Dueling New Books on Clinton Candidacy

Washington Post, Trump swam in mob-infested waters in early years as a developer in New York, Robert O'Harrow Jr., Oct. 16, 2015. Donald Trump was never accused of illegality, and observers of the time say that working with mob-related figures and politicos came with the territory. As billionaire developer Donald Trump became the toast of New York in the 1980s, he often attributed his rise to salesmanship and verve. “Deals are my art form,” he wrote. But there is another aspect to his success that he doesn’t often discuss. Throughout his early career, Trump routinely gave large campaign contributions to politicians who held sway over his projects and he worked with mob-controlled companies and unions to build them. A Washington Post review of court records, testimony by Trump and other accounts that have been out of the public eye for decades offers insights into his rise. He was never accused of illegality, and observers of the time say that working with the mob-related figures and politicos came with the territory. Trump declined repeated requests to comment.

Politico, Lawyer: Benghazi Defendant Slower To Get Info Than FOIA Requesters, Josh Gerstein, Oct. 16, 2015. A lawyer for a Libyan man charged with being a ringleader of the deadly 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi complained Friday that the government is turning over information about the attack in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits before providing it to the defense in the criminal case. The claim came at a court hearing in Washington Friday for Libyan national Ahmed Abu Khatallah, who is facing a slew of terrorism and murder charges in connection with the assault that claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. "We still are able to find on the internet documents related to Benghazi" that have not been produced to the defense, assistant federal defender Mary Petras told U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper. She said the records had been turned over by the executive branch to groups like Judicial Watch or to Congress, while at least one U.S. government agency involved had yet to provide any information to the defense.

Truthout,The US Could End Saudi War Crimes in Yemen; It Just Doesn't Want To, Gareth Porter, Oct. 15, 2015. The Saudi-led coalition is guilty of systematic war crimes in Yemen, and the US bears legal responsibility because of the use of arms purchased from the United States, an Amnesty International report charged in early October. But although the Obama administration is not happy with the Saudi war and has tremendous leverage over the Saudis, it has demonstrated over the past several weeks that it is unwilling to use its leverage to force an end to the war. And it now appears that the administration is poised to resupply the munitions used by the Saudis in committing war crimes in Yemen. The October 6 Amnesty report documented an openly declared Saudi policy of deliberately targeting two Yemeni cities for air attacks in violation of the laws of war. It also documented US liability for the war crimes committed in the air war against Yemen.

Antiwar.com, Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law? Bernie Sanders thinks so, Justin Raimondo, Oct. 15, 2015. What did we learn from the Democratic presidential debates? We learned that Hillary Clinton hates Edward Snowden, loves the Patriot Act, and considers “the Iranians” among her biggest enemies. In short, we learned that she may very well be Lindsey Graham in drag. And we also learned what many already knew: that she considers herself above the law. What we didn’t know, however, but do now, is that Bernie Sanders agrees with her. To begin with, it is not true that the American people don’t care about this issue: a whopping 58 percent tell pollsters that Mrs. Clinton “knowingly lied” when she said there was no classified information on her private email server.

Aside from the whole issue of the rule of law, and the Clintonian view that it doesn’t apply to Hillary, the issue here is one of transparency vs. secrecy. A government whose officials operate in the shadows, and conduct the people’s business off-the-record, is a rogue operation. And one has to ask: why was this elaborate private server system set up the day she took over the State Department? The answer can only be that the then Secretary of State believed she had something to hide.


Washington Post, 7 mistakes in Bill O'Reilly's book about Ronald Reagan, Craig Shirley, Kiron K. Skinner, Paul Kengor and Steven F. Hayward,Oct. 16, 2015. Here's what Bill O'Reilly's new book about Ronald Reagan, "Killing Reagan," gets wrong—according to four Reagan scholars. The book Killing Reagan by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard is supposed to be a book of new scholarship on the Reagan presidency. Instead, it restates old claims and rumors, virtually all of which have been discredited by the historical record. In this best-selling book, there are no endnotes, no bibliography, no long list of interviewees and only a smattering of footnotes. There is a section titled “Sources,” but it is only two-and-a-half pages long. It includes about two dozen sources, but that is not adequate for a subject, Ronald Reagan, who has been the focus of thousands of books and articles and who was one of the most consequential political figures of the 20th century. The works of three of us are not noted at all, and between the four of us, we have written 19 books on Reagan, not to mention countless articles. The sources section does, however, reference long-questionable works, including the sensational 1991 attack by Kitty Kelley — which is clearly incorporated throughout the book — and the 1999 biography by Edmund Morris, roundly criticized for its intermingling of fact and fiction.

