Category: Hillary Clinton

Theory 2a: #Benghazi-Bimbo Connection

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Referring to Ann Althouse’s post on the Zombie Bimbo Revival, of course the answer is Hillary. Vanity Fair also stands to gain from the notoriety, and those two own 70% of the poll. However, Monica’s story is the kind of thing that has probably been in the can for a while, waiting for its moment. It’s certainly the kind of story that would have to come out as part of the 2016 run, sure. But Althouse thinks it’s mostly to do with Rand:

If it’s in Hillary’s interest to bring back the Monica story, wouldn’t the Clintons have done that in 2008? As Marcus observes, the difference is that Rand Paul — a presumptive candidate in 2016 — “has already raised the question of whether Democrats in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, should consort with a ‘sexual predator’ like Bill Clinton.” And Lewinsky’s new presentation stresses that she was a consenting adult, that her victimhood came as she “was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position” — whatever that means — and “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” We’re victimizing her if we remember her in the only form we would ever have known about her. So: Conversation over! Unless you’re an abuser. Rand.

I’ll give that a “yeah, maybe”. But really, wouldn’t it seem more useful to have Monica save her mouthful for a tougher target? Should the Clintons get out the cigars so early, when anything could happen over the next two years?
No, it strikes me that, for all the Benghazi email disclosure that triggered the Select Committee seems rather sudden, that too is likely orchestrated (distract from the ObamaCare implosion?) and that Monica is just another layer of damage control. . .


I’m past caring, really. My hope is that this Tower of Babel/Corruption just collapses into itself, so that we can set about clearing away the human debris that miscalls itself our leadership.

Update: KRAUTHAMMER: HILLARY COMMENTS ON BENGHAZI ‘RIDICULOUS’ If you look at her record upside down, Benghazi was clearly her chief accomplishment as SECSTATE.

Benghazi: A Hole in the Tick-Tock

Posted on Comments

Tick-tock: Journalism jargon for a story that recounts events in chronological order, as if accompanied by the soundtrack of a ticking clock.

Last summer, at the request of American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., I spent several days trying to get the White House Press Office to answer a simple question:

The President of the United States is not only the most powerful man in the world, but also the most public, his daily life chronicled to the minute by the national press, his every word and action reported and analyzed by journalists and commentators. What the American president says and does is always automatically newsworthy and therefore it is profoundly mysterious that a hushed silence surrounds one of the most disturbing events of Barack Obama’s presidency, the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Where was the president? This is a simple question, one to which the American people might reasonably expect an answer, but more than nine months after that deadly night, we still have not gotten a detailed answer and most in the media seem to have lost all interest in the question. . . .

You can read the rest. The point was, and is, that we never got the “tick-tock” version of the White House’s Benghazi story — we don’t have a timeline of where Obama was and what he was doing, during the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2012. Here we are, nearly a year later, and journalists still haven’t gotten the tick-tock. Patterico did some poking around over the weekend:

Here is an interesting tidbit from the White House Visitor Logs for 9/11/12: Obama met with three people, at an unknown time, for “debate prep.” . . .
Obama appears [from the official White House schedule] to have been gone from the White House for much of the early part of the day. He observed a moment of silence on the South Lawn; visited the Pentagon Memorial; visited veterans at Walter Reed in Bethesda; returned to the White House; and met with Leon Panetta at 5 p.m. There are not too many holes in his schedule during the day — increasing the chances that the “debate prep” took place in the evening, after the meeting with Panetta . . . in other words, when the Benghazi attack was unfolding.

Patterico makes clear we don’t know when that happened, because we never got that tick-tock, and thus the question:

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

It makes a difference because everybody — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016 Democrat presidential nominee — spent weeks lying about what happened.

When the truth began to trickle out, the White House press corps was negligent in its duty, and let the Benghazi lies go unexamined during the weeks while President Obama got himself re-elected.

We still don’t have the whole truth, but Democrats are calling for a “boycott” of a congressional investigation trying to get the truth, many in the media are dismissive of the investigation, and thus actively participating in this partisan cover-up!

The questions must be answered, and those who participated in the cover-up — including the media — must be held to account.

 

Hollywood Pedophilia Scandal: Did Democrats Know About Gay Donors?

