Category: William F. Marshall

Bill and Hillary: Today's Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?


In a recent interview on Secure Freedom Radio, I discussed with Frank Gaffney some of my research at Judicial Watch into Bruce and Nellie Ohr, the dynamic Democrat duo who lie at the heart of the Hillary Clinton-DOJ-FBI-Fusion GPS conspiracy (the “Clinton Conspiracy”) to throw the presidential election to Hillary and, failing that, to undermine the Trump presidency with fabulist claims of “Russian-Trump collusion.”  A historical analogy occurred to me in our talk: Bill and Hillary Clinton are the 21st-century equivalent of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

The Clinton Conspiracy has everything one could ask for in a Cold War spy thriller: high politics; disinformation; a torrid love affair between two central co-conspirators; a key Russian-speaking Stalin apologist operative using a ham radio, apparently, for furtive communications; a patriotic senior government official learning of the illegal operations and blowing the whistle; and even the attempted overthrow of a sitting U.S. president.  The problem, of course, is that this isn’t fiction.

Both Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg (née Greenglass) joined the Young Communist League in their youth in the 1930s.  Julius was hired as a civilian employee by the U.S. Army in 1940 and worked in the Signal Corps as an electrical inspector stationed at Fort Monmouth, N.J., where he had access to highly classified research on missile guidance systems, radar, communications, and electronics.  He was let go in 1945 after his communist connections were discovered.

Julius recruited other communist sympathizers into his espionage ring, including William Perl, who provided the complete design plans for America’s first jet plane, the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, along with wind-tunnel data on the F-86 Sabre, which enabled the Soviets to accelerate their development of second-generation jet fighters.  Julius also obtained and passed to the Soviets the complete plans for a missile proximity fuse, an advanced version of which was used by the Soviets to shoot down Francis Gary Powers’s U-2 spy plane years later.  Julius also recruited, via his wife Ethel, her brother David Greenglass, who was working at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project, as well as another U.S. nuclear scientist, Russell McNutt.  For the latter recruitment, Rosenberg earned a $100 bonus from his Soviet paymasters.

The nuclear engineers he turned proved devastating.  Using their information, passed by Julius to the Soviets in 1945, the USSR was rapidly able to advance its own nuclear weapon design, enabling the Soviets to detonate their first atomic weapon shockingly quickly – on August 29, 1949 – launching the world into a nuclear arms race.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s treachery was discovered in 1950, after David Greenglass was arrested and incriminated them.  David’s co-conspirator wife, Ruth, also provided information critical to implicating Ethel in Julius’s spying.  The Rosenbergs were subsequently charged that year with espionage.  They were tried; convicted; and, as a result of their refusal to cooperate with authorities, sentenced to death.  They were both electrocuted on June 19, 1953.

In his sentencing statement, Judge Irving Kaufman noted: “In the light of the circumstances, I feel that I must pass such sentence upon the principals in this diabolical conspiracy to destroy a God-fearing nation, which will demonstrate with finality that this nation’s security must remain inviolate[.]”

It becomes increasingly evident with every passing day that Hillary Clinton was at the heart of a massive, coordinated effort to use disinformation manufactured by Christopher Steele (the “Steele dossier”) to implicate falsely Donald Trump and his campaign in some sort of “collusion” with the Russian government.  She then used Glenn Simpson to channel this disinformation through various conduits into our national security establishment in order to have a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign launched.  The contents of that “dossier” and the existence of that investigation were then leaked by the same Christopher Steele to the media during the campaign in an effort to damage Donald Trump’s electoral chances.

FBI director James Comey knowingly and illegally signed off on FISA warrant applications to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page, despite admitting later that the information in the “dossier,” which formed the crux of the evidence to obtain the warrant, was “salacious and unverified.”  Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe also signed the applications for the warrant despite having the same knowledge about the dubious dossier.  Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr fed information from his wife, co-conspirator Nellie Ohr, a Stalin apologist working for the dossier-purveyor Fusion GPS, to the Justice Department without informing Justice of his wife’s indirect employment by the Hillary Clinton campaign – a clear conflict of interest.  Nellie, by the way, mysteriously obtained a ham radio license during the campaign soon after patriotic NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of illegal surveillance being conducted of Trump campaign officials by the National Security Division of the Justice Department.  He eventually blew the whistle.

Meanwhile, two lovebirds, the incessantly texting FBI deputy director of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, and senior FBI attorney Lisa Page, yielded invaluable information in their communications about the whole conspiracy, or, as they cutely phrased it, the “insurance policy” against Trump’s election.  Think of them as an unwitting David and Ruth Greenglass.

So where does Bill Clinton figure into our Julius and Ethel Rosenburg comparison?  Well, that brings us to a wholly separate Clinton conspiracy involving Russia.  It was sort of a prequel to the election-throwing conspiracy.  It involved Bill Clinton receiving a $500,000 speaking fee for giving an hour-long talk in Moscow and the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million in donations in exchange for Russia taking control of twenty percent of the vital U.S. uranium stock.  The money came from parties associated with a convoluted series of transactions involving the acquisition of the Canadian company Uranium One, which controlled the U.S. uranium reserves, by the Russians.  Hillary approved the deal in her pivotal role on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  And to think that Julius got only $100 for recruiting Russell McNutt.  What a rube!

The U.S. presidential election lies at the heart of our republic.  Putting aside the Uranium One scandal, Hillary’s and her cohorts’ attempt to undermine that election is as serious an attempt to “destroy our God-fearing nation” from within as has ever been attempted in our history.  Everyone involved in that plot should face a punishment that will “demonstrate with finality that this nation’s security must remain inviolate.”  Bill Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal was its own kind of treachery.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)

In a recent interview on Secure Freedom Radio, I discussed with Frank Gaffney some of my research at Judicial Watch into Bruce and Nellie Ohr, the dynamic Democrat duo who lie at the heart of the Hillary Clinton-DOJ-FBI-Fusion GPS conspiracy (the “Clinton Conspiracy”) to throw the presidential election to Hillary and, failing that, to undermine the Trump presidency with fabulist claims of “Russian-Trump collusion.”  A historical analogy occurred to me in our talk: Bill and Hillary Clinton are the 21st-century equivalent of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

The Clinton Conspiracy has everything one could ask for in a Cold War spy thriller: high politics; disinformation; a torrid love affair between two central co-conspirators; a key Russian-speaking Stalin apologist operative using a ham radio, apparently, for furtive communications; a patriotic senior government official learning of the illegal operations and blowing the whistle; and even the attempted overthrow of a sitting U.S. president.  The problem, of course, is that this isn’t fiction.

Both Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg (née Greenglass) joined the Young Communist League in their youth in the 1930s.  Julius was hired as a civilian employee by the U.S. Army in 1940 and worked in the Signal Corps as an electrical inspector stationed at Fort Monmouth, N.J., where he had access to highly classified research on missile guidance systems, radar, communications, and electronics.  He was let go in 1945 after his communist connections were discovered.

Julius recruited other communist sympathizers into his espionage ring, including William Perl, who provided the complete design plans for America’s first jet plane, the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, along with wind-tunnel data on the F-86 Sabre, which enabled the Soviets to accelerate their development of second-generation jet fighters.  Julius also obtained and passed to the Soviets the complete plans for a missile proximity fuse, an advanced version of which was used by the Soviets to shoot down Francis Gary Powers’s U-2 spy plane years later.  Julius also recruited, via his wife Ethel, her brother David Greenglass, who was working at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project, as well as another U.S. nuclear scientist, Russell McNutt.  For the latter recruitment, Rosenberg earned a $100 bonus from his Soviet paymasters.

The nuclear engineers he turned proved devastating.  Using their information, passed by Julius to the Soviets in 1945, the USSR was rapidly able to advance its own nuclear weapon design, enabling the Soviets to detonate their first atomic weapon shockingly quickly – on August 29, 1949 – launching the world into a nuclear arms race.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s treachery was discovered in 1950, after David Greenglass was arrested and incriminated them.  David’s co-conspirator wife, Ruth, also provided information critical to implicating Ethel in Julius’s spying.  The Rosenbergs were subsequently charged that year with espionage.  They were tried; convicted; and, as a result of their refusal to cooperate with authorities, sentenced to death.  They were both electrocuted on June 19, 1953.

In his sentencing statement, Judge Irving Kaufman noted: “In the light of the circumstances, I feel that I must pass such sentence upon the principals in this diabolical conspiracy to destroy a God-fearing nation, which will demonstrate with finality that this nation’s security must remain inviolate[.]”

It becomes increasingly evident with every passing day that Hillary Clinton was at the heart of a massive, coordinated effort to use disinformation manufactured by Christopher Steele (the “Steele dossier”) to implicate falsely Donald Trump and his campaign in some sort of “collusion” with the Russian government.  She then used Glenn Simpson to channel this disinformation through various conduits into our national security establishment in order to have a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign launched.  The contents of that “dossier” and the existence of that investigation were then leaked by the same Christopher Steele to the media during the campaign in an effort to damage Donald Trump’s electoral chances.