There are small and large mistakes throughout Killing Reagan. Repeatedly, Ronald Prescott Reagan is referred to as “Ron Jr,” a minor matter but a revealing one. The book states that Reagan’s radio broadcasts of the late 1970s were once a week, but they were delivered five times a week. There are dozens of Kelley-type references to horoscope readers, astrologers, an imperious Nancy running the country and generally a persistent, clueless and oblivious Ronald Reagan — addle-brained, out of touch, dangerously uninformed. The most common word used to describe Reagan is probably “confused.”

A large part of the storyline refers to the erroneous contention that there was serious consideration about removing Reagan from office via the 25th Amendment after John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate him in 1981. What’s so remarkable about the 11 days Reagan spent in the hospital recovering from his wounds is that beyond the standard discussion of temporary presidential disability among some of the president’s closest aides, none of these aides or cabinet members attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment or succession laws. Former Attorney General Ed Meese, who was not interviewed for this book but who served as Reagan’s closest aide and friend for many years, was dismissive of the allegation about the 25th Amendment as utterly and completely false. We four have interviewed Meese often, and some of us have talked to him about this book and its sourcing.

It speaks volumes that none of the hundreds of former Reagan White House staffers has stepped forward to corroborate the story. Reagan’s national security adviser, Richard V. Allen, told us flatly that “Killing Reagan” is “garbage.” Allen was also there the day Reagan was shot, but again, neither O’Reilly nor Dugard spoke to him. They list only four people interviewed, including Lesley Stahl — a CBS journalist who was not a primary source and who was always extremely dismissive of Reagan’s cognitive abilities.

As far as Reagan’s mental acuity, which this book presents as nose-diving very early in his presidency, only in 1994 did Reagan’s doctors at the Mayo Clinic find evidence of Alzheimer’s, six years after he left office, and they issued a statement at the time stating such. By all accounts, the hundreds of people who interacted with Reagan on a daily basis found a bright, erudite and engaged man.

Among the most scandalizing material in the book are the early sections which show Reagan to be sexually very promiscuous, a callous cad robbing young starlets of their virginity. In the book, his sexual encounters went on not only between marriages but in the early years of his marriage to Nancy — including literally as Nancy was in labor giving birth to their daughter.

In a recent interview with the Daily Caller, O’Reilly answered questions about his sources for lurid statements about Reagan’s use of women. (The book’s publisher did not respond to a request for comment for this article.)

We double-sourced everything with names. We didn’t use any blind sources at all. And it’s all in the book, in the back of the book, where it came from. Everything is there. There really wasn’t any deniability about it. You know, Nancy mentioned it to friends. Friends wrote about it. Friends put their names on it.

But there is no citation in the back of the book. If the source for that section is in the back of the book, then it could be Kitty Kelley, because these are the kind of claims she has made. The book itself does not make the source clear. This kind of shocking material must be clearly sourced.

 
 
 
 
 
Contact the author This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
 

 

Editor's Recommendations

 

Washington Post, State Dept. releases Clinton e-mails on Libya and Benghazi attacks, Karen DeYoung, May 22, 2015. The State Department on Friday released nearly 900 pages of e-mails on Libya and the Benghazi attacks from the private Hillary Clintonaccount Hillary Rodham Clinton used while she was secretary of state. The messages have been turned over to a select House committee investigating the Sept. 11-12, 2012, attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, in which the ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed. Few of the e-mails deal directly with events leading up to the attacks or their aftermath, according to those who have seen them. Many contain administrative details, press accounts, speech drafts and other information exchanged between Clinton and her senior aides. But the messages, some of which were published this week by the New York Times, capture the concerns of Clinton and other officials about the political chaos that engulfed Libya during and following the 2011 NATO air attacks that facilitated the overthrow and death of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi later that year.

