Topic: Up with Hitlery - page 3. (Read 5289 times)

And an orchestrated war with Russia has all of us marked for extinction

Paul Craig Roberts

The Democratic Party that once was concerned with workers' rights, the elderly, civil rights, and the constitutional protections of America liberty no longer exists. As the just completed Democratic presidential primaries and the Democratic presidential convention have clearly demonstrated, the United States now has two Republican parties in service to the One Percent.

The organized Democrats–the Democratic National Committee–have shown themselves to be even more venal and corrupt than the Republicans. Leaked emails document that the Democratic National Committee conspired with the Hillary campaign in order to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. It is clear that Sanders was the choice of Democratic Party voters for president, but the nomination was stolen from him by vote fraud and dirty tricks.

The DNC and the media whores have tried to discredit the incriminating emails by alleging that the leaked emails resulted from a plot by Russia's President Vladimir Putin in behalf of "Putin's American agent," Donald Trump. "A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin," as the presstitute scum put it.

This diversionary tactic has not worked. Not even Americans are stupid enough to fall for it.

Consequently, the corrupt "leader" of the DNC had to resign and was unable to deliver her speech at the nominating convention from fear of being booed off the stage.

Sanders' supporters have abandoned Hillary and the fake "Democratic Party." Probably most of them will vote for the Green Party candidate.

The organized Republicans–the Republican National Committee–and the zionist neoconservatives wanted to block Donald Trump from the nomination just as the DNC blocked Sanders, but could not. The neoconservatives are organizing for Hillary as she is their warmonger and Trump says he is not, but as the Presidential contest is really a contest between the two Republican parties about which gets to be the whore for the One Percent, the RNC, impressed with Hillary's lack of voter support, seems to be sticking with Trump. Better to be a well-paid whore than to be out in the cold.

In the coming presidential election, the outcome will probably be determined by whether the powerful oligarchic interest groups decide whether Trump is an actual threat or whether they can cosy up to him and rope him in by appointing his government.

The new material from the pro-transparency publisher includes 29 phone calls, totaling about 14 minutes. Many of them are complaints directed at the Democratic National Committee.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange warned CNN there would be "a lot more material" to come, following the publishing of hacked Democratic National Committee internal emails this past Friday.

The surprising secret to Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage … Tuesday night, Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention to make the case for another Clinton: the former U.S. Secretary of State– and his former First Lady — Hillary Clinton, as the next President of the United States …  It was powerful, convincing and heartfelt. But it was more than just a speech to satisfy an agenda; far more than a means to a political end. Loving, respectful, proud, and very human, his speech spoke volumes not only about his wife, the candidate, but, more notably, about the modern marriage ideal. –CNN

Bill Clinton's speech about Hillary Clinton was long lie, according to Dick Morris, the famous Clinton advisor who is now strongly anti-Clinton.

In a video on his website, DickMorris.com, he addresses the speech and rebuts it.

The rebuttal itself was interesting but gave rise to another question entirely.

Why would Bill Clinton present a false version of Hillary Clinton on such a prominent stage? Making so many apparently, fallacious statements is surely a risky business.

Of course, within the moment, the speech was a big hit. It presented Hillary as a loving wife and mother who'd spent her entire life helping people.

As we've pointed out in numerous past articles (see one HERE), Clinton is actually a candidate of the military-industrial complex and a proponent of the impending technocratic corporatism that is to be installed globally.

But Bill Clinton is determined to emphasize her "helping" side.

At one point, speaking of attempts to get her to marry him, he says:

So the second time I tried a different tack. I said I really want you to marry me, but you shouldn't do it. (LAUGHTER) And she smiled and looked at me, like, what is this boy up to?

She said that is not a very good sales pitch. I said I know, but it's true. And I meant it, it was true.

I said I know most of the young Democrats our age who want to go into politics, they mean well and they speak well, but none of them is as good as you are at actually doing things to make positive changes in people's lives.

I recently sat down with Casey Research founder Doug Casey to discuss this. Doug is a former classmate of Bill Clinton and has met him several times, including once at the White House.