FBI director James Comey knowingly and illegally signed off on FISA warrant applications to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page, despite admitting later that the information in the “dossier,” which formed the crux of the evidence to obtain the warrant, was “salacious and unverified.”  Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe also signed the applications for the warrant despite having the same knowledge about the dubious dossier.  Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr fed information from his wife, co-conspirator Nellie Ohr, a Stalin apologist working for the dossier-purveyor Fusion GPS, to the Justice Department without informing Justice of his wife’s indirect employment by the Hillary Clinton campaign – a clear conflict of interest.  Nellie, by the way, mysteriously obtained a ham radio license during the campaign soon after patriotic NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of illegal surveillance being conducted of Trump campaign officials by the National Security Division of the Justice Department.  He eventually blew the whistle.

Meanwhile, two lovebirds, the incessantly texting FBI deputy director of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, and senior FBI attorney Lisa Page, yielded invaluable information in their communications about the whole conspiracy, or, as they cutely phrased it, the “insurance policy” against Trump’s election.  Think of them as an unwitting David and Ruth Greenglass.

So where does Bill Clinton figure into our Julius and Ethel Rosenburg comparison?  Well, that brings us to a wholly separate Clinton conspiracy involving Russia.  It was sort of a prequel to the election-throwing conspiracy.  It involved Bill Clinton receiving a $500,000 speaking fee for giving an hour-long talk in Moscow and the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million in donations in exchange for Russia taking control of twenty percent of the vital U.S. uranium stock.  The money came from parties associated with a convoluted series of transactions involving the acquisition of the Canadian company Uranium One, which controlled the U.S. uranium reserves, by the Russians.  Hillary approved the deal in her pivotal role on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  And to think that Julius got only $100 for recruiting Russell McNutt.  What a rube!

The U.S. presidential election lies at the heart of our republic.  Putting aside the Uranium One scandal, Hillary’s and her cohorts’ attempt to undermine that election is as serious an attempt to “destroy our God-fearing nation” from within as has ever been attempted in our history.  Everyone involved in that plot should face a punishment that will “demonstrate with finality that this nation’s security must remain inviolate.”  Bill Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal was its own kind of treachery.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)



Source link

The Sinking of the FBI


J. Edgar Hoover must be turning in his grave at what is happening to his venerable FBI.  Then again, given Hoover’s own proclivities to abuse his powers as the director of that agency, perhaps the predicament in which the bureau finds itself is a natural stage of evolution on an arc of governmental hubris.

It’s increasingly clear that the FBI is taking on water at an accelerating rate as new revelations come, fast and furious, in the political scandals engulfing Washington.  This week, for example, we see two adolescent-minded senior FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, involved in virtually all aspects of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation and the Donald Trump “Russian collusion” (or is it “obstruction of justice” now?) investigation, acting like hormone-fueled high school lovers, discussing a “secret society” of Trump-haters one day after President Trump’s remarkable election.  We learned of this only because two patriotic congressmen, representatives Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe, former federal prosecutors both, revealed this stunning exchange to Fox News.  Was the “secret society” a tongue-in-cheek reference?  Given the mind-boggling behavior of the top echelons at the FBI and DOJ these days, one can’t be too sure.

The keel of the USS Federal Bureau of Investigation is starting to rise out of the water, like the RMS Titanic about 30 minutes after striking the iceberg.  One can almost hear the bodies of top law enforcement bureaucrats crashing against each other, like so much china on a dying vessel sinking under the waves, as the embattled organization faces exposure after exposure of truly outrageous and un-American, if not illegal, conduct.

This sad state of affairs represents the depressing collapse of a pillar of American culture for many of us who grew up revering it and the “G‑men” who populated it.  It did a wonderful job of cultivating that aura through the media and entertainment industries, often providing technical assistance to the producers of movies like The Silence of the Lambs.

For those of us over 40, who can forget watching the tough, suave FBI agent Lewis Erskine played by Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. in the eponymous television show, The FBI?  He was the epitome of cool and integrity.

This crafty self-promotion in popular culture has occurred over many decades, spawning countless such television series, movies, and books exalting the bureau.  My youngest, college-aged daughter is a devotee of Criminal Minds, yet another slick Hollywood rendering of hip, brilliant FBI agents solving complex serial murders through cunning and derring-do – all in the space of an hour, with commercial breaks, of course.

The tragic reality is that this apotheosis of American law enforcement, this symbol of truth, justice, and the American way, has become so corrupt, so politicized, and so diametrically opposed to its mission because of its recent actions that nothing short of its reconstitution is required – much as the KGB was reconstituted following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  (I never thought I would be drawing any sort of comparison between the FBI and the KGB, but those are the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves.)

I have spent three decades working in intelligence and investigations in federal law enforcement, in corporate-sector investigations, and currently for the nonprofit organization leading much of the investigative work into the corruption of our own government.  I worked for the high-end opposition research firm, Investigative Group International, that was employed by the Clinton administration in the ’90s at the height of the scandals in which it was embroiled.  All of this is to say that I know the world of private intelligence and opposition research as well as anyone, and my comments are informed by practical experience from both a private investigative perspective and a law enforcement perspective.

What we are seeing today at the highest levels of our government should frighten all Americans.

As I laid out in detail in a recent interview for Judicial Watch, discussing the role of Fusion GPS, its interactions with the FBI, and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony before a Senate committee, the evidence is rapidly emerging that senior officials in our government, most likely up to and including then-president of the United States Barack Obama, worked in concert to illicitly, and possibly criminally, derail the candidacy of the opposition party’s presidential candidate using fabricated information (or, as former FBI director James Comey described it, “salacious and unverified”) obtained by a private investigations firm from an enemy of the United States: Russia.

Even worse, once that effort to derail that candidacy failed and that candidate, Donald Trump, was elected, those same individuals used the same manufactured evidence as the basis to launch an investigation, employing the vast authority and technical resources of the United States government, whose ultimate goal, I believe, is to impeach and remove that duly elected president.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a coup d’état.

Merriam-Webster defines a coup d’état as a “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics.”

While the Hillary-FBI-DOJ-Fusion GPS cabal was not a violent coup, to be sure, it was certainly a decisive exercise of force in politics when it used, as has been reported, a fraud on the court to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on members of the opposing party’s presidential campaign.  In fact, it is far more insidious than the sort of coups we typically see in Africa and Latin America.  It required the subversion and corruption of numerous governmental agencies, not just the FBI – to effect: the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency to be sure, and possibly the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, and other agencies as well.

I do not say this lightly.  As the son of a World War II veteran, the father of a currently serving member of the U.S. military, and an American citizen, I care deeply about this country, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  The American people need to wake up and understand the gravity of what is shaping up to be nothing short of an attempt to overthrow their government.

The sinking of the FBI may be the least of our worries.

God bless and save America.  

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, the private sector, and the non-profit sector for over 30 years.  Presently, he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.) 

J. Edgar Hoover must be turning in his grave at what is happening to his venerable FBI.  Then again, given Hoover’s own proclivities to abuse his powers as the director of that agency, perhaps the predicament in which the bureau finds itself is a natural stage of evolution on an arc of governmental hubris.

It’s increasingly clear that the FBI is taking on water at an accelerating rate as new revelations come, fast and furious, in the political scandals engulfing Washington.  This week, for example, we see two adolescent-minded senior FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, involved in virtually all aspects of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation and the Donald Trump “Russian collusion” (or is it “obstruction of justice” now?) investigation, acting like hormone-fueled high school lovers, discussing a “secret society” of Trump-haters one day after President Trump’s remarkable election.  We learned of this only because two patriotic congressmen, representatives Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe, former federal prosecutors both, revealed this stunning exchange to Fox News.  Was the “secret society” a tongue-in-cheek reference?  Given the mind-boggling behavior of the top echelons at the FBI and DOJ these days, one can’t be too sure.

The keel of the USS Federal Bureau of Investigation is starting to rise out of the water, like the RMS Titanic about 30 minutes after striking the iceberg.  One can almost hear the bodies of top law enforcement bureaucrats crashing against each other, like so much china on a dying vessel sinking under the waves, as the embattled organization faces exposure after exposure of truly outrageous and un-American, if not illegal, conduct.

This sad state of affairs represents the depressing collapse of a pillar of American culture for many of us who grew up revering it and the “G‑men” who populated it.  It did a wonderful job of cultivating that aura through the media and entertainment industries, often providing technical assistance to the producers of movies like The Silence of the Lambs.

For those of us over 40, who can forget watching the tough, suave FBI agent Lewis Erskine played by Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. in the eponymous television show, The FBI?  He was the epitome of cool and integrity.

This crafty self-promotion in popular culture has occurred over many decades, spawning countless such television series, movies, and books exalting the bureau.  My youngest, college-aged daughter is a devotee of Criminal Minds, yet another slick Hollywood rendering of hip, brilliant FBI agents solving complex serial murders through cunning and derring-do – all in the space of an hour, with commercial breaks, of course.

The tragic reality is that this apotheosis of American law enforcement, this symbol of truth, justice, and the American way, has become so corrupt, so politicized, and so diametrically opposed to its mission because of its recent actions that nothing short of its reconstitution is required – much as the KGB was reconstituted following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  (I never thought I would be drawing any sort of comparison between the FBI and the KGB, but those are the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves.)

I have spent three decades working in intelligence and investigations in federal law enforcement, in corporate-sector investigations, and currently for the nonprofit organization leading much of the investigative work into the corruption of our own government.  I worked for the high-end opposition research firm, Investigative Group International, that was employed by the Clinton administration in the ’90s at the height of the scandals in which it was embroiled.  All of this is to say that I know the world of private intelligence and opposition research as well as anyone, and my comments are informed by practical experience from both a private investigative perspective and a law enforcement perspective.

