Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

The True Origins Of The US-Chinese Trade War, by Andrew Korybko

The US tried to bring China into the US fold, but China had other ideas. Who knew? FRom Andrew Korybko at orientalreview.org:

China responded to Trump’s tariffs with economic restrictions of its own, though its market has always been notoriously difficult to enter due to Beijing’s own ironically “protectionist” policies designed to safeguard its domestic producers, but the government has been easing its prior regulations in recent years in order to facilitate the country’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity. The developing trade war between the US and China threatens to formalize the long-running economic competition between these two Great Powers as they vie with one another over control of the world order, with Washington wanting to retain its erstwhile but fading unipolar dominance while Beijing wants to pioneer the emergence of a multipolar system marked by a diversity of theoretically equal stakeholders.

The friction between these contradictory forces is the basis of the ongoing New Cold War, though there’s a bit more of a backstory to this global struggle than just that.

The US thought that “winning back Beijing” through its late Cold War-era alliance with China against the USSR would allow Washington to do as it pleases to what its decision makers had convinced themselves was their largest proxy state to date, but the US’ betrayal of China through the failed Tiananmen Square Color Revolution attempt of 1989 forever changed how the East Asian country’s communist leaders viewed America. Nevertheless, the naïve liberal-globalists of the Clinton era thought that they could bribe China to remain “loyal” to the US-led global world order that emerged after the Cold War by relying on “win-win” investments that would enrich the American elite while helping China rapidly modernize.

Suffice to say, this presumption proved to be totally false.

The so-called “Washington Consensus” and attendant “rules of the game” are rigged in order to benefit the US and indefinitely perpetuate its global hegemony, which is why China continuously broke the rules to its advantage but was allowed to get away with it for so long because of the aforementioned relationship that it had with naïve liberal-globalist American elites who profited from this system at the expense of average Americans. The Obama Administration tried to preemptively “balance” the inevitable geopolitical consequences of this trend by proposing the so-called “Group of Two” or “Chimerica” global partnership with China, but Beijing rejected this outreach.

To continue reading: The True Origins Of The US-Chinese Trade War

Advertisements

They “Said” That? 1/18/18

No real quote tonight, just two pictures that speak volumes. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are both 71.

Trump has never drank or smoked, and just got a clean bill of health. Heaven only knows how badly Bill Clinton has debauched himself. It catches up with you.

The Last, Best Hope, by Robert Gore

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long.

Donald Trump’s candidacy posed problems for the government and its string-pullers. It repudiated their rule and vision, especially their foreign policy. Trump threatened a bipartisan consensus based on US global dominance and interventionism they had championed since World War II. He proposed improving relations with Russia and questioned the orthodoxy that had embroiled the US in conflicts across the Middle East and Northern Africa. Perpetual conflict has been the fountainhead for the Deep State’s funding and steady accretion of power.

Trump also posed a more immediate threat. As president, he would have access to troves of information, some of which could reveal skeletons in the establishment’s closet. His Attorney General would have the power to investigate and prosecute. Those dangers may well have been the primary cause of establishment hostility.

However, the powers that be didn’t expect Trump’s victory, one reason their response has been so weak. The FBI, NSA, CIA and the other agencies considered part of the intelligence community (IC), operate in the dark, away from journalistic, public, and political scrutiny. To mount its offensive against Trump, the IC had to emerge from the shadows.

The kind of lies used through the years to preserve “plausible deniability” and deflect potential oversight and investigation have proven too flimsy to stand up to serious scrutiny. Skepticism, probing questions, and debunking did not come from the mainstream media, a reliable Deep State ally, but from the alternative media and Trump’s supporters.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the IC has unlimited access to communications and computer networks. The IC or its corporate partners store these information streams. Before he left office, Barack Obama signed an executive order making it easier for the IC to share this data amongst its agencies. Yet with all this information and potential collaboration, after over a year of allegations and investigations, the IC has produced nothing to substantiate its claim of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the election.

As if to highlight this lack of hard evidence, on January 6 of this year an Intelligence Community Assessment, commissioned by Obama, was released purporting to be the consensus view of all 17 US intelligence agencies. It wasn’t, it was the views of a small group of “hand-picked” (phrase used by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper) analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The 25-page report had neither direct evidence nor proof, only an assessment, “based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” (The quote is from the assessment.)

Not only was the information “incomplete or fragmentary,” some of it was pure fiction, emanating from Fusion GPS’s Trump Dossier, much of which has been subsequently discredited. That dossier, an attempt to generate “dirt” on Trump, his campaign, and their connections to Russia, was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In retrospect, that the three agencies would use unverified information from a compromised source as one of the primary bases of its assessment sent a clear message: we’ve got nothing.