Posted on Comments

After Thursday’s report about director Bryan Singer, I got an e-mail tip from a reader that led to this American Spectator article:

Allegations that a film director raped a teenage boy could impact fundraising for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, whose close ties to Hollywood’s gay community are potentially implicated in the scandal.
Bryan Singer, the openly gay director best known for the X-Men series of action films, has been accused in a lawsuit filed by a 31-year-old man who says he was 17 when Singer forcibly sodomized him in 1999. The plaintiff in that lawsuit, former model and actor Michael F. Egan III, describes attending Hollywood parties that “were typically sordid and featured sexual contact between adult males and the many teenage boys who were present for the parties.” According to the lawsuit, Singer attended the gay sex parties at the estate of Marc Collins-Rector, an entertainment entrepreneur who subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple crimes involving underage boys, and is now a registered sex offender.
“Since 2006 Bryan Singer has contributed at least $87,620 to Democratic candidates and committees,” the Daily Caller reported. “In 2006 and 2007 Singer contributed a combined total of $6,500 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets. In 2011 and 2012 Singer contributed a combined $61,600 to the Democratic National Committee.”
Singer has also hosted notoriously raucous gay parties at the home of film director Roland Emmerich, the London Daily Mail reported. In a 2011 interview with the Advocate, a leading gay publication, Emmerich described how Singer invited hundreds of “twinks” — slang for very young gay men — to the annual pool parties at Emmerich’s Hollywood estate. The paper highlighted a photo showing scores of men frolicking in Emmerich’s swimming pool.
It was at Emmerich’s estate in June 2007 that Hillary Clinton attended an “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) fundraiser event” for her Democrat presidential campaign. A description of the event: “The Senator first greeted the VIP guests in the upper section of the estate and then moved on to the pool area to address the approximately 250 supporters who have gathered to meet the former First Lady. Hillary Clinton’s main topic that night was the discrimination of gays and lesbians and their (mostly lost) rights, which she is fighting to restore.” That account described Emmerich’s estate: “The lush gardens and the unique building made a perfect backdrop for the presidential candidate and the many guests seemed to enjoy the privilege of setting foot on this private property.”
No one has accused Emmerich of involvement in the sexual misconduct alleged against Singer in Egan’s lawsuit, and an attorney for Singer dismissed Egan’s allegations as “without merit … absurd and defamatory.” However, Egan and his attorney Jeff Herman have suggested there was a larger network of gay pedophiles surrounding Collins-Rector, who Egan said repeatedly threatened him: “We control Hollywood and we will eliminate you.”

 The evidence here is all over the Internet in plain sight. It doesn’t take fancy “investigative journalism” to assemble the pieces:

Now, am I saying that every gay person in Hollywood is a pedophile, or that Democrats endorse the kind of activities alleged in Michael Egan’s lawsuit? Nothing of the kind.

What I am saying is that the Democrat Party has been collecting money to advance an agenda, and that some of the people providing that money are alleged to have an agenda of butt-raping teenage boys.

Even tonight, BuzzFeed’s Hunter Schwartz has reported an interesting fact: When three young men sued Collins-Rector in 2000, one of the plaintiffs was Alexander Burton, an actor who has appeared in exactly one movie: X-Men, directed by Bryan Singer.

Maybe that’s just a coincidence. And maybe not.

 

Kook Nation: Crazy Lady Who Threw Shoe at Hillary Clinton Is Crazy

Posted on Comments

The wackos are everywhere nowadays:

Before a wig-wearing nutjob threw a shoe at Hillary Clinton, the footwear flinger gave her heart to accused Colorado mass killer James Holmes.
Alison Ernst, 36, of Phoenix, was identified Friday as the sneaker-tossing kook who targeted the former First Lady one day earlier during a speech at a Las Vegas casino.
And Colorado officials confirmed she was the loopy lady escorted from the courtroom after a bizarre — and bald-headed — outburst during an August 2012 court hearing for Holmes. . . .
Twenty months earlier, she arrived in a Colorado courtroom with her head shaved while wearing a red dress before declaring she held evidence “vital to the defense of James Holmes.” Two deputies quickly escorted her outside.
The Arizona woman later filed an off-the-wall lawsuit detailing her devotion to Holmes, who was accused of killing 12 people and wounding another 70 in an Aurora movie theater. . . .
“I seek a restraining order to stop Holmes from entering my mind through subliminal messaging and causing me to be obsessed with him on a daily basis.”

Almost as “off-the-wall” as Brett Kimberlin’s Second Amended Complaint.

 

Hillary Clinton: Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

Posted on Comments

If you’re old enough to remember Watergate, you remember that line — “GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!” — from the “Doonesbury” cartoon strip about the accusations against Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell. And considering that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once worked as a junior aide to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigations, I thought that line would be appropriate to this news from Egypt:

The Egyptian Attorney General, Hisham Barakat, alleges that Clinton collaborated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
World Net Daily (WND) reports that Clinton has been named in a criminal complaint with Naglaa Mahmoud, the wife of ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, to incite domestic insurrections in Egypt.
The charges say that Clinton and Mahmoud conspired to topple Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He’s the Egyptian general who has been commander in chief of the Egyptian armed forces, and the minister of defense, since Aug. 12, 2012.
Researcher Walid Shoebat reported on his blog that criminal charges have indeed been filed against Clinton and Morsi’s wife. Shoebat speaks fluent Arabic and is a former Palestinian Liberation Organization operative. He says the news of the charges were reported in Arabic, by credible sources, which he translated.
WND says, “Shoebat translated the transcript from an Egyptian Mehwar TV channel news video in which television reporter Nasr Qaffas explains on camera details of an interview Turkey’s Anatolia news agency conducted with Naglaa Mahmoud.”
The transcripts from the Mehwar TV news video is said to include comments by Naglaa Mahmoud which implicate Huma Abedin, the wife of former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner.  . . .
According to Anatolia Press, Mahmoud said, “I have between my fingers, a treasure trove of secrets from the White House and Mrs. Clinton fears my wrath. I will not speak about Huma Abedin.”

One hesitates, in such circumstances, to leap to conclusions based on a single report that cites sources of unknown reliability. 

“It would be a disservice to Mrs. Clinton and her character to prejudge the woman, but everything known to date could lead one to conclude she’s guilty! That’s guilty! GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!”

 


Real Fall Guy for a ‘Phony Scandal’

Posted on Comments

Charles C. Johnson of the Daily Caller has a nice story about Nakoula (a.k.a., “Sam Bacile”), the guy whose YouTube video provided the Obama administration’s alibi for the Benghazi terror attack.

We have only recently begun to learn more about the CIA’s Libyan gun-running operation that the administration was covering up, and we’ll learn more this fall when Congress returns and begins its next round of hearings on this shabby fraud that the Democrat-Media Complex foisted on the American people last fall.

Nakoula doesn’t seem a particularly heroic person, but the real villains in this story are the journalists who lacked the basic curiosity to ask, “What is the motive for this particular lie?” It was apparent within a few days of last September’s attack on the Benghazi consulate that the administration was just flat-out lying, and the natural question was why? But nowadays most “reporters” in D.C.  (e.g., Alec MacGillis) are just Democrat Party political hacks, and re-electing Obama was Priority One. You can’t possibly hate those people as much as they deserve to be hated.

The Big Benghazi Secret

Posted on Comments

In May, we began to learn the truth about what the Benghazi cover-up was all about: The State Department had a secret program to provide weapons to the Libyan insurgents who overthrew Gaddhafi. Once the dictator was gone and it became apparent that some of the “insurgents” the U.S. had armed were, in fact, dangerous radicals with ties to al-Qaeda, there began an effort to disarm these groups.

It was these negotiations that brought U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens to the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11, 2012, in what appears to have been a carefully planned trap by the radical groups the U.S. was trying to disarm. It seems quite likely that the ambassador and three other Americans were killed with U.S.-supplied weapons. The fact that Benghazi was crawling with CIA operatives is something the Obama administration doesn’t want to talk about, for reasons that should be obvious enough. Jonathan Tobin writes at Commentary:

If Benghazi is a “phony scandal,” Americans are entitled to ask why the government is behaving so suspiciously. . . .
At this point with so many unanswered questions about Benghazi, the administration should be facilitating the investigation of the attack rather than actually impeding it. We don’t know whether the code of omerta being imposed on CIA personnel is merely a function of bureaucratic inertia or a far more sinister attempt to prevent Congress and the public from finding out more about the failures of both the agency and the State Department. No one should make assumptions about wrongdoing, but given the unwillingness of the administration to apply its supposed belief in transparency to this question, it is, at the very least, reasonable to conclude that something is amiss here.

“Something amiss” is putting it rather mildly. It stinks to high heaven. The administration has been lying since Day One, and what they’re trying to do now is to run out the clock, to delay as long as possible — if they cannot entirely prevent — disclosure of the truth, so that they can then dismiss it as, “old news.” And this is really the scandalous part of it: What if the American people had known in fall 2012 what we know (or at least think we know) now?

The absurd claim that what happened in Benghazi was a “spontaneous” demonstration inspired by a YouTube video was a deliberate lie, part of a cover-up, the initial purpose of which was to deflect blame from the administration during the presidential election campaign. In truth, the Benghazi attack was a direct consequence of President Obama’s embrace of the “Arab Spring,” four Americans died as a result, and the administration is still trying to conceal the facts because Hillary Clinton was deeply implicated in this debacle.

John Hinderaker gives heed to rumors that weapons were being shipped from Libya to Syria. I’ve heard nothing about that, but I was impressed by Joe Curl’s reaction to the CNN item:

Here’s my thing: I don’t really have a problem with shadowy CIA operations. I understand considerations of foreign-policy realism and I know that sometimes it’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. But when you screw up — and I’d say a dead U.S. ambassador counts as screwing up — you can’t stonewall and lie and claim it’s all a “phony scandal.” Not if you’re the president who promised America the “most transparent administration in history.”