Justice Integrity Project Editor's note: The Justice Integrity Project published in March a three-part series disclosing some of the more explosive emails and concerns about their suppression:

  • Arms Smuggling: The Obama-Clinton-Petraeus 'Iran-Contra' Scandal: Part I here
  • GOP Pre-Election 2012 Benghazi Plot With Petraeus? Hillary's Email, Part II here
  • Conflict of Interest In Clinton Foundation Funding? Hillary's Email, Part III here

University of the District of Columbia Clarke School of Law, Video of Code Red: Computerized Election Fraud Panel, produced by Joe Libertelli, May 22, 2015 (video: 179 mins.). On May 20, 2015, the UDC Clarke School of Law hosted a book Jonathan Simon "Code Red"talk on CODE RED: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century  by Jonathan Simon, a Boston-based attorney and co-founder and director of the Election Defense Alliance. The program was kicked off by Andrea Miller, Director of  People Demanding Action, who provided a brief history of politics and methods used to suppress votes and voters starting with slavery. She is shown at left in the photo. Simon spoke not only on the facts and history of computerized election fraud -- which he described as a "rolling coup" -- but also on the difficult challenge of maintaining optimism in the face of the massive inertia that he and other election integrity activists have faced.  He spoke of the clear need for a mass movement in protection of democracy against the forces of anti-democracy. After Simon's frank and sobering talk, Virginia Martin, Co-Election Commissioner of Columbia County, NY, described her own very positive experience, working with a Republican co-commissioner, to assure 100% hand-counted, completely transparent, observable audits of voted ballots since optical-scan voting machines were introduced in her county, providing a national model for optical-scan using jurisdictions nationwide. All three speakers then responded to numerous questions from the audience.  Of particular interest was the potential for the use of Ms. Martin's auditing technique nationally and the enormous potential to ally "traditional" groups working against voter suppression with the election integrity movement. Unfortunately, University of Pennsylvania professor and researcher Steve Freeman, author of Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count was unable to participate.

 

Roger Stone Hillary Clinton "War on Women" Cover

 David Brock book Kill the Messenger

Related News Coverage

The Atlantic, Hillary Clinton Tempts Progressives to Embrace Cheneyism, Conor Friedersdorf, Oct 8, 2015. An influential progressive writer published a blunt assessment of Hillary Clinton this week, declaring her unusually willing to transgress against civic and legal standards. “From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband's White House to running for Senate in a state she’d never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers,” Matthew Yglesias declared at Vox.com, “Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.”

He goes on to flesh out those examples and to offer still more: There was no winnable Senate race for her to enter in Illinois or Arkansas in 2000, so she ran in New York instead. Barack Obama forbade her from employing Sidney Blumenthal at the State Department, so she employed him at her family's foundation instead. Sandy Berger faced criminal penalties for destroying classified documents at the National Archives, but that didn't stop Clinton from informally employing him as an adviser on sensitive Middle East peace negotiations. She decides what she wants to do, in other words, and then she sets about finding a way to do it.

In some ways, he sees these characteristics as weaknesses: “She can't credibly portray herself as the kind of outsider who's going to clean up a broken and corrupt Washington system, because she is very much a part of that system and has been for years.”

Yet the article in question isn’t a takedown of Clinton. It is a strange endorsement of the presidential candidate. The tendencies described above demonstrate  “exactly the mentality any Democrat would need to move the needle on policy in 2017,” he writes.

He urges Democrats to support a corrupt Washington insider with an ends-justify-the-means attitude because he believes she’ll advance his preferred domestic agenda. “Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods,” he writes. “More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.”

New York Post, Hillary has long history of beating up Bill behind closed doors: book, Maureen Callahan, Oct. 4, 2015. She’s on a mission to be a softer, warmer, funnier candidate — but according to a new book, the real Hillary Clinton is so volatile and prone to violent outbursts that she terrorizes staff, Secret Service agents and even her own husband. In “The Clintons’ War On Women” (Skyhorse), out Oct. 13, political strategist Roger Stone details Hillary’s abusive behavior — dating back to the Clintons’ days in Arkansas, where Bill served as governor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock


David Brock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named David Brock, see David Brock (disambiguation).
David Brock
Born     November 2, 1962 (age 52)
Washington, D.C., United States
Education     University of California, Berkeley
Occupation     Journalist, author

David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American journalist and author who founded Media Matters for America.[1] He was a journalist during the 1990s[2] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.