Nick Giambruno: There is a popular conception that only the "best and brightest" go into government. I think this is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered. What's your take, Doug?

Doug Casey: It's a real problem when a pernicious myth subverts reality. Everybody believes that the institution of government is like Camelot—a wise ruler assisted by noble paladins. Maybe that meme gained traction in recent times with John Kennedy and his good-looking wife, Jackie. They looked like an ideal couple. They weren't. But they were a lot better than what followed for the next 50 years…

The fact is that the high levels of government do get people with high IQs. They can pass tests. They're skilled at manipulating both laws and people. But they tend to be of a low moral character, number one. Number two, despite their high IQs, they're actually quite stupid. Let me explain these things.

From a moral point of view, there are two types of people in the world. People who believe in coercion when dealing with their fellow humans. And people who believe in dealing voluntarily with their fellow humans.

The government is a force. The essence of government is coercion. So, people attracted to it are necessarily the wrong kind of people, coercion-oriented people. Government draws much more than its share of criminal personalities.

And they're not the most intelligent people—completely contrary to common belief. It's because one sign of intelligence is not just seeing the immediate and direct consequences of an action—any intelligent six-year-old can usually do that. It's seeing the indirect and delayed consequences of actions. They're very bad at that.

Following the release of 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails by Wikileaks, there's been much ado about the source of the hack. Behind the release is a mysterious figure known only as Guccifer 2.0. It's been said he is Romanian, but U.S. intelligence officials claim that the technology used to compromise DNC systems included Russian language hacking tools.

The DNC, Clinton campaign and even President Obama are implying that Vladimir Putin is behind the hack and subsequent release of documents. The Kremlin has dismissed the allegations as absurd.

Russia has maintained that their long-standing policy is not to meddle in the elections of other countries. Of course, there are exceptions, and as the following report from Time Magazine suggests, Vladimir Putin has every reason to take down Hillary.

It's payback time and Putin may well be taking this opportunity to make good on a personal vendetta.

In December 2011, Vladimir Putin came closer than he's ever been to losing his hold on power. His decision that year to run for a third term as Russia's President had inspired a massive protest movement against him. Demonstrations calling for him to resign were attracting hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Some of his closest allies had defected to the opposition, causing a split in the Kremlin elites, and Russian state media had begun to warn of a revolution in the making.

At a crisis meeting with his advisers on Dec. 8 of that year, the Russian leader chose to lay the blame on one meddling foreign diplomat: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to the founder of WikiLeaks, the site has "accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment."

According to the founder of WikiLeaks, the site has "accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment."

...

In case you missed it, WikiLeaks recently leaked nearly 20,000 emails that were sent by officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The emails exposed top officials showing favoritism towards Hillary Clinton's campaign at the expense of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary.

In result of the scandal, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, former chair of the DNC, was asked to resign. Just hours after she stepped down, however, Clinton hired the former-party leader to be an honorary chairman of the campaign's new "50-state" program.

It came as no shock that shortly after the scandal, Julian Assange, who is the founder of WikiLeaks, commented on the DNC's embarrassing behavior and Clinton's corrupt campaign.

He told Democracy Now!:

"I think this instruction by Luis Miranda, the head of communications, to go out and covertly spread anti-Bernie Sanders propaganda is a clear instruction combined with a chain of command. It's not simply expressing a sentiment. It is expressing an instruction within the DNC to subvert the Bernie Sanders campaign."

Assange also added that the "close relationship between the DNC and the media" is troubling, and is "something that we've all suspect happens, but this is concrete proof of it."

This isn't the first time Assange has spoken out again Clinton, or released incriminating information in an attempt to ruin her campaign. In the past, WikiLeaks published 30,322 emails from Clinton's private email server, spanning from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014. Though the information stunned most of the public, the FBI still refused to charge Clinton. You can read more about that here.