What we are seeing today at the highest levels of our government should frighten all Americans.

As I laid out in detail in a recent interview for Judicial Watch, discussing the role of Fusion GPS, its interactions with the FBI, and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony before a Senate committee, the evidence is rapidly emerging that senior officials in our government, most likely up to and including then-president of the United States Barack Obama, worked in concert to illicitly, and possibly criminally, derail the candidacy of the opposition party’s presidential candidate using fabricated information (or, as former FBI director James Comey described it, “salacious and unverified”) obtained by a private investigations firm from an enemy of the United States: Russia.

Even worse, once that effort to derail that candidacy failed and that candidate, Donald Trump, was elected, those same individuals used the same manufactured evidence as the basis to launch an investigation, employing the vast authority and technical resources of the United States government, whose ultimate goal, I believe, is to impeach and remove that duly elected president.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a coup d’état.

Merriam-Webster defines a coup d’état as a “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics.”

While the Hillary-FBI-DOJ-Fusion GPS cabal was not a violent coup, to be sure, it was certainly a decisive exercise of force in politics when it used, as has been reported, a fraud on the court to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on members of the opposing party’s presidential campaign.  In fact, it is far more insidious than the sort of coups we typically see in Africa and Latin America.  It required the subversion and corruption of numerous governmental agencies, not just the FBI – to effect: the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency to be sure, and possibly the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, and other agencies as well.

I do not say this lightly.  As the son of a World War II veteran, the father of a currently serving member of the U.S. military, and an American citizen, I care deeply about this country, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  The American people need to wake up and understand the gravity of what is shaping up to be nothing short of an attempt to overthrow their government.

The sinking of the FBI may be the least of our worries.

God bless and save America.  

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, the private sector, and the non-profit sector for over 30 years.  Presently, he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.) 



Source link

Is Jeff Sessions Trump's Gen. George McClellan?


Congressman Jim Jordan laid out a blistering litany of transgressions committed by Hillary Clinton and other Obama apparatchiks in the last administration that all of us who regularly follow the news are familiar with.  He did so in a simple, methodical way that was nonetheless staggering to listen to.  It makes any sentient American over the age of 40, who has grown up believing in what we thought were the basic American principles of blind justice, equality before the law, due process, and simple fairness, questioning whether our nation has been fundamentally transformed or something.

Really, to listen to the rhetorical list of questions Rep. Jordan put before Attorney General Sessions, asking him if those potential crimes did not warrant the appointment of another special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton and her mind-bogglingly corrupt, if not criminal, activities, was to transport oneself to Argentina during the reign of Evita Perón.  It’s so easy to picture Hillary belting out, “Don’t cry for me, America!,” except in a really cringe-inducing, raspy off-key register.  (Sorry for that visual.)

The questions Mr. Jordan laid before Mr. Sessions seemed to go on and on and are like those he and Rep. Matt Gaetz outlined in an opinion piece at Fox News:

Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called “grossly negligent” in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation?  Before interviewing several witnesses? And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?


Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?


Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying FusionGPS for the dossier, the FBI also “reimbursed” Christopher Steele, author of the dossier.


Why in 2016 – one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI – did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?


Etc., etc., etc.

When Jeff Sessions was appointed attorney general, I had such high hopes.  He struck me as a man of deep integrity, who held the same beliefs I always did about those American principles I mentioned above.  “Finally,” I thought, “a new sheriff is coming to town to clean the place up, after Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch ran roughshod over the Constitution for all those years.”

It seems my optimism was misplaced.  As I listened to Attorney General Sessions’s response to Mr. Jordan, explaining why he would not appoint a special counsel to investigate the Clinton crime family’s misdeeds, with the complicity of Barack Obama and his Deep State operatives, several words came to mind: ineffectual, sclerotic, fearful.

In fact, not just words, but a historical character popped into my head: General George Brinton McClellan, one of President Abraham Lincoln’s earliest generals in chief of the Union Army.

Gen. McClellan, like Jeff Sessions, was highly regarded before his appointment to head the Union Army, by both the senior-most Union government officials and the population at large.  He was a brilliant West Point cadet, with legendary organizational skills, who went on to serve with distinction in the Mexican-American War.  In his early days at the head of the new Army of the Potomac, he did, by all accounts, a superb job in organizing and training up the legions of volunteers who had signed up to fight for the Republic.  He also had the ability to inspire the men under his command and earn their deepest loyalty.  Gen. McClellan’s contributions to the war effort were at that point, and really still are, something for which we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Unfortunately, when it came to the actual business of fighting, General McClellan came up woefully short.  President Lincoln famously said that he was afflicted by “the slows.”  It is through that distinction that history will remember him.  After taking over as general-in-chief of the all the Union armies, with President Lincoln facing enormous pressure from the public, whose sentiments he had an uncanny ability to read, McClellan dithered.  With Confederate forces massed in Virginia, not far from Washington, D.C., there was very real concern that the Union government would be overrun.  While having done a wonderful, and expensive, job of organizing the Union troops, McClellan refused to use them.

President Lincoln became so frustrated with Gen. McClellan’s timidity, that he quipped to his General Staff, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”

He didn’t.  Rather, Mr. Lincoln fired Gen. McClellan on March 11, 1862, slightly more than four months after appointing him.

Although we are not engaged in a civil war (yet), one would hope that President Trump recognizes the grievous criminality of Mrs. Clinton and her cohorts and the need to hold them accountable if the faith of the American people in the justice system of this country is to be restored.  That duty, which falls on his attorney general, cannot continue to be ignored.  Mr. Sessions has been given more than twice as long as Gen. McClellan to do his duty, and he still has “the slows.”  Perhaps it’s time to replace him?

Judicial Watch will continue to work to expose more outrageous conduct by the last administration, as we did this week, when we sued the Justice Department on my request for the communications of former attorney general Lynch regarding the special “immigration parole” granted to Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian collaborator of Hillary Clinton’s smear merchant, Fusion GPS.  Ultimately, however, no matter how much illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct we expose, it is up to the Justice Department to bring Hillary to…well, justice.

Meantime, contact your congressman to demand the long overdue appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton and all of her co-conspirators.  Her continual dismissal of the charges against her requires, to borrow her phrase, “the willing suspension of disbelief.”  

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over thirty years.  Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.) 

Congressman Jim Jordan laid out a blistering litany of transgressions committed by Hillary Clinton and other Obama apparatchiks in the last administration that all of us who regularly follow the news are familiar with.  He did so in a simple, methodical way that was nonetheless staggering to listen to.  It makes any sentient American over the age of 40, who has grown up believing in what we thought were the basic American principles of blind justice, equality before the law, due process, and simple fairness, questioning whether our nation has been fundamentally transformed or something.

Really, to listen to the rhetorical list of questions Rep. Jordan put before Attorney General Sessions, asking him if those potential crimes did not warrant the appointment of another special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton and her mind-bogglingly corrupt, if not criminal, activities, was to transport oneself to Argentina during the reign of Evita Perón.  It’s so easy to picture Hillary belting out, “Don’t cry for me, America!,” except in a really cringe-inducing, raspy off-key register.  (Sorry for that visual.)

The questions Mr. Jordan laid before Mr. Sessions seemed to go on and on and are like those he and Rep. Matt Gaetz outlined in an opinion piece at Fox News:

Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called “grossly negligent” in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation?  Before interviewing several witnesses? And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?


Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?


Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying FusionGPS for the dossier, the FBI also “reimbursed” Christopher Steele, author of the dossier.


Why in 2016 – one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI – did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?


Etc., etc., etc.

When Jeff Sessions was appointed attorney general, I had such high hopes.  He struck me as a man of deep integrity, who held the same beliefs I always did about those American principles I mentioned above.  “Finally,” I thought, “a new sheriff is coming to town to clean the place up, after Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch ran roughshod over the Constitution for all those years.”

It seems my optimism was misplaced.  As I listened to Attorney General Sessions’s response to Mr. Jordan, explaining why he would not appoint a special counsel to investigate the Clinton crime family’s misdeeds, with the complicity of Barack Obama and his Deep State operatives, several words came to mind: ineffectual, sclerotic, fearful.

In fact, not just words, but a historical character popped into my head: General George Brinton McClellan, one of President Abraham Lincoln’s earliest generals in chief of the Union Army.

Gen. McClellan, like Jeff Sessions, was highly regarded before his appointment to head the Union Army, by both the senior-most Union government officials and the population at large.  He was a brilliant West Point cadet, with legendary organizational skills, who went on to serve with distinction in the Mexican-American War.  In his early days at the head of the new Army of the Potomac, he did, by all accounts, a superb job in organizing and training up the legions of volunteers who had signed up to fight for the Republic.  He also had the ability to inspire the men under his command and earn their deepest loyalty.  Gen. McClellan’s contributions to the war effort were at that point, and really still are, something for which we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Unfortunately, when it came to the actual business of fighting, General McClellan came up woefully short.  President Lincoln famously said that he was afflicted by “the slows.”  It is through that distinction that history will remember him.  After taking over as general-in-chief of the all the Union armies, with President Lincoln facing enormous pressure from the public, whose sentiments he had an uncanny ability to read, McClellan dithered.  With Confederate forces massed in Virginia, not far from Washington, D.C., there was very real concern that the Union government would be overrun.  While having done a wonderful, and expensive, job of organizing the Union troops, McClellan refused to use them.