In the late 1990s, Brock's views shifted significantly towards the left. In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[3]

Contents

    1 Background
    2 Shift to the left
    3 Books
    4 References
    5 External links

Background

Brock was born in Washington, D.C., and was adopted by Dorothea and Raymond Brock.[4] He has a younger sister, Regina. Brock was raised Catholic; his father held strong conservative beliefs.[4]

Brock grew up in Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, where he went to Our Lady of the Assumption School, and later attended Paramus Catholic High School in Paramus, New Jersey.[5] He then attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked as a reporter and editor for The Daily Californian, the campus newspaper, sometimes expressing conservative views. He was an intern at The Wall Street Journal. He graduated from Berkeley with a B.A. in history in 1985.

In 1986 he joined the staff of the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The Washington Times. After a stint as a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in March 1992 Brock authored a sharply critical story about Clarence Thomas's accuser, Anita Hill, in The American Spectator magazine. A little over a year later, in April 1993, Brock published a book titled The Real Anita Hill, which expanded upon previous assertions that had cast doubt on the veracity of Anita Hill's claims of sexual harassment.

The book became a best-seller. It was later attacked in a book review in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, and Jill Abramson, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The two later expanded their article into the book Strange Justice, which cast Anita Hill in a much more sympathetic light. It, too, was a best-seller. Brock replied to their book with a book review of his own in The American Spectator.

In the January 1994, issue of The American Spectator, Brock, by then on staff at the magazine, published a story about Bill Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas that made accusations that bred Troopergate.[2] Among other things, the story contained the first printed reference to Paula Jones, referring to a woman named "Paula" who state troopers said offered to be Clinton's partner.[2] Jones called Brock's account of her encounter with Clinton "totally wrong," and she later sued Clinton for sexual harassment, a case that became entangled in the independent counsel's investigation of the Whitewater controversy. The story received an award later that year from the Western Journalism Center, and was partially responsible for a rise in the 25-year-old magazine's circulation, from around 70,000 to over 300,000 in a very short period.[citation needed]
Shift to the left

Three years later, Brock surprised conservatives by publishing a somewhat sympathetic biography of Hillary Clinton, titled The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Having received a $1 million advance and a tight one-year deadline from Simon & Schuster's then-conservative-focused Free Press subsidiary, Brock was under tremendous pressure to produce another bestseller. However, the book contained no major scoops. In Blinded by the Right (2002), Brock said that he had reached a turning point: he had thoroughly examined charges against the Clintons, could not find any evidence of wrongdoing and did not want to make any more misleading claims. Brock further said that his former friends in right-wing politics shunned him because Seduction did not adequately attack the Clintons. He also argued that his "friends" had not really been friends at all because of the open secret that Brock was gay.[6]David Brock book Kill the Messenger


New York Times, David Brock’s ‘Killing the Messenger,’ Hanna Rosin, Sept. 21, 2015. I’ve always wondered about the details of the reconciliation between Hillary Clinton and David Brock. As an investigative reporter for The American Spectator in the 1990s, Brock published whatever the Arkansas state troopers told him about Bill Clinton and his women and put the rumor about Vince Foster and Hillary into print. His tone and loose reporting ethics arguably unleashed two decades of cheap tabloid right-wing best sellers that still dog Hillary and Bill today. Is that really something the Clintons ever got past?

Brock’s new book, Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary and Hijack Your Government, provides the answer, which is yes, and without hesitation. In January 2003 Brock was alone in his Georgetown home when he got a call from Bill Clinton. Brock had recently published “Blinded by the Right,” his extravagant mea culpa claiming that just as Hillary suspected, there had been a “vast right-wing conspiracy” out to destroy the Clintons, and he was sorry to have been a part of it. Bill was very well versed in the book, according to Brock, and had purchased dozens of copies for friends. Bill suggested, nay, “insisted” that Brock see Clinton’s speaker’s agent right away, and start touring the country to expose the lies of the right; Brock countered them with a permanent organization, which eventually turned into Media Matters.

