had been speculation as to why the Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, never turned the computer containing the emails over to the FBI. There had been speculation that Abedin had withheld the computer. Politico reported earlier that Abedin claimed to be unaware of how the emails came to be on her husband’s computer and now it seems that the FBI may have never asked to examine the computer. The email trove was found in a separate investigation of former congressman Anthony Weiner who was allegedly sexting a 15-year-old girl.

Republicans are asking how the FBI could have made such an obvious error. “The more we learn about the FBI’s initial investigation into Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server, the more questions we have about the thoroughness of the investigation and the administration’s conclusion to not prosecute her for mishandling classified information,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Politico.

One possible answer is that there was interference in the investigation. The Wall St. Journal reported last week that a PAC associated with Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.) gave more than $600,000 in donations and support to the Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe. Jill McCabe is the wife of Andrew McCabe, then an associate deputy director of the FBI. After the McCabe campaign ended in defeat, Andrew McCabe was promoted to deputy director where he an oversight role in the Clinton investigation.

The Wall St. Journal also reported that the FBI had found the new emails in early October and that agents had notified Mr. McCabe, who instructed agents on the two investigations to get together to determine whether the emails were relevant to the Clinton investigation. A decision was made to let the Weiner investigators proceed with their examination of the laptop’s metadata. McCabe apparently did not inform Director Comey at the time.

According to the Journal report, the Department of Justice refused to authorize aggressive investigation techniques such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews or a grand jury. Opinions differ on whether the resistance from the Justice Department was due to lack of compelling evidence presented by the FBI or whether it was present from the beginning of the investigation.

McCabe seems to have been caught in the middle. The Journal article reports a call on Aug. 12 from a “senior Justice Department official” who was unhappy that agents were still pursuing the investigation of the Clinton Foundation in the middle of the campaign. McCabe’s defenders say he asked, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” and was answered, “Of course not.”

Opinions differ on whether the call was simply trying to make sure that the FBI remained neutral in the election as longstanding policy dictated, was based on the prosecutor’s opinion that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict or was a move to protect Clinton. Some sources told the Journal that McCabe ordered the investigators to continue with the nonaggressive investigation. Others said that field agents were told to “stand down” based on orders from McCabe.

Whatever the reason, the FBI’s failure to mount a full investigation last year led directly to the Director Comey’s October surprise for the Clinton campaign last week. If Clinton used influence within the Department of Justice to stymie investigators, the sudden reappearance of the FBI investigation may be poetic justice.

Email Scandal Will Hurt Hillary, But Probably Less Than You Think

Last Friday, FBI Director James Comey dropped a bomb in the middle of the presidential election. Comey’s revelation that the FBI had found additional emails that might be pertinent to investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information turned the campaign on its ear. The big question is how the Comey bombshell will affect the outcome of the election.

Donald Trump was quick to capitalize on Comey’s letter to Congress, calling it the “biggest political scandal since Watergate” according to USA Today. For her part, the Clinton campaign says the emails are nothing new and that voters have already made up their minds about her use of a private server while Secretary of State. The truth is that the revived scandal will almost certainly benefit Donald Trump, but probably by less than you think.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton’s image is unlikely to go much lower. Both candidates are historically unpopular. Even though Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating has been deep in negative territory for the entire campaign, Donald Trump’s has consistently been worse. People know them both and dislike them both.

Trump has alienated large swaths of the electorate over the past year. Those voters are unlikely to rally to his banner in the wake of renewed questions about Hillary’s emails. After campaigning for a wall on the Mexican border and deportation of illegal immigrants, a recent NBC News/Wall St. Journal poll found Trump 50 points behind Hillary with Hispanic voters, who make up a large share of voters in many swing states. After weeks of accusations of sexual misconduct, Clinton led Trump by 10 points among women according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week. Trump led by only two points among Republican women. Other recent polling found Trump with only four percent support among black voters and 21 percent among millennials. Perhaps with the exception of Republican women, few of these voters are likely to switch to Trump.

In the same way that many Trump supporters refused to believe the allegations against Donald Trump, many hardcore Clinton supporters and Democrats will simply refuse to accept the revelation of an additional trove of emails or rationalize it away. As Trump supporters argued against the credibility of Trump’s accusers, Clinton supporters will argue that the email scandal is almost two years old and has already been considered by voters after Director Comey’s July announcement that Clinton’s private server was careless, but not criminal.

Essentially, most people have made up their minds that the other candidate is worse than whatever problems their own candidate might have. According to Real Clear Politics, about 85 to 90 percent of the electorate has consistently supported either Trump or Hillary regardless of scandals or bad news of the day. Third party candidates account for another five to 10 percent. That leaves only about five percent of voters who are undecided and perhaps another five percent whose support for their candidate is soft enough to change. This means that the impact of the email scandal will be felt among a tiny sliver of the electorate.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that two-thirds of likely voters said that the investigation makes no difference in their support for Clinton. One-third said that it made them less likely to support Clinton, but nearly 70 percent of these voters already leaned Republican. This leaves about 10 percent of voters who are less likely to support Clinton and who weren’t already unlikely to vote for her.

The timing of the scandal also works against Donald Trump. For maximum effectiveness in the campaign, the Comey letter would have come several weeks earlier. In some states, early voting had already been going on for weeks. Reports on early voting show that Democrats were overrepresented in early voting in battleground states. These votes were locked in before Comey’s announcement. The fact that these voters cannot now change their vote or stay home works in Hillary’s favor.