President Lincoln became so frustrated with Gen. McClellan’s timidity, that he quipped to his General Staff, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”

He didn’t.  Rather, Mr. Lincoln fired Gen. McClellan on March 11, 1862, slightly more than four months after appointing him.

Although we are not engaged in a civil war (yet), one would hope that President Trump recognizes the grievous criminality of Mrs. Clinton and her cohorts and the need to hold them accountable if the faith of the American people in the justice system of this country is to be restored.  That duty, which falls on his attorney general, cannot continue to be ignored.  Mr. Sessions has been given more than twice as long as Gen. McClellan to do his duty, and he still has “the slows.”  Perhaps it’s time to replace him?

Judicial Watch will continue to work to expose more outrageous conduct by the last administration, as we did this week, when we sued the Justice Department on my request for the communications of former attorney general Lynch regarding the special “immigration parole” granted to Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian collaborator of Hillary Clinton’s smear merchant, Fusion GPS.  Ultimately, however, no matter how much illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct we expose, it is up to the Justice Department to bring Hillary to…well, justice.

Meantime, contact your congressman to demand the long overdue appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton and all of her co-conspirators.  Her continual dismissal of the charges against her requires, to borrow her phrase, “the willing suspension of disbelief.”  

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over thirty years.  Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.) 



Source link

Berniegate: How Jane Sanders Offers a Window into Liberal Scheming


“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” goes the line so often used to describe hare-brained liberal schemes.  That vintage phrase captures perfectly the quagmire in which Bernie and Jane Sanders find themselves rapidly sinking in the saga of Burlington College.  But the tale provides so much more than affirming that age-old aphorism.  It offers a microcosmic view into the mind and methodology of liberal policymakers everywhere.

In short, the scheme concocted by the former Democratic Socialist presidential candidate’s wife, Jane Sanders, when she was president of Burlington College serves up everything we’ve come to expect of modern Democrats: delusional visions of glorious benefits to be realized by the masses if we follow their screwball ideas; a shady real estate deal; phony and fraudulent claims used as the basis for getting other people to part with their money; alleged pressure from a powerful Democratic politician on a government-regulated institution to go along with their idea, or else; and, of course, no modern Democratic scandal is complete without a computer server potentially figuring in – in this case, a stolen one.  The only thing missing is the sex.  But the investigation is still young.

Anyway, here’s the backstory.  The board of a tiny New England college in Vermont, Burlington College, in the town where Bernie Sanders used to be mayor before he rose to lofty heights in the Senate and then the socialist precincts of the national Democratic Party, had the notion of hiring Bernie’s wife to be their esteemed college’s new president in 2004.  What qualified her for the job?  Who knows, but I’m sure being married to the then-U.S. congressman from Vermont and the town’s former mayor didn’t hurt.  The mayoralty, by the way, was Bernie’s first steady job.  Before that, he literally couldn’t feed his family.

The college suffered from low enrollment numbers and dismal donation income.  So President Jane (the term “President Sanders” is too shudder-inducing to use) had an idea.  The college could buy and relocate to a beautiful 33-acre tract of lakefront land owned by the Catholic Diocese of Burlington on which sat a former orphanage and still housed an active home for the disabled.  President Jane somehow convinced the school’s board that acquiring this property would incite new students to flock to the college, and gobs of donations would roll in.  Why exactly she thought this is a mystery, but it probably burbled up from the same type of thought processes that created Obamacare – you know, that scheme whereby adding millions of people, many poor and unemployed, to a national health care program would somehow lower the cost of health insurance to American families by an average of $2,500.  You can keep your doctor and your health plan, too.

So President Jane decides to buy this property for her school but needs to finance it with a $6.5-million bank loan.  The hitch was that she had to come up with $2.27 million in pledged donations and grants to secure the loan.  That’s where things get sticky.

It turns out that some of the folks whom President Jane told the bank would be donating money didn’t actually make such a commitment, or at least not for the amounts of money claimed on the loan documents.  President Jane, for example, claimed that 83-year-old donor Corinne Bove Maietta, heiress to a restaurant fortune, had pledged $1 million to the college.  However, Ms. Maietta denied making such a commitment, and her accountant told the Daily Caller that the FBI had contacted Ms. Maietta to interview her in connection with the Burlington College matter.  The FBI reached out to interview other Burlington College donors as well, like orthopedic surgeon Ron Leavitt, as well as the college’s former board members.  Rather than the $2.27 million she was supposed to raise, President Jane raised only $676,000.

Well, the best laid plans being what they are, Burlington College didn’t realize the bounty President Jane had promised from her land deal inspiration.  The college’s enrollment figures and donations didn’t improve significantly, President Jane was forced out in 2011 with a hefty severance, and the school declared bankruptcy and shuttered in 2016, largely from the burden of debt saddled upon it from the land purchase, which chairman of the board Yves Bradley called “crushing.”

In 2014, intrepid Vermont lawyer and dogged investigator Brady Toensing began digging into Burlington College’s finances and unearthing scathing information, which he would provide to the local press.  He wrote letters in 2016 to the U.S. attorney for Vermont and the FDIC demanding investigations into the college land deal.  They complied, with the FBI launching an investigation, which may now have engulfed Bernie Sanders himself.  According to the Associated Press, Toensing alleged that Sanders’s Senate office pressured the bank to make the loan, although the FBI wouldn’t confirm for the paper that he is being investigated.

The plot thickens: as reported by Vermont’s journalistic dynamo, VTDigger, Burlington College was burglarized in July 2016, two months after it permanently closed up shop.  Among the items stolen were computers, external hard drives, and the college’s main computer server.  Interestingly, the police reported no sign of forced entry.  While the Burlington Police Department conducted an investigation and had a suspect, he was eventually released based on a “lack of evidence,” and the investigation was closed.  Former school officials suspect that it was an “inside job.”

I think it’s time we gave this thing a name.  Since journalists enjoy attaching the suffix “-gate” to political scandals, how about Orphanagegate?  Okay, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue and might be a little too oblique a reference.  Burlingtongate?  Meh.  I think I’ve got it.  Berniegate!  After all, as we’ve seen, Bernie himself may now be tied to the growing conflagration involving Burlington College.

There are so many ways to go with this story, as it raises so many ghosts of Democrat scandals past.  The wife of the Democrats’ new socialist standard-bearer, who demanded free college for all in his presidential campaign, destroyed the college she ran with insurmountable debt.  Like Obamacare, her deal promised much but ended up savaging those it was supposed to help.  The alleged loan document fraud over a land purchase reminds us of the Clintons’ Whitewater land deals.  If Bernie did press the bank to issue the loan, one can’t help but remember the politicians who pressed banks to issue subprime mortgages to unqualified borrowers, which crashed the market in 2008.  And of course, there are the stolen Burlington College computers and server.  Does anyone know of Hillary Clinton’s whereabouts in July 2016?

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently, he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” goes the line so often used to describe hare-brained liberal schemes.  That vintage phrase captures perfectly the quagmire in which Bernie and Jane Sanders find themselves rapidly sinking in the saga of Burlington College.  But the tale provides so much more than affirming that age-old aphorism.  It offers a microcosmic view into the mind and methodology of liberal policymakers everywhere.

In short, the scheme concocted by the former Democratic Socialist presidential candidate’s wife, Jane Sanders, when she was president of Burlington College serves up everything we’ve come to expect of modern Democrats: delusional visions of glorious benefits to be realized by the masses if we follow their screwball ideas; a shady real estate deal; phony and fraudulent claims used as the basis for getting other people to part with their money; alleged pressure from a powerful Democratic politician on a government-regulated institution to go along with their idea, or else; and, of course, no modern Democratic scandal is complete without a computer server potentially figuring in – in this case, a stolen one.  The only thing missing is the sex.  But the investigation is still young.

Anyway, here’s the backstory.  The board of a tiny New England college in Vermont, Burlington College, in the town where Bernie Sanders used to be mayor before he rose to lofty heights in the Senate and then the socialist precincts of the national Democratic Party, had the notion of hiring Bernie’s wife to be their esteemed college’s new president in 2004.  What qualified her for the job?  Who knows, but I’m sure being married to the then-U.S. congressman from Vermont and the town’s former mayor didn’t hurt.  The mayoralty, by the way, was Bernie’s first steady job.  Before that, he literally couldn’t feed his family.

The college suffered from low enrollment numbers and dismal donation income.  So President Jane (the term “President Sanders” is too shudder-inducing to use) had an idea.  The college could buy and relocate to a beautiful 33-acre tract of lakefront land owned by the Catholic Diocese of Burlington on which sat a former orphanage and still housed an active home for the disabled.  President Jane somehow convinced the school’s board that acquiring this property would incite new students to flock to the college, and gobs of donations would roll in.  Why exactly she thought this is a mystery, but it probably burbled up from the same type of thought processes that created Obamacare – you know, that scheme whereby adding millions of people, many poor and unemployed, to a national health care program would somehow lower the cost of health insurance to American families by an average of $2,500.  You can keep your doctor and your health plan, too.

So President Jane decides to buy this property for her school but needs to finance it with a $6.5-million bank loan.  The hitch was that she had to come up with $2.27 million in pledged donations and grants to secure the loan.  That’s where things get sticky.