Hillary, meanwhile, “sprang into action,” inviting Brock to pitch her Senate fund-raising council and speak at a dinner for donors in her Chappaqua home. She even followed him down the driveway to list the dinner guests who had already expressed interest. Brock’s book had made him a pariah among his conservative friends. The Clintons gave him a new place to be a hero.

This must be a distinctly Clintonian trajectory of forgiveness: If you are no longer my enemy, then I must immediately weaponize you. (Bill has made up with several of his old Arkansas foes. He even gave a fond eulogy at the memorial service for Richard Mellon Scaife, the chief funder of the vast right-wing conspiracy.) Being savvy and experienced politicians, the Clintons probably intuited what was changing in the political landscape, and what Brock lays out in his latest book: The conservatives had built an extensive and very effective propaganda machine, and the Democrats were going to need all the help they could get.

On this last point, Brock’s book makes a convincing case. When he was part of the enemy team, he and his fellow conspirators were hatching their stories at bars in Little Rock and, if they were lucky, getting a little viral bump from Matt Drudge. Now the enemies have offices on K Street and the full power of Fox News, plus dozens of other conservative media outlets, PACs and opposition research groups. The conspiracy has matured into a formidable conglomerate, amply funded and thoroughly integrated with the Republican establishment. It’s an important historical shift, but I wish someone else were documenting it. So dogged is Brock’s devotion to Hillary that it often gets in the way of his being credible, not to mention interesting.

In Brockworld no criticism of the Clintons has ever contained a shred of truth. Hillary was an “outstanding” secretary of state. Benghazi is a “pseudoscandal.” The Clinton Foundation does “pathbreaking global philanthropy.” Hillary’s use of nongovernmental email when she was secretary of state was totally legit. Clinton fatigue is a myth. And after Bill left office, the Clintons actually were pretty broke, because “at every opportunity, they chose to devote their time and energy to improving their community, their country and their world . . . rather than cash out.” It doesn’t even seem to matter to Brock if the criticism was made on Glenn Beck’s show or in The New York Times; it’s always “sloppy” and “innuendo-laden,” as Brock complained to The Times about an early article on the email scandal. Or contradictory. Or sexist.

Brock is right about some of these criticisms. BenghazBrock is right about some of these criticisms. Benghazi does seem at this point like a trumped-up scandal merely designed to remind voters of all the other scandals attached to the Clintons. He is half right about some of them. Hillary may not have technically broken any laws by using a private email server, for example, but does she really expect us to believe that she did it because it was inconvenient to carry two BlackBerrys? And some of his defenses are just laughable — for instance, arguing that “there’s never been any evidence that the country is tired of the Clintons,” as if weariness needed data

Brock could be the ideal anthropologist of Clintonia in all its glorious forms. He was there from the beginning and is intimately familiar with the mind-set and tactics of the right. He knows the Clintons well, and if he weren’t always fighting could probably do an excellent and sophisticated analysis of how the haters have morphed over time. He’s even constructed for Hillary her own personal media watchdog, Correct the Record, which tracks and instantly zaps any negative stories about her. He really hasn’t missed a moment.

But he just doesn’t have enough distance to piece together the history effectively. “I am,” Brock writes at one point, “much more of a practical person than I am an ideological one.” I’m not sure why he would tell us that. Ideologues are unreliable narrators, but at least there is passion in their prose. Mercenaries, by contrast, are skilled at writing what this book sometimes feels like, which is an extended press release. Hanna Rosin is the author, most recently, of “The End of Men: And the Rise of Women.”

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Messenger-Right-Wing-Hillary-Government/dp/1455533769/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443126794&sr=1-1&keywords=Killing+the+Messenger


 
David Brock MSNBC  
 
 
 
Contact the author This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
 
 

 

Editor's Recommendations

 

Related News Coverage

Judicial Watch, New State Department Documents Reveal Hillary Clinton Email Gap, Tom Fitton (shown in file photo), Sept. 14, 2015. Judicial Watch today released newly obtained Department of State Tom Fittondocuments showing a nearly five-month total gap in the emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to return to the State Department late last year.  The documents also show that one key State Department official did not want a written record of issues about the Clinton emails. The documents also raise new questions about the accuracy of representations made to Judicial Watch, the courts, Congress, and the public by the Obama administration and Clinton.