Regarding the information to come, he impressed that some of the most significant revelations from the leak have yet to be discovered by journalists:

"I really encourage people to research the more than 8,000 attachments that we put out, separate files, including more than 175 spreadsheets. That has the real core, the financial core, of the power structure and the exercise of monetary influence over the DNC. And that's something that's going to seed journalistic investigations for years," said Assange.

In an interview with ITV, he also relayed that WikiLeaks will soon be sharing documents that will provide "enough evidence" for the Department of Justice to indict the Democratic nominee. Apparently, WikiLeaks has "accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment."

Does he think the Obama administration's Justice Department will indict the former Secretary of State? Absolutely not. In fact, he told ITV:

"[Attorney General Loretta Lynch] is not going to indict Hillary Clinton. It's not possible that could happen. But the FBI could push for new concessions from the Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment."

Democrats Nominate Clinton Crime Family for a 2nd Co-Presidency

by Stephen Lendman

Bill Clinton once bragged about electing him president meant getting "two for the price of one."

Here we go again. Exposed electoral rigging along with unelected party insider super-delegates handed the Clinton crime family another chance for the nation's highest office.

Will November electoral rigging assure it, letting both legally challenged Clintons lead America - perhaps into the abyss if occurs?

Sanders capped his sellout to everything he campaigned against, urging Hillary be nominated by acclamation. In disgust, over 500 of his delegates walked out.

He transformed himself into Hillary's puppet, a caricature of what he claims to be, a Judas goat leading followers astray, urging them to betray their principles and honor like he did - a despicable scoundrel selling out to wealth and power like all the rest.

Tuesday was a night of infamy, a time for national mourning - fascism on steroids emerging triumphant. All-out activism against a corrupted system is crucial.

The alternative is a nation more unsafe and unfit to live in than ever, Wall Street and war-profiteers more greatly empowered, neoserfdom for ordinary people, and the unthinkable risk of WW III with nuclear weapons able to end life on earth.

That's what "two for the price of one" emerging triumphant in November means. Defeating the Clinton crime family is vital.

Late in my life, I fear for young people, unable to have the advantages I had growing up. It was a different time.

An inner city kid with nothing going for me had opportunities unavailable today. Permanent wars, neoliberal harshness and police state terror turned America into humanity's scourge.

A neocon-run nation bent on global conquest and domination at any cost risks dystopian harshness for everyone but America's privileged class if we survive their onslaught.

The unacceptable danger of a 2nd Clinton crime family presidency is explained by Hillary once saying "(w)hat do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life" - code language for endless wars of aggression, benefitting privileged Americans exclusively, no matter the cost to humanity.

Straightaway post-9/11, she urged waging war on terror - a pretext for forcefully transforming all sovereign independent nations into US vassal states.

She threatened Iran with total "obliterat(ion) (if they) consider(ed) launching an attack on Israel…"

As me-first lady, she supported genocidal sanctions on Iraq, killing 5,000 children aged five or under monthly. She praised George Bush's Islamophobia, fully supporting his agenda.

She favors nuclear weapons use, calling them peacekeeping deterrents. As secretary of state, she orchestrated war on Libya and Syria, raping and destroying both countries.

US foreign policy under her leadership ousted democratically elected Honduran and Paraguayan leaders. Following Haiti's devastating 2010 earthquake, she was involved in raping the country for profit along with rigging its election, installing a US puppet to run things.

The Clinton Foundation is a money-laundering self-enrichment racket masquerading as a charitable NGO - selling influence to special interests in return for millions of dollars in contributions.

It's hard imagining a more despicable choice for president than Killary - partnered with husband Bill for a second time around to run the country into the ground - likely taking planet earth with it this time if elected in November.

Top priority is preventing their return to the White House. Humanity's fate hangs in the balance.

They are headed for their own Watergate, and it would be a pity to see the drama aborted. I'm only moderately vindictive: I want them hounded out of office, not hounded after they've already left.

This is getting good. As I write, Bill's old pal Bruce Lindsey* has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the latest federal trial of the Arkansas mob. The Republicans want the special prosecutor to investigate three Clinton associates who may have perjured themselves before the Senate Whitewater Committee.