It turns out that some of the folks whom President Jane told the bank would be donating money didn’t actually make such a commitment, or at least not for the amounts of money claimed on the loan documents.  President Jane, for example, claimed that 83-year-old donor Corinne Bove Maietta, heiress to a restaurant fortune, had pledged $1 million to the college.  However, Ms. Maietta denied making such a commitment, and her accountant told the Daily Caller that the FBI had contacted Ms. Maietta to interview her in connection with the Burlington College matter.  The FBI reached out to interview other Burlington College donors as well, like orthopedic surgeon Ron Leavitt, as well as the college’s former board members.  Rather than the $2.27 million she was supposed to raise, President Jane raised only $676,000.

Well, the best laid plans being what they are, Burlington College didn’t realize the bounty President Jane had promised from her land deal inspiration.  The college’s enrollment figures and donations didn’t improve significantly, President Jane was forced out in 2011 with a hefty severance, and the school declared bankruptcy and shuttered in 2016, largely from the burden of debt saddled upon it from the land purchase, which chairman of the board Yves Bradley called “crushing.”

In 2014, intrepid Vermont lawyer and dogged investigator Brady Toensing began digging into Burlington College’s finances and unearthing scathing information, which he would provide to the local press.  He wrote letters in 2016 to the U.S. attorney for Vermont and the FDIC demanding investigations into the college land deal.  They complied, with the FBI launching an investigation, which may now have engulfed Bernie Sanders himself.  According to the Associated Press, Toensing alleged that Sanders’s Senate office pressured the bank to make the loan, although the FBI wouldn’t confirm for the paper that he is being investigated.

The plot thickens: as reported by Vermont’s journalistic dynamo, VTDigger, Burlington College was burglarized in July 2016, two months after it permanently closed up shop.  Among the items stolen were computers, external hard drives, and the college’s main computer server.  Interestingly, the police reported no sign of forced entry.  While the Burlington Police Department conducted an investigation and had a suspect, he was eventually released based on a “lack of evidence,” and the investigation was closed.  Former school officials suspect that it was an “inside job.”

I think it’s time we gave this thing a name.  Since journalists enjoy attaching the suffix “-gate” to political scandals, how about Orphanagegate?  Okay, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue and might be a little too oblique a reference.  Burlingtongate?  Meh.  I think I’ve got it.  Berniegate!  After all, as we’ve seen, Bernie himself may now be tied to the growing conflagration involving Burlington College.

There are so many ways to go with this story, as it raises so many ghosts of Democrat scandals past.  The wife of the Democrats’ new socialist standard-bearer, who demanded free college for all in his presidential campaign, destroyed the college she ran with insurmountable debt.  Like Obamacare, her deal promised much but ended up savaging those it was supposed to help.  The alleged loan document fraud over a land purchase reminds us of the Clintons’ Whitewater land deals.  If Bernie did press the bank to issue the loan, one can’t help but remember the politicians who pressed banks to issue subprime mortgages to unqualified borrowers, which crashed the market in 2008.  And of course, there are the stolen Burlington College computers and server.  Does anyone know of Hillary Clinton’s whereabouts in July 2016?

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently, he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)



Source link

New Evidence Bolsters Probability that Hillary Clinton Was Hacked


We the American people were told repeatedly by Hillary Clinton and her proxies during the endless 2016 presidential election that her brazen use of a personal, unsecure email server to traffic some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets was not a problem, because her email system was never hacked. But was this really the case?  I believe emails divulged by Judicial Watch suggest that her computer may well have been compromised by hostile actors.

FBI Director James Comey told us in his extraordinary July 5, 2016 statement to the media announcing his decision not to seek Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution for her email set-up: “With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.”

Mrs. Clinton herself told us on October 9, 2016 in the second presidential debate against Donald Trump: “After a yearlong investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and no evidence that anyone can point to at all; anyone who says otherwise has no basis.”

I believe Judicial Watch may have unearthed the “smoking gun” revealing just such a compromise, or at least an attempt to hack Mrs. Clinton’s system.  At the very least, I believe this finding should have been investigated by federal authorities if they were aware of it. If they were not aware of it, or were aware, but have not investigated it to date, they should do so now.

The discovery of this information and its possible significance requires some explanation.

In the fourteenth production of Huma Abedin’s emails transmitted from her clintonemail.com account that Judicial Watch obtained as a result of litigation against the State Department, on Page 287, we see a very interesting email exchange occurring between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton on November 20, 2009. Mrs. Clinton had received an email from someone she clearly did not know, named Jonathan Weston. His signature block in his email to Mrs. Clinton indicated that he was a Congressional Liaison Coordinator with something called the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, based in Washington, DC. The email bears a subject line which should raise the hack antennae of anyone who has been using a computer for more than a week: “I Thought You Might Enjoy This.”

The body of Mr. Weston’s email (or whoever sent the email over his name) is fairly sophisticated. It is six paragraphs long, addressed to “Dear Colleagues,” and describes the contents of a report produced by Mr. Weston’s organization on Chinese economic policy.

There are three potentially alarming aspects to this email exchange.

First, the writer, Mr. Weston, indicates that there is a file attached to the email. The file is supposed to be the report produced by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission described in the email. Files attached to emails are notorious for containing viruses.

Second, Mrs. Clinton forwarded the email on to Ms. Abedin, with the note: “Pls print. And who is he?” This off-hand comment reveals that Mrs. Clinton, the US Secretary of State and one of the most powerful people in the world, whose communications would be coveted by foreign intelligence services, is receiving an email from someone she doesn’t know on a personal email account presumably known only by a select group of family, friends and confidantes. It also implies, given her direction to Ms. Abedin to print the message, that she was interested in its content and may have clicked on the attached file.

Third – and here’s our Sherlock Holmesian “There you have it, Watson!” moment – when the email hit Ms. Abedin’s computer, her antivirus program added the prefix “*** VIRUS ***” to the subject line of the email.

But this is no laughing matter.

In a search of the State Department’s “Virtual Reading Room,” where it posts documents that it has released through FOIA requests, to see if this email exchange had been published by the State Department before Judicial Watch received it, I discovered that it had, but the version previously published by the State Department was apparently obtained from Hillary Clinton’s computer records, not Ms. Abedin’s. The State Department’s previously released version did not contain the virus warning. This suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s computer did not have an anti-virus program, or at least not one able to detect that this email from Mr. Weston contained a virus. Ms. Abedin’s computer, however, did have an anti-virus program and did detect the virus, based on the VIRUS warning in the subject line after Mrs. Clinton forwarded it to Ms. Abedin.

Did Mrs. Clinton click on the file the email contained, thereby possibly introducing a virus into her computer? Was Mrs. Clinton’s computer thereby compromised by a malevolent actor? Has the FBI seen this email exchange and questioned Mr. Weston about it? Did they ask Mrs. Clinton if she clicked on the attachment that was in this email?

Jonathan Weston does exist, and he did work for a real think tank in Washington, DC called the US-China Economic and Security Commission from October 2009 to March 2013, according to his LinkedIn profile. Interestingly, Mr. Weston’s own organization, the US-China Economic and Security Commission, was revealed in 2012 to have been the target of a major cyber-attack, reportedly emanating from India. In a 2012 Reuters article discussing the attack, in an irony of ironies, Mr. Weston — listed as a “spokesman” for the organization — was quoted about the impact of the attack on his employer.

We know from the Wikileaks disclosures of John Podesta’s emails and those of other Democratic National Committee employees that he and his staff were the victim of a spearphishing attack, which IT specialists have claimed the Russians perpetrated.  According to an IT specialist whom I consulted, the email Mrs. Clinton received from Mr. Weston also bears the hallmarks of a spearphishing attack.

As former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, has laid out in typically brilliant fashion in National Review, Mrs. Clinton could, and should, have been criminally charged for her egregious violations of law with regard to the handling of classified national security information. He makes this charge notwithstanding a recent epic apologia of FBI Director James Comey’s dereliction found in the New York Times. As Mr. McCarthy points out in NR, Mrs. Clinton’s use of an unsecure email system during her tenure as secretary of state “almost certainly caused the compromise of government secrets to foreign intelligence services.”

In a sane world, it would seem that federal investigators should try to learn if in fact Mr. Weston’s email was the source of a virus, and whether Mrs. Clinton clicked on a virus-laden file. But in a sane world, she would have already been charged.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private and non-profit sectors for over 30 years. Presently he is a Senior Investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)

We the American people were told repeatedly by Hillary Clinton and her proxies during the endless 2016 presidential election that her brazen use of a personal, unsecure email server to traffic some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets was not a problem, because her email system was never hacked. But was this really the case?  I believe emails divulged by Judicial Watch suggest that her computer may well have been compromised by hostile actors.

FBI Director James Comey told us in his extraordinary July 5, 2016 statement to the media announcing his decision not to seek Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution for her email set-up: “With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.”

Mrs. Clinton herself told us on October 9, 2016 in the second presidential debate against Donald Trump: “After a yearlong investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and no evidence that anyone can point to at all; anyone who says otherwise has no basis.”

I believe Judicial Watch may have unearthed the “smoking gun” revealing just such a compromise, or at least an attempt to hack Mrs. Clinton’s system.  At the very least, I believe this finding should have been investigated by federal authorities if they were aware of it. If they were not aware of it, or were aware, but have not investigated it to date, they should do so now.