The documents were produced under court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch filed on May 6, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State). The lawsuit was filed after the Obama State Department violated federal law and failed to respond to two separate FOIA requests, including a request for records about the actual production of the emails records by Clinton to the State Department.

Justice Integrity Project, What's Important About Hillary Clinton's Emails, Andrew Kreig, March 30, 2015. Hillary Clinton’s secret personal email system continued last week to prompt heavy news coverage but with scant scrutiny of the most sinister implications for the public. These involve frightening national security intrigues and political backstabbing.

Justice Integrity Project, GOP Pre-Election Benghazi Plot With Petraeus? Hillary’s Emails, Part II, Andrew Kreig, March 31, 2015. Larger lessons of varying kinds could be drawn from that history. But the one most current and clear is that the Blumenthal email suggests, rightly or wrongly, the possibility of high-level domestic intrigue involving the CIA. Even more important, this ominous threat to democracy was not regarded as newsworthy hardly anywhere except by Madsen, the Washington Times, and perhaps a few others not prominent. More privately, someone of Sidney Blumenthal's acumen thought the threat important enough to source from his political intelligence sources and apprise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Justice Integrity Project, Conflict of Interest In Clinton Foundation Funding? Hillary's Email, Part III, Andrew Kreig, April 2, 2015.  http://ow.ly/LbpYo   The third part of our series on Hillary Clinton's secret email system examines conflicts of interest In Clinton Foundation Funding” is the topic today. The first two parts of the series were:  1) Arms Smuggling: The Obama-Clinton-Petraeus  'Iran-Contra' Scandal; and 2) GOP Pre-Election 2012 Benghazi Plot With Petraeus?

 

Related News Coverage

Clinton Emails

The Atlantic, Hillary Clinton Tempts Progressives to Embrace Cheneyism, Conor Friedersdorf, Oct 8, 2015. An influential progressive writer published a blunt assessment of Hillary Clinton this week, declaring her unusually willing to transgress against civic and legal standards. “From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband's White House to running for Senate in a state she’d never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers,” Matthew Yglesias declared at Vox.com, “Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.” Yet the article in question isn’t a takedown of Clinton. It is a strange endorsement of the presidential candidate. The tendencies described above demonstrate  “exactly the mentality any Democrat would need to move the needle on policy in 2017,” he writes.

He urges Democrats to support a corrupt Washington insider with an ends-justify-the-means attitude because he believes she’ll advance his preferred domestic agenda. “Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods,” he writes. “More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.”

New York Post, Hillary has long history of beating up Bill behind closed doors: book, Maureen Callahan, Oct. 4, 2015. She’s on a mission to be a softer, warmer, funnier candidate — but according to a new book, the real Hillary Clinton is so volatile and prone to violent outbursts that she terrorizes staff, Secret Service agents and even her own husband. In The Clintons’ War On Women (Skyhorse), out Oct. 13, political strategist Roger Stone details Hillary’s abusive behavior — dating back to the Clintons’ days in Arkansas, where Bill served as governor.

Judicial Watch, New State Department Documents Reveal Hillary Clinton Email Gap, Tom Fitton (shown in file photo), Sept. 14, 2015. Judicial Watch today released newly obtained Department of State documents showing a nearly Tom Fittonfive-month total gap in the emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to return to the State Department late last year.  The documents also show that one key State Department official did not want a written record of issues about the Clinton emails.  The documents also raise new questions about the accuracy of representations made to Judicial Watch, the courts, Congress, and the public by the Obama administration and Clinton.

The documents were produced under court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch filed on May 6, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)).  The lawsuit was filed after the Obama State Department violated federal law and failed to respond to two separate FOIA requests, including a request for records about the actual production of the emails records by Clinton to the State Department.


WND, What if Hillary doesn't care? Andrew Napolitano (shown in a Gage Skidmore photo), Aug. 26, 2015. While the scandal surrounding the emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton during her time as U.S. secretary of state continues to grow, Andrew Napolitano file photo by Gage SkidmoreClinton has resorted to laughing more.