Both Clintons are under fire for the abuse of FBI files, a new scandal that has turned over several interesting rocks and revealed unsuspected dimensions of skullduggery: the thuggish Craig Livingstone, who was in charge of the file operation against the Clintons' enemies, is a character right out of the 1972 Nixon reelection campaign. He also turns out to be close to Hillary, and even helped clean out Vince Foster's office after his death. The Clintons' original story of "an innocent bureaucratic mistake" with the files has been exposed as a lie covering up something far more sinister. Every week brings a damaging revelation.

This election season is so much fun because Donald Trump keeps enraging all the right people – and his timing is perfect. Just as the Republican convention was at its height, with his running mate up there on the podium perorating about the alleged threat of Vladimir Putin, along comes Donald with an interview in the New York Times that has the War Party yelling and screaming bloody murder. The head of NATO; the foreign policy pundits; even some alleged "non-interventionists" – they're all aghast that Trump is questioning the supposedly sacred tripwires that commit us to going to war if Lower Slobbovia invades Upper Slobbovia.

It started with this article, in which Trump's views on NATO, the Turkey coup, and other matters were summarized, but it caused such a commotion that the Times published the entire interview, and it is really a sight to see – good news for us anti-interventionists, and very bad news for the internationalists, i.e. the entire foreign policy Establishment.

It starts off with Times reporter David Sanger trying to bait him into attacking Paul Ryan, who, he says, "presented a much more traditional Republican, engaged internationalist view of the world." Sanger reminds him of his previous comments on NATO: that our shiftless "allies" need to start paying their fair share of the costs of the alliance. Sanger adds in Korea and Japan, and ask: what if they won't pay? What then?

Trump's answer is vintage Trump:  "Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, 'Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.'"

Bill Kristol, the beating neocon heart of the flat-lined Never Trump movement, has a message for Democrats who think Americans are too smart to vote for Donald Trump, like he did and (sorta) still does.

"If I were Hillary Clinton's campaign, I would be worried," the puckish founder of The Weekly Standard told me during an hourlong sit-down for POLITICO's "Off Message" podcast as the Republican National Convention was wrapping up in Cleveland last week.

"She's up like 5 points over Trump, who has made all these mistakes and he has more room to grow, I think, because he could reassure people if he runs a semi-intelligent, semi-normal campaign, whereas what's she going to do? I mean, there's no reintroduction of Hillary Clinton that could be possibly be made at this point, I think."

Wikileaks has released nearly 20,000 emails it says are from the accounts of Democratic National Committee officials.

The release could cloud the upcoming Democratic party convention, which kicks off next week in Philadelphia.

It is unclear how Wikileaks obtained the records, but the release comes weeks after a hacker (or hackers) going by the name Guccifer 2.0 began releasing records obtained through the DNC's computer systems. The hacker claims to be Romanian, but many suspect that the records were taken by a team of Russian hackers.

Guccifer 2.0 has said that they obtained DNC emails. Other documents released by the hacker(s) include internal planning memos and databases of Democratic donors.

The FBI says no charges should be filed against Hillary Clinton. A federal judge on Monday declined to order the deposition of Hillary Clinton over whether she deliberately thwarted federal record-keeping laws— but did not rule out the possibility that the former Secretary of State may yet be forced to testify.

The real question: is Clinton being treated differently than the average American?

Let's give the FBI director a Reality Check.

Republicans on Capitol Hill hit FBI director James Comey with a barrage of questions just weeks ago. The center of that questioning was if Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, mishandled classified information. How has she not been charged yet if the answer was yes?

Here was Comey's answer:

"We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something that they shouldn't do."

By now, we all know that the FBI ultimately determined not to charge Clinton, but do you understand why?

There are three levels of classification set by the U.S. government: confidential, secret, and top secret. Comey said that the FBI found 110 emails in 52 email chains from the Clinton servers that contained information that was classified at the time they were sent or received. Of those email chains, 36 were found to include information labeled secret and 8 were found to contain information labeled top secret.

That means that the repeated claims made by Clinton for months that she never sent any classified material that was classified at the time is not true.