The discovery of this information and its possible significance requires some explanation.

In the fourteenth production of Huma Abedin’s emails transmitted from her clintonemail.com account that Judicial Watch obtained as a result of litigation against the State Department, on Page 287, we see a very interesting email exchange occurring between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton on November 20, 2009. Mrs. Clinton had received an email from someone she clearly did not know, named Jonathan Weston. His signature block in his email to Mrs. Clinton indicated that he was a Congressional Liaison Coordinator with something called the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, based in Washington, DC. The email bears a subject line which should raise the hack antennae of anyone who has been using a computer for more than a week: “I Thought You Might Enjoy This.”

The body of Mr. Weston’s email (or whoever sent the email over his name) is fairly sophisticated. It is six paragraphs long, addressed to “Dear Colleagues,” and describes the contents of a report produced by Mr. Weston’s organization on Chinese economic policy.

There are three potentially alarming aspects to this email exchange.

First, the writer, Mr. Weston, indicates that there is a file attached to the email. The file is supposed to be the report produced by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission described in the email. Files attached to emails are notorious for containing viruses.

Second, Mrs. Clinton forwarded the email on to Ms. Abedin, with the note: “Pls print. And who is he?” This off-hand comment reveals that Mrs. Clinton, the US Secretary of State and one of the most powerful people in the world, whose communications would be coveted by foreign intelligence services, is receiving an email from someone she doesn’t know on a personal email account presumably known only by a select group of family, friends and confidantes. It also implies, given her direction to Ms. Abedin to print the message, that she was interested in its content and may have clicked on the attached file.

Third – and here’s our Sherlock Holmesian “There you have it, Watson!” moment – when the email hit Ms. Abedin’s computer, her antivirus program added the prefix “*** VIRUS ***” to the subject line of the email.

But this is no laughing matter.

In a search of the State Department’s “Virtual Reading Room,” where it posts documents that it has released through FOIA requests, to see if this email exchange had been published by the State Department before Judicial Watch received it, I discovered that it had, but the version previously published by the State Department was apparently obtained from Hillary Clinton’s computer records, not Ms. Abedin’s. The State Department’s previously released version did not contain the virus warning. This suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s computer did not have an anti-virus program, or at least not one able to detect that this email from Mr. Weston contained a virus. Ms. Abedin’s computer, however, did have an anti-virus program and did detect the virus, based on the VIRUS warning in the subject line after Mrs. Clinton forwarded it to Ms. Abedin.

Did Mrs. Clinton click on the file the email contained, thereby possibly introducing a virus into her computer? Was Mrs. Clinton’s computer thereby compromised by a malevolent actor? Has the FBI seen this email exchange and questioned Mr. Weston about it? Did they ask Mrs. Clinton if she clicked on the attachment that was in this email?

Jonathan Weston does exist, and he did work for a real think tank in Washington, DC called the US-China Economic and Security Commission from October 2009 to March 2013, according to his LinkedIn profile. Interestingly, Mr. Weston’s own organization, the US-China Economic and Security Commission, was revealed in 2012 to have been the target of a major cyber-attack, reportedly emanating from India. In a 2012 Reuters article discussing the attack, in an irony of ironies, Mr. Weston — listed as a “spokesman” for the organization — was quoted about the impact of the attack on his employer.

We know from the Wikileaks disclosures of John Podesta’s emails and those of other Democratic National Committee employees that he and his staff were the victim of a spearphishing attack, which IT specialists have claimed the Russians perpetrated.  According to an IT specialist whom I consulted, the email Mrs. Clinton received from Mr. Weston also bears the hallmarks of a spearphishing attack.

As former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, has laid out in typically brilliant fashion in National Review, Mrs. Clinton could, and should, have been criminally charged for her egregious violations of law with regard to the handling of classified national security information. He makes this charge notwithstanding a recent epic apologia of FBI Director James Comey’s dereliction found in the New York Times. As Mr. McCarthy points out in NR, Mrs. Clinton’s use of an unsecure email system during her tenure as secretary of state “almost certainly caused the compromise of government secrets to foreign intelligence services.”

In a sane world, it would seem that federal investigators should try to learn if in fact Mr. Weston’s email was the source of a virus, and whether Mrs. Clinton clicked on a virus-laden file. But in a sane world, she would have already been charged.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private and non-profit sectors for over 30 years. Presently he is a Senior Investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

The Soros-Obama Axis of Chaos


Ronald Reagan must be grimacing in heaven as he witnesses America fund the very forces in Europe he labored to defeat. In Macedonia, a beacon of conservatism in a heavily liberal Europe, U.S. taxpayer dollars are bankrolling a multitude of George Soros’ chaos-creating leftist organizations to oppose and ultimately defeat the pro-American, center-right government there, known by the acronym VMRO-DPMNE (pronounced “VOOM-row”). We have Barack Obama and his ambassadorial minion, Jess Baily, to thank for this turn of events. We should pay careful attention to Soros’s activities in Macedonia, for they serve as a useful case study in the methods he uses to sow discord throughout the world, including in the United States.

Through a U.S. Agency for International Development program called the Civil Society Project, the U.S. government funneled nearly $5 million to Soros-backed groups in Macedonia between 2012 and 2016. Just prior to the U.S. presidential election in 2016, the CSP program in Macedonia was extended from 2017 to 2021 and its funding increased to $9.5 million.

A little recent history on Macedonia reveals how remarkable is the shift in direction that has occurred in the diminutive country during the Obama years. Macedonia had been part of the formerly Communist Yugoslavia. Following the Reagan-promoted dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, its ally, Yugoslavia, completely unraveled. In its wake, Macedonia, Yugoslavia’s southernmost republic, achieved peaceful independence.

About a quarter of Macedonia’s population consists of Albanian Muslims. Two-thirds of its people are ethnic Macedonians, mostly of Orthodox Christian Slavic background, and about 10 percent are of smaller communities. Although not impacted by the Balkan conflict of the early 1990s, Macedonia was affected by the Kosovo War of 1999, with over 350,000 Albanian Muslims seeking refuge in Macedonia. With the urging of Albanians in Albania and Kosovo, the Albanian Muslim community in Macedonia launched an armed insurgency in 2001, attacking the Macedonian police and army, thus enflaming ethnic strife in the country. During the conflict, many Macedonian churches were destroyed or damaged by the Albanian insurgents. NATO intervened, however, and brought a peaceful resolution to the conflict, convincing the Albanians to disarm and cease their efforts to break away.

Under its conservative government, since gaining independence Macedonia has done remarkably well in throwing off the yoke of socialism, pursuing market-oriented reforms, and creating a modern, pluralistic democracy. The World Bank ranks Macedonia 10th in the world for doing business. Individual and corporate taxes in Macedonia are a flat 10 percent. Total public debt runs 38.6 percent of GDP. Compare that to the United States, with total public debt running 105.8 percent of GDP, individual tax rates as high as 39.6 percent and a corporate rate of 35 percent. Macedonia has also enjoyed a steady, relatively strong GDP growth rate averaging 3.26 percent between 2004-2016.

Macedonia’s government has also been closely aligned with traditional U.S. interests. It is a close friend of Israel. Unlike most other countries of Old Europe, it recognized the dangers of unfettered Middle East/North African immigration during the 2016 refugee surge, and built a fence along its southern border. It sent troops to serve alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Macedonia’s capital, Skopje, even has a street named after Ronald Reagan and airs pro-life public service television ads.

Macedonia accomplished much of its steady growth and transformation into a free-market, business-friendly, pro-Western country through nonideological U.S. assistance channeled through USAID, which sent Macedonia anywhere between $11 million to $63 million per year since 2001, according to USAID data.

That is, it was nonideological until George Soros and Barack Obama entered the picture. Beginning in 2012, that financial support turned very ideological. The Obama administration began funneling U.S. aid that year to numerous George Soros-created Macedonian entities whose mothership was something called Foundation Open Society — Macedonia. The FOSM-affiliated subentities receiving U.S. tax dollars through USAID’s Civil Society Project are also closely tied to the main opposition political party in Macedonia, the country’s former Communists, now called SDSM. They have innocuous-sounding names, like Youth Educational Forum, Center for Civic Communication, and Reactor-Research in Action.

Yet beginning in 2015, these organizations’ methods of operation were anything but innocuous: protests by masked youths, rock-throwing at police officers, smashing windows of buildings, burning down government offices and other destruction of public property. Protesters proudly wear “Soros Army” t-shirts. They have translated Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals into Macedonian. The leader of this so-called “Colorful Revolution,” Pavle Bogoevski, a prominent LGBT activist, is a member of the NGO Forum, which is funded by both Soros and USAID. He was elected a member of parliament on the SDSM party ticket, illustrating the ties between the leftist opposition party and the Soros/USAID-backed groups.

If the tactics of protest and mayhem above sound familiar, they should.  Following the massive destruction inflicted on Baltimore by Black Lives Matter in 2015 associated with the death of Freddy Gray, Soros’s organization, Open Society Institute, donated $650,000 to BLM. And Soros’s organizing mass demonstrations to oppose a conservative government is also something we’ve seen close to home. According to no less an authority than the New York Times, Soros funded 50 “partner” organizations to protest the election of Donald Trump in the “Women’s March on Washington.” Other countries in which Soros is funding massive, often violent, leftist turmoil against right-leaning governments include Albania, Israel, and Hungary.