Wikileaks obtained and disseminated over 40,000 DNC emails starting July 22, 2016. Many of the emails embarrassed the DNC and Hillary Clinton. It was alleged that Russia had hacked the emails and given them to Wikileaks. It was that allegation that got the ball rolling on the Russian influence story.

It was only a year later that the Veteran Intelligence for Sanity (VIPS) challenged the technical basis for the hacking claim. Forensically examining metadata from the intrusion into the DNC server, the VIPS concluded that the emails could not have been remotely hacked. The DNC data was copied at a speed far exceeding the internet’s capability. It had to have been downloaded on site to an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC server. That conclusion has mostly been ignored by the mainstream media but has not been challenged. It completely undermines the Russian hacking allegation, the wellspring of “Russiagate.”

As one Russian influence story wanes, two others wax. The 2010 Uranium One sale to a subsidiary of Russian company Rosatom reeks of impropriety on the part of Russian operatives, Uranium One, the Clintons, the FBI, the Attorney General at the time, Eric Holder, and the Justice Department (see “The Rout Is On,” SLL).

The Fusion GPS Trump Dossier appears to be a grab bag of unsubstantiated allegations compiled by former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele. He claims they came from contacts developed when he was head of the Russia desk at MI6, British intelligence. (see “How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier‘”) Whether they did or not, none of the allegations have been proven true and some have been disproved. The “information” may have actually been Russian disinformation, or lies.

A thread running through these stories is IC involvement and culpability, particularly the FBI. Robert Mueller headed the FBI during the Russian nuclear investigation, which began in 2008. The results of the bureau’s investigation was either not made available to the foreign investment committee or was ignored and the Uranium One sale went through.

Mueller protegé and friend James Comey, former head of the FBI, relied on the Trump dossier to justify extensive investigation and surveillance of Trump’s team before and after the election. He has admitted that it was, in part, the basis of the IC’s January 2017 assessment, although Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement shortly after it was released stating that the IC had made no determination of its reliability.

Comey’s behavior is part of a larger pattern: he consistently acted to further the political aims of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Well before the FBI had interviewed several key witness in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including Clinton, he began drafting a statement exonerating her. During the investigation, the FBI gave immunity to key Clinton aides and did not require them to turn over their computers.

After Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch’s July 27, 2016 meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac, the FBI was unconcerned with whether or not anything improper had transpired, but was quite concerned with who leaked the meeting to the press. Nine days later, Comey announced his decision not to charge Clinton. The FBI has stonewalled a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to that meeting since July of last year. Those documents have now surfaced and reveal the FBI’s investigative focus.

When the DNC claimed that it had been hacked, it denied the FBI access to its computer servers. Despite not having conducting its own investigation of the servers, the FBI and the rest of the IC accepted the conclusion of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Inc., hired by the DNC, that the servers had been hacked by two separate hacker groups employed by the Russian government. CrowdStrike was founded by “Russian-born Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow at the NATO-funded, intensely Russophobic Atlantic Council.” Its work was subsequently discredited.

Comey is not the only one who was or remains in the FBI’s upper echelon who have demonstrated clear conflicts of interest. Agent Peter Strzok, changed the description of Clinton’s behavior in Comey’s email exoneration from “grossly negligent,” which carries criminal liability, to “extremely careless,” which does not. He was demoted for anti-Trump text messages to his mistress, also an FBI employee. The FBI, Justice Department, and Robert Mueller were aware of the texts for months and deliberately withheld them from Congress.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was involved with the Clinton email investigation. His wife ran for the Virginia state senate and received $700,000 in campaign contributions from political groups aligned with Clinton and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe. Comey was briefed on those ties and despite the obvious conflict of interest, did nothing.

Robert Mueller’s team is also compromised. Mr. Mueller’s deputy, Andrew Weissmann, was the FBI’s lead on the Trump probe. Many of his attorneys come from Obama’s Department of Justice. Nine of the fifteen publicly identified attorneys are Democratic donors, and several donated to the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Attorney Jeannie Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against racketeering charges, and represented Clinton personally in the email investigation. Attorney Aaron Zebley represent Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who helped manager her private server. Weissman emailed former acting Attorney General Sally Yates he was “proud and in awe” of her for her defiance against Trump’s travel ban.

As Kimberley A. Strassel noted in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece: “The question isn’t whether these people are legally allowed (under the Hatch Act) to investigate Mr. Trump—as the left keeps insisting. The question is whether a team of declared Democrats is capable of impartially investigating a Republican president.” (“Obstruction of Congress,” WSJ, 12/8/17)

Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for relatively trivial infractions—which he could and should have avoided simply by saying he didn’t remember what he said—and Hillary Clinton’s exoneration demonstrate a gaping difference in legal standards and rigor of investigation between the FBI’s efforts directed against the Trump and Clinton camps. Flynn’s plea, and the charges lodged against Paul Manafort and two campaign aides, are all, so far, that Robert Mueller has to show for his investigation into Russian collusion with Trump and team during the election.