So why was Clinton not charged?

Comey said he didn't recommend Clinton be prosecuted for "gross negligence" because only one person in 99 years has been.

To be clear, by any straightforward interpretation, Hillary Clinton broke the law. The law bans negligently hosting classified information in an unauthorized location.

Hillary Clinton said Monday that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, was the most dangerous presidential candidate in the history of the United States. -CNN

Clinton, in an interview with CBS News' Charlie Rose, believes Donald Trump has "no self-discipline, no self-control, no sense of history, no understanding of the limits of the kind of power that any president should impose upon himself."

All of this could be applied to Clinton. She is by far the more dangerous of the two candidates.

If Clinton gets into office, she will start or expand wars and through large economic programs will ensure the US's quasi-depression deepens and that the economy never truly recovers at all (even though it may seem to.)

If things aren't getting worse, Hillary's power is not advancing. She is good at making things worse.

As her opponent, Donald Trump's main recommendation is that he has not been a politician before.

Donald Trump has chiefly been a builder and businessman.

But Hillary has basically been a politician.

Economically speaking, politics is price fixing. Laws are price-fixes, forbidding people from taking certain actions in favor of other ones.

We may agree or disagree with these price-fixes, but they exist and are a function of lawmaking.

Price-fixes always distort and degrade economies. The more laws you have, the more price-fixing and the more degradation.

We've often argued for private justice for instance in which individuals work out their own civil and criminal differences.

The less price-fixing (state control), the better.

The modern state – with its massive economic, political and judicial interference – is already well on its way to toppling.

Hillary Clinton has done well in the current system. She and her husband have built a gigantic non-profit and reportedly use it to trade favors with powerful people around the world.

She and Bill are connected at the highest levels and can influence US political and military decisions.

During testimony before Congress on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey stated that the FBI's interview with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not under oath or recorded, but was careful to point out for all the paeons listening that it still would be a crime to lie to the FBI.

As Breitbart notes, Comey stated that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the "five or six" who did interview Clinton.

He was then asked, "did she testify or talk to them under oath?" Comey answered, "No." But added that "it's still a crime to lie to us."

Yep...

The criminal "just us" system continues to work superbly for untouchables at the top like Hillary Clinton.

The FBI has officially determined that no charges will be handed down in Hillary's State Dept. email server scandal because… "she had no intent to harm".

In point of fact, as it has been pointed out at length, the FBI essentially had to rewrite the law to let Hillary off:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services…

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

And, as it has also has been pointed out, other people have been charged by the FBI for a similar offense specifically without malicious intent.

However, due to the fallout from the recent private meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, the spotlight is now squarely shining on the FBI, and director Jim Comey in particular.

Recall that immediately after the public learned of the purely coincidental meeting, Lynch went into pure damage control mode. After simply telling reporters that all the two discussed was Bill's golf game and his grandchildren wasn't enough to quiet the questions surrounding the true intent of the meeting, Lynch decided to have a televised interview in order to clarify everything. During the interview, Lynch said that while she wasn't formally recusing herself from the decision whether or not to bring charges against Hillary, Lynch said that whatever recommendations were given from the department's career prosecutors and investigators, as well as the FBI director, would be accepted. Ironically, Lynch said that the decision to accept those recommendations was made long before the meeting with Clinton.

Having previously said she would not be voluntarily subjugated to an interview by the FBI in the agency's probe surrounding Hillary Clinton's email server, moments ago NBC reported that the Democratic presidential candidate, seemingly shaken by last week's events when a meeting between her husband and the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch has sparked a scandal suggesting there is backdoor collusion between the Clintons and the DOJ and that, as Judicial Watch put it, the "fix is in", has given a "voluntary" three and a half hour interview to the FBI over the use of her private email server.

As NBC reports, "presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was questioned by the FBI in a long-awaited interview Saturday over the use of her private email server, an aide said. The interview's purpose was to delve into whether Clinton mishandled classified information submitted on her private email system while she served as secretary of state. Her top staffers have already given testimony."