WND, Will deceptive Hillary get a pass? Andrew Napolitano, Aug. 19, 2015. Military personnel are indicted routinely for lesser crimes. She could have designated which of the government’s emails were personal and then asked the government to send them to her and delete them from government servers. Instead she did the reverse. She decided which of her emails were governmental and sent them on to the State Department. Under federal law, that is not a determination she may lawfully make. Yet, the 55,000 emails she sent to the feds were printed emails. By doing so, she stole from the government the metadata it owns, which accompanies all digital emails but is missing on the paper copies, and she denied the government the opportunity to trace those emails. When asked why she chose to divert government emails through her own server, Clinton stated she believed it would enable her to carry just one mobile device for both personal and governmental emails. She later admitted she carried four such devices. Then the scandal got more serious, as Clinton’s lawyers revealed that after she deleted the 30,000 emails, and printed the 55,000 she surrendered to the feds, she had the server that carried and stored them professionally wiped clean.

Washington Post, State Dept. account of e-mail request differs from Clinton’s, Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman, Sept. 22, 2015. Officials said their request for records from the former secretary and her predecessors stemmed from their realization that she had exclusively used a private e-mail account.

 

Daily Howler, Top pundits can’t hear a certain complaint! Bob Somerby, Oct. 12, 2015. Yesterday morning, Mark Halperin made a striking statement about the press coverage of Candidate Clinton. Halperin was appearing on ABC’s This Week. How strange! Guest host Martha Raddatz didn’t seem to hear what he said:

HALPERIN (10/11/15): [Clinton] comes into this with some positives, some momentum. But she’s under extraordinary pressure. David Brooks represents the view of the media at large, which is one mistake by Hillary Clinton in this debate will be the only story. She knows that.

 RADDATZ: OK, let’s go beyond the debate, maybe way off—way beyond the debate [to] Joe Biden possibly jumping in, possibly making a decision this week, clearly not in time for the debate...

Say what? According to Halperin, if Clinton makes a single mistake in tomorrow’s debate, that single mistake will become the press corps’ “only story.”

Catching Our Attention on other Justice, Media & Integrity Issues

International Business Times, CJ Pearson Claims President Obama Blocked Him On Twitter, White House Denies Tussle With Teen Conservative Star, Julia Glum, Sept. 24 2015. 13-year-old conservative YouTube star drew the attention of national news outlets and the White House Wednesday night when he asserted that President Barack Obama blocked him on Twitter. C.J. Pearson, known for his outspoken videos criticizing Democratic policies, said the block came after he denounced Obama's previous tweet inviting Texas 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed to visit the White House. But the Obama administration has denied it, the Hill reported. C.J. has more than 74,000 fans on Facebook and about 16,000 subscribers on YouTube, where he regularly posts videos with titles like "Why I'm Proud to Be a Republican," "Sorry, Islam. You're not Taking Away My Liberty!" and "President Obama: Do You Really Love America?" After seeing Obama support Ahmed, who was arrested after bringing a homemade clock that allegedly looked like a bomb to school last week, C.J. recorded another clip calling out the president.

JIP Editor's Note: A source usually well-informed on GOP political operations told the Justice Integrity Project that Pearson has been coached and promoted by senior Republican operatives to besmirch Democrats in advance of the 2016 elections.

Daily Mail Online, Prostitutes, Viagra-fuelled sex parties and a $750k fund to bribe German MPs: How latest emissions scandal shows VW has learned nothing from its murky past, Allan Hall, Sept. 24, 2015. Volkswagen has been mired in scandal and bribery claims for past 30 years. Car giant laid on prostitutes at sex parties for German MPs to bypass employment practises that truncated production. Set aside £500,000 'honeytrap' slush fund to lure union bosses into compromising positions and weaken their power. Paid £1.2million in illegal 'sweeteners' to fund orgies and pay for luxury five-star hotels for supervisors.

Timeless Evidence-Based Response To 'Conspiracy Theory' Canard

NBC News via WDSU-TV (New Orleans), Jim Garrison Response: Kennedy Assassination (27:05 min.).  On July 15, 1967, NBC allowed New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison to respond (under the then-operative Fairness Act) to an NBC program that was highly critical of Garrison's pursuit of alleged Kennedy assassination conspirators in New Orleans.

 

Catching Our Attention on other Justice, Media & Integrity Issues