Aside from swinging a few voters, there are possible additional benefits for Trump from the scandal. First, it could dampen enthusiasm among Democrats and cause some to stay home. Even with a high unfavorable rating, FiveThirtyEight noted last week that a majority of Clinton voters are voting for Hillary rather than against Trump. Even if new questions about her competence as commander-in-chief don’t push voters to Trump or third party candidates such as Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, some might find themselves busy with other activities on Election Day.

The reminder of Clinton’s failings as Secretary of State is also likely to help motivate the Republican base. An ABC News poll released on Oct. 31 shows a surge in Republican support for Donald Trump. The poll, which was taken during the period in which Comey notified Congress, shows Trump at 89 percent support among Republicans, up from a low of 82 percent. The upswing of support from undecided Republicans accounts for much of the tightening in the polls.

The final caveat is that national polls are misleading at this stage of the election. There are 51 separate elections rather than a single national vote. While many swing states are close and the email scandal may tip some of them to Donald Trump, the Electoral College still heavily favors Hillary Clinton. Clinton would have to lose virtually every contested state (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio plus a blue state such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin to lose the Electoral College. At this point, such a sweep by Donald Trump seems unlikely.

Barring another October surprise, it seems likely that Director Comey’s shocking announcement will have only a marginal effect on the election. It may help to shore up states like Arizona, Georgia, Missouri and Texas by energizing Republican support and could possibly push Florida, North Carolina and Ohio into the Trump column. The final result of the Electoral College is unlikely to change, however.

This Is The Biggest Scandal In American History

Carles Comiskey ran a tight ship: he paid his star players “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver only $6,000 per year. He refused to launder the White Sox players’ uniforms as often as other teams. In 1919, they were called the “Black Sox.”

If you can’t see the comparison to Donald Trump, you’re blind. This is a man who campaigns for president and spends (literally) nothing on television advertising. His staff is a low-paid group of twenty-somethings working in a dusty corner of the building Trump already owns (and his campaign pays him rent for it). Trump’s jets are rented to the campaign with money he loaned, so he gets paid back with a profit.

In 1919, the only way to play professional baseball was to accept the contract offered by the team who “owned” you. If you refused, you were blackballed from the race game. This led to cheating for money. Eliot Asinof’s 1963 book “Eight Men Out” details how the White Sox threw the World Series.

Of eight Series games, at least two were thrown, Games Two and Eight. Notably, however, if the Sox had won Games Two and Eight, they–and not the Reds–would have been 1919 World Series champs. There is also evidence that Game Four was thrown and a failed attempt was made to throw Game Three. In general, people who were looking for suspicious plays in the Series found them, while others saw nothing that looked out of line.

For months, we’ve been suspicious. Erick Erickson called it a conspiracy theory–but a very believable one–and one he embraced. It’s really not a conspiracy, because it’s a conspiracy of one. Donald Trump is throwing the election for President of the United States.

I normally don’t quote Gawker’s conspiracy hive “Black Bag” as a source, but J.K. Trotter there has done a good job compiling the evidence for Trump’s fix.

The idea that Trump is running an elaborate interference campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton may sound absurd. But there is enough truth to Raimondo’s theory—it makes just enough sense—that it’s already begun to infiltrate, and inform the mainstream voices of, the mainstream Republican Party. On July 23, for example, the popular conservative writer Allen Ginzburg distilled Raimondo’s argument into a vexing thought experiment:

Erick recently echoed this sentiment. Wonks like Thomas B. Edsall writing in The New York Times, uncover the footprints of a Democrat trying (if you see it that way) to make old-school Democrat policies popular again.

If liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop “a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first century,” Rodrik warns, “the field will be left wide open for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more frequent conflict.”

If current trends continue, not only will there be a class inversion among the white supporters of the Democratic Party, but the party will become increasingly dependent on a white upper middle class that has isolated itself from the rest of American society.

Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.

Oh my God.

Edsall, in arguing that the Trump phenomenon is harming Democrats, is also saying that Trump’s populist appeal is reinvigorating the Democratic Party, opening up seams in Republican support, and allowing Hillary Clinton to move her party as far left as she wants. Because Trump is gathering those traditional Democratic voters to himself, then throwing the election, when Clinton takes office, far from having a split base, she will claim a massive mandate–she will assume the populist message Trump A/B tested for her.

In the long run, then, the significance of the Trump campaign may well prove to be the changes he has wrought in the Democratic Party.

As Trump flails in every self-destructive fashion conceivable, the odds increasingly point to a Clinton victory. But if she wins, how well will Clinton be able to govern with a base split between the well-to-do, many of whom seek to protect their enclaves against the interests, needs and classically American ambitions of the other half of the party — low-to-moderate income African-Americans and Hispanics and the truly poor?

How, indeed.

There is sufficient evidence, in everything Trump has done and continues to do, to make a solid accusation that he is throwing the election to Clinton. There’s enough evidence that he is doing it to help the Democratic Party move toward an unstoppable winning streak. There’s enough evidence that Trump is actively helping to make America into a one-party system like Mexico was for 70 years.

If throwing the World Series was the biggest scandal in baseball, and FIFA soccer officials were indicted for corruption, and Pete Rose was–and forever will be–banned from the Hall of Fame for gambling on his own games; then Trump’s actions should forever ban him from politics. He should be hauled before a judge.

Forget Watergate. Forget JFK, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, Lincoln’s assassination, and 9/11. If this election is permitted to continue on the course Trump has placed it on, we are about to have box seats to watch the biggest scandal in American history.