Soros’s organizations in Macedonia, numbering perhaps as high as 61, are working now to align the forces of leftist mayhem with the historically volatile Albanian Muslim community of Macedonia, to wage a combined frontal assault on the conservative government. According to an American Spectator report, whose author consulted U.S. and Macedonian-based conservative analysts, “Our [American] foreign policy has destabilized the country and promoted Islamic extremism.”

In a conversation with me, senior Macedonian officials advised that the entire contingent of personnel at the U.S. mission in Skopje, from the ambassador on down, are hardcore leftists in the mold of Obama/Soros and are hell-bent on bringing down Macedonia’s conservative government.

To their credit, various outstanding members of Congress are investigating the U.S. aid going to these organizations. As the congressmen detail in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Mission to Macedonia “has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia.” Such partisan activities by U.S. officials violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which imposes on U.S. diplomats “a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs” of foreign countries.

Judicial Watch has also launched an intensive investigation into the matter. In the meantime, the Trump administration should recall Ambassador Baily. It should institute a wholesale housecleaning of the U.S. mission in Skopje and stop funding the organizations of the proud, admitted former Nazi collaborator, George Soros. Let’s return the smile to Ronald Reagan’s face and help Macedonia continue its recovery from its Communist nightmare.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private and non-profit sectors for over 30 years. Presently he is a Senior Investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)

Ronald Reagan must be grimacing in heaven as he witnesses America fund the very forces in Europe he labored to defeat. In Macedonia, a beacon of conservatism in a heavily liberal Europe, U.S. taxpayer dollars are bankrolling a multitude of George Soros’ chaos-creating leftist organizations to oppose and ultimately defeat the pro-American, center-right government there, known by the acronym VMRO-DPMNE (pronounced “VOOM-row”). We have Barack Obama and his ambassadorial minion, Jess Baily, to thank for this turn of events. We should pay careful attention to Soros’s activities in Macedonia, for they serve as a useful case study in the methods he uses to sow discord throughout the world, including in the United States.

Through a U.S. Agency for International Development program called the Civil Society Project, the U.S. government funneled nearly $5 million to Soros-backed groups in Macedonia between 2012 and 2016. Just prior to the U.S. presidential election in 2016, the CSP program in Macedonia was extended from 2017 to 2021 and its funding increased to $9.5 million.

A little recent history on Macedonia reveals how remarkable is the shift in direction that has occurred in the diminutive country during the Obama years. Macedonia had been part of the formerly Communist Yugoslavia. Following the Reagan-promoted dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, its ally, Yugoslavia, completely unraveled. In its wake, Macedonia, Yugoslavia’s southernmost republic, achieved peaceful independence.

About a quarter of Macedonia’s population consists of Albanian Muslims. Two-thirds of its people are ethnic Macedonians, mostly of Orthodox Christian Slavic background, and about 10 percent are of smaller communities. Although not impacted by the Balkan conflict of the early 1990s, Macedonia was affected by the Kosovo War of 1999, with over 350,000 Albanian Muslims seeking refuge in Macedonia. With the urging of Albanians in Albania and Kosovo, the Albanian Muslim community in Macedonia launched an armed insurgency in 2001, attacking the Macedonian police and army, thus enflaming ethnic strife in the country. During the conflict, many Macedonian churches were destroyed or damaged by the Albanian insurgents. NATO intervened, however, and brought a peaceful resolution to the conflict, convincing the Albanians to disarm and cease their efforts to break away.

Under its conservative government, since gaining independence Macedonia has done remarkably well in throwing off the yoke of socialism, pursuing market-oriented reforms, and creating a modern, pluralistic democracy. The World Bank ranks Macedonia 10th in the world for doing business. Individual and corporate taxes in Macedonia are a flat 10 percent. Total public debt runs 38.6 percent of GDP. Compare that to the United States, with total public debt running 105.8 percent of GDP, individual tax rates as high as 39.6 percent and a corporate rate of 35 percent. Macedonia has also enjoyed a steady, relatively strong GDP growth rate averaging 3.26 percent between 2004-2016.

Macedonia’s government has also been closely aligned with traditional U.S. interests. It is a close friend of Israel. Unlike most other countries of Old Europe, it recognized the dangers of unfettered Middle East/North African immigration during the 2016 refugee surge, and built a fence along its southern border. It sent troops to serve alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Macedonia’s capital, Skopje, even has a street named after Ronald Reagan and airs pro-life public service television ads.

Macedonia accomplished much of its steady growth and transformation into a free-market, business-friendly, pro-Western country through nonideological U.S. assistance channeled through USAID, which sent Macedonia anywhere between $11 million to $63 million per year since 2001, according to USAID data.

That is, it was nonideological until George Soros and Barack Obama entered the picture. Beginning in 2012, that financial support turned very ideological. The Obama administration began funneling U.S. aid that year to numerous George Soros-created Macedonian entities whose mothership was something called Foundation Open Society — Macedonia. The FOSM-affiliated subentities receiving U.S. tax dollars through USAID’s Civil Society Project are also closely tied to the main opposition political party in Macedonia, the country’s former Communists, now called SDSM. They have innocuous-sounding names, like Youth Educational Forum, Center for Civic Communication, and Reactor-Research in Action.

Yet beginning in 2015, these organizations’ methods of operation were anything but innocuous: protests by masked youths, rock-throwing at police officers, smashing windows of buildings, burning down government offices and other destruction of public property. Protesters proudly wear “Soros Army” t-shirts. They have translated Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals into Macedonian. The leader of this so-called “Colorful Revolution,” Pavle Bogoevski, a prominent LGBT activist, is a member of the NGO Forum, which is funded by both Soros and USAID. He was elected a member of parliament on the SDSM party ticket, illustrating the ties between the leftist opposition party and the Soros/USAID-backed groups.

If the tactics of protest and mayhem above sound familiar, they should.  Following the massive destruction inflicted on Baltimore by Black Lives Matter in 2015 associated with the death of Freddy Gray, Soros’s organization, Open Society Institute, donated $650,000 to BLM. And Soros’s organizing mass demonstrations to oppose a conservative government is also something we’ve seen close to home. According to no less an authority than the New York Times, Soros funded 50 “partner” organizations to protest the election of Donald Trump in the “Women’s March on Washington.” Other countries in which Soros is funding massive, often violent, leftist turmoil against right-leaning governments include Albania, Israel, and Hungary.

Soros’s organizations in Macedonia, numbering perhaps as high as 61, are working now to align the forces of leftist mayhem with the historically volatile Albanian Muslim community of Macedonia, to wage a combined frontal assault on the conservative government. According to an American Spectator report, whose author consulted U.S. and Macedonian-based conservative analysts, “Our [American] foreign policy has destabilized the country and promoted Islamic extremism.”

In a conversation with me, senior Macedonian officials advised that the entire contingent of personnel at the U.S. mission in Skopje, from the ambassador on down, are hardcore leftists in the mold of Obama/Soros and are hell-bent on bringing down Macedonia’s conservative government.

To their credit, various outstanding members of Congress are investigating the U.S. aid going to these organizations. As the congressmen detail in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Mission to Macedonia “has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia.” Such partisan activities by U.S. officials violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which imposes on U.S. diplomats “a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs” of foreign countries.

Judicial Watch has also launched an intensive investigation into the matter. In the meantime, the Trump administration should recall Ambassador Baily. It should institute a wholesale housecleaning of the U.S. mission in Skopje and stop funding the organizations of the proud, admitted former Nazi collaborator, George Soros. Let’s return the smile to Ronald Reagan’s face and help Macedonia continue its recovery from its Communist nightmare.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private and non-profit sectors for over 30 years. Presently he is a Senior Investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc. (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Where Is the Left's Cognitive Dissonance?


Merriam-Webster defines cognitive dissonance as “psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful).”  Given all the hypocritical stances taken by liberals these days, one might expect to see them quivering uncontrollably with dissonance-related tremors, or at least losing a lot of sleep.  But I can’t say I’ve seen any signs that liberals are very troubled.

A few examples of their contradictory positions will serve to make my point.

In the March 6 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “above the fold” on page A8 was a story entitled “Iraqis Tell of Brutal Islamic State Tactics.”  The article is illustrated with a picture of a terrified Iraqi man carrying his daughter while running down a war-scarred street in his stockinged feet in Mosul.  It is the sort of image that won photojournalists Pulitzer Prizes during the Vietnam War.

The story goes on to describe the atrocities perpetrated on the residents of Mosul by their Islamic State occupiers.  ISIS members planted a bomb outside one 76-year-old man’s doorway, in hopes of blowing up Iraqi troops as they advanced into the city – only the bomb blew up the elderly man’s wife instead, when she tripped it going to milk the family cow.  They park explosives-laden cars near civilians’ homes to deter air strikes.  Lately, ISIS has taken to using chemical weapons and drone-dropped bombs on civilians.  These are the tactics employed by fanatical adherents to Islam against their co-religionists.

Now, immediately beneath that article is one entitled “Same-Sex Parents in Italy Are Left in a Legal Limbo.”  That story is accompanied by a photo of two lesbian women with several children in tow being congratulated by former mayor of Rome Ignazio Marino.  The two women were beneficiaries of a ruling by an Italian court to allow each to adopt the other’s offspring.  The article goes on to describe the “confusion” these days in the once deeply Catholic, tradition-bound land of historic monasteries and papacies from the disparate rulings of judges regarding the adoption of children by same-sex couples.  All of this, we are told, is a result of legislation that was rushed to enactment in 2016 to pave the way for civil unions.  The law left out provisions for the custody of children in such unions so as not to create polarization.

My point here is not to consider the merits of same-sex unions, or even the merits of a blood-soaked, seemingly psychotic seventh-century totalitarian ideology claiming to be a religion.

Rather, the stories illustrate two worldviews pretty much as oppositional as they could be.  After all, we can easily envision what those Islamists using drones to drop hand grenades willy-nilly on non-combatant fellow Muslims in Mosul would do to those two Italian women celebrating their newly acquired rights to claim parentage of each other’s children.  Islam is pretty clear on its view of homosexuality, and the people running ISIS send videos of their atrocities against gays across the internet to make sure we all get their point.

Yet Europeans of the left, Italians among them, have been the primary driver in welcoming refugees from lands dominated by the “Religion of Peace” to their shores.

According to a report by Pew Research, Italy was set to surpass Greece in late 2016 as “Europe’s new focal point for refugee flows.”  Eighty-five percent of the refugees who arrived in Italy last year, the story continues, were from African countries “such as Nigeria, Eritrea and Sudan.”  Those would be predominantly Muslim countries.  Italy accepted over 170,000 such refugees last year.

One might think those of the leftish bent who simultaneously pushed for Italy to become, as the Journal noted, “one of the last [countries] in Europe to approve civil unions for gay couples” might be a little squeamish about welcoming onto the Boot hordes of folks whose core belief system calls for the slaughter of homosexuals.  As the estimable Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid helpfully explains at his handy Islam Question and Answer website, Islamic scholars disagree a bit on the exact manner of disposing of LGBT community members, but the options can include stoning, throwing from a high place, and burning with fire.  (There is nothing quite like academics quibbling over execution methodology to raise the hair on the back of your neck.)  Regardless of manner, the end result is the same.  Or, as Shaykh al-Munajjid writes: “The Sahaabah [i.e., companions of Prophet Muhammad] were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed.”

This sort of liberal hypocrisy manifests itself in other ways as well.  To take Merriam-Webster’s example a step farther, leftists in the United States have been pushing everywhere and anywhere to legalize marijuana use.  Yet I seem to recall in the not too distant past that leftists were trying with convert-like zeal to destroy the tobacco industry for profiting from its evil cancer-producing “nicotine delivery systems.”  They waged a war on the tobacconists that would have made Genghis Khan proud.  Yet now they say, “Smoke away on those doobies.”  What happened to all their moral preening?  While I don’t recall much from DEA intelligence school a couple decades ago, I do distinctly remember that the chemicals in marijuana are far more carcinogenic and lethal than those in tobacco.

Then there is the issue of waterboarding.  Leftists in the U.S. and around the world caterwauled endlessly during the Bush administration about the “torture” it inflicted on precisely three members of the aforementioned Religion of Peace crowd.  At least these jihadis survived their treatment at the hands of America’s defenders.  That can’t be said of those thousands President Obama blasted to smithereens with drone and other air strikes.  According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, President Obama ordered ten times as many such strikes as did President Bush.  Now, I’m not judging Mr. Obama’s decisions in this regard.  I only mention it to point out that so many of those Democrats who decried President Bush’s “torture” of a few jihadis with a water spritz up the nose were quiet as mice when their man sent many more of the same bad guys (and not a small number of civilian bystanders) to Paradise on the Hellfire Express.

So where are the signs of liberals’ cognitive dissonance?  I’m not sure, but I think the same psychological processes that produce this condition may explain why liberals in my experience have always lacked a sense of irony.  Both require a basic lack of self-awareness.  I am not a doctor and don’t play one on TV or elsewhere, but maybe a real one would find it worthy of a serious academic study.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)

Merriam-Webster defines cognitive dissonance as “psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful).”  Given all the hypocritical stances taken by liberals these days, one might expect to see them quivering uncontrollably with dissonance-related tremors, or at least losing a lot of sleep.  But I can’t say I’ve seen any signs that liberals are very troubled.

A few examples of their contradictory positions will serve to make my point.

In the March 6 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “above the fold” on page A8 was a story entitled “Iraqis Tell of Brutal Islamic State Tactics.”  The article is illustrated with a picture of a terrified Iraqi man carrying his daughter while running down a war-scarred street in his stockinged feet in Mosul.  It is the sort of image that won photojournalists Pulitzer Prizes during the Vietnam War.

The story goes on to describe the atrocities perpetrated on the residents of Mosul by their Islamic State occupiers.  ISIS members planted a bomb outside one 76-year-old man’s doorway, in hopes of blowing up Iraqi troops as they advanced into the city – only the bomb blew up the elderly man’s wife instead, when she tripped it going to milk the family cow.  They park explosives-laden cars near civilians’ homes to deter air strikes.  Lately, ISIS has taken to using chemical weapons and drone-dropped bombs on civilians.  These are the tactics employed by fanatical adherents to Islam against their co-religionists.

Now, immediately beneath that article is one entitled “Same-Sex Parents in Italy Are Left in a Legal Limbo.”  That story is accompanied by a photo of two lesbian women with several children in tow being congratulated by former mayor of Rome Ignazio Marino.  The two women were beneficiaries of a ruling by an Italian court to allow each to adopt the other’s offspring.  The article goes on to describe the “confusion” these days in the once deeply Catholic, tradition-bound land of historic monasteries and papacies from the disparate rulings of judges regarding the adoption of children by same-sex couples.  All of this, we are told, is a result of legislation that was rushed to enactment in 2016 to pave the way for civil unions.  The law left out provisions for the custody of children in such unions so as not to create polarization.

My point here is not to consider the merits of same-sex unions, or even the merits of a blood-soaked, seemingly psychotic seventh-century totalitarian ideology claiming to be a religion.

Rather, the stories illustrate two worldviews pretty much as oppositional as they could be.  After all, we can easily envision what those Islamists using drones to drop hand grenades willy-nilly on non-combatant fellow Muslims in Mosul would do to those two Italian women celebrating their newly acquired rights to claim parentage of each other’s children.  Islam is pretty clear on its view of homosexuality, and the people running ISIS send videos of their atrocities against gays across the internet to make sure we all get their point.

Yet Europeans of the left, Italians among them, have been the primary driver in welcoming refugees from lands dominated by the “Religion of Peace” to their shores.

According to a report by Pew Research, Italy was set to surpass Greece in late 2016 as “Europe’s new focal point for refugee flows.”  Eighty-five percent of the refugees who arrived in Italy last year, the story continues, were from African countries “such as Nigeria, Eritrea and Sudan.”  Those would be predominantly Muslim countries.  Italy accepted over 170,000 such refugees last year.

One might think those of the leftish bent who simultaneously pushed for Italy to become, as the Journal noted, “one of the last [countries] in Europe to approve civil unions for gay couples” might be a little squeamish about welcoming onto the Boot hordes of folks whose core belief system calls for the slaughter of homosexuals.  As the estimable Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid helpfully explains at his handy Islam Question and Answer website, Islamic scholars disagree a bit on the exact manner of disposing of LGBT community members, but the options can include stoning, throwing from a high place, and burning with fire.  (There is nothing quite like academics quibbling over execution methodology to raise the hair on the back of your neck.)  Regardless of manner, the end result is the same.  Or, as Shaykh al-Munajjid writes: “The Sahaabah [i.e., companions of Prophet Muhammad] were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed.”

This sort of liberal hypocrisy manifests itself in other ways as well.  To take Merriam-Webster’s example a step farther, leftists in the United States have been pushing everywhere and anywhere to legalize marijuana use.  Yet I seem to recall in the not too distant past that leftists were trying with convert-like zeal to destroy the tobacco industry for profiting from its evil cancer-producing “nicotine delivery systems.”  They waged a war on the tobacconists that would have made Genghis Khan proud.  Yet now they say, “Smoke away on those doobies.”  What happened to all their moral preening?  While I don’t recall much from DEA intelligence school a couple decades ago, I do distinctly remember that the chemicals in marijuana are far more carcinogenic and lethal than those in tobacco.

Then there is the issue of waterboarding.  Leftists in the U.S. and around the world caterwauled endlessly during the Bush administration about the “torture” it inflicted on precisely three members of the aforementioned Religion of Peace crowd.  At least these jihadis survived their treatment at the hands of America’s defenders.  That can’t be said of those thousands President Obama blasted to smithereens with drone and other air strikes.  According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, President Obama ordered ten times as many such strikes as did President Bush.  Now, I’m not judging Mr. Obama’s decisions in this regard.  I only mention it to point out that so many of those Democrats who decried President Bush’s “torture” of a few jihadis with a water spritz up the nose were quiet as mice when their man sent many more of the same bad guys (and not a small number of civilian bystanders) to Paradise on the Hellfire Express.

So where are the signs of liberals’ cognitive dissonance?  I’m not sure, but I think the same psychological processes that produce this condition may explain why liberals in my experience have always lacked a sense of irony.  Both require a basic lack of self-awareness.  I am not a doctor and don’t play one on TV or elsewhere, but maybe a real one would find it worthy of a serious academic study.

William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for over 30 years.  Presently he is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc.  (The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.)



Source link