Flynn’s crimes occurred after the election. Manafort, Trump’s campaign chief for two months, was charged with money laundering, not Russian collusion. The closest Mueller has gotten to anything suggesting such collusion is a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos—a tangential figure in the Trump campaign—to lying to the FBI about contacts with intermediaries purportedly linked to Russian intelligence services.

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long. His lawyers need to compile an extensive brief, detailing all of these damning details and developments. The executive summary would be the case Trump makes to the public. Due to political bias, the FBI’s investigations of Clinton’s emails and the charges of Russian influence have been irretrievably compromised. The bias extends to Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Mueller never should have been appointed; he was already compromised by the Uranium One matter. Mueller, the FBI, and Obama holdovers in the Justice Department have repeatedly stonewalled and subverted legitimate congressional requests for documents and testimony.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board has suggested, Mueller should resign. If he doesn’t, Trump should fire him. He should be replaced with someone who has none of the taint that permeates the present investigations. The successor’s investigation should be confined to Mueller’s original mission: investigating alleged Russian collusion with Trump and his team to influence to 2016 election. If, as is likely, nothing is found within six months, wind up the investigation.

Incoming FBI director Christopher Wray must conduct a thorough house-cleaning and refer findings of possible criminal behavior to the Justice Department. The Justice Department itself needs a thorough housecleaning. After which, investigations should be opened or reopened into: Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, Fusion GPS, how WikiLeaks obtained the emails it disseminated, and finally, and most importantly, the FBI, rest of the IC, DNC, Hillary Clinton, and Obama administration’s attempt to nullify a presidential election.

This represents the last, best hope to confront and thwart the Deep State. Trump’s performance as president hasn’t been the disaster many predicted, and he’s repeatedly outmaneuvered his opponents. He’s got the winds of a decent economy and strong stock market at his back. If he doesn’t take the initiative while the Deep State is bleeding from its self-inflicted wounds, the opportunity will vanish. If it does, the Deep State will ensure that no unvetted candidate ever gets near the White House again. Its plunder and destruction of the United States will proceed, renewed and unhindered…until its work is done.

Christmas Is Coming

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up, by Tom Fitton

The infamous Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting reeks of impropriety, but the FBI’s only concern was keeping it secret. From Tom Fitton at foxnews.com:

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch’s lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.

To continue reading: New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up

Sex in America, Part 2, by Ann Coulter

The Democrats have a Bill Clinton problem: admitting that their defense of the dirt bag back in the 1990s was wrong. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

At least liberals are finally telling the truth about Bill Clinton — and just 20 years after it mattered! Of course, considering it took the Democratic Party a century to discover that slavery was wrong, two decades is lightning speed for these moral paragons.

While edging up to admitting that Bill Clinton maybe shouldn’t have raped Juanita Broaddrick and flashed Paula Jones, liberals still can’t own up to their utterly hypocritical defense of a president credibly accused of repeated sexual assaults and associated felonies.

Recently, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd tried to cover up the left’s shameful response to Clinton’s sleazy behavior with the “both sides” argument. According to Dowd, liberals “tried to kill off” Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas “over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.” And then conservatives “tried to kill off a Democratic president over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.”

Here are three important differences off the top of my head:

1) Anita Hill’s accusations against Thomas involved words — just words — whereas Clinton was accused by multiple women of being a sexual predator on a scale to rival Harvey Weinstein.

2) The evidence against Thomas consisted of a single accuser, with no corroborating witnesses. The evidence against Clinton included, among other things, multiple witnesses; contemporaneous corroborating witnesses; secretly recorded confessions of the assaults and liaisons from Clinton himself (the Gennifer Flowers tape), Monica Lewinsky (Linda Tripp tapes) and Juanita Broaddrick (two separate tapes by people who wanted her to tell the truth about the rape); a DNA-stained dress; and, eventually, when he had absolutely no other choice, Clinton’s own admission under oath.

To continue reading: Sex in America, Part 2

Thanksgiving 2017 – Why There Is No Peace On Earth, by David Stockman

It looked like close to a sure thing when the Soviet Union folded in 1991: the end of the Cold War would be the beginning of peace. It hasn’t panned out that way, thanks to the United States. This is an oustanding summary of the period since 1991. From David Stockman at ronpaulinstitute.org:

After the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989 and the death of the Soviet Union was confirmed two years later when Boris Yeltsin courageously stood down the red army tanks in front of Moscow’s White House, a dark era in human history came to an end.

The world had descended into what had been a 77-year global war, incepting with the mobilization of the armies of old Europe in August 1914. If you want to count bodies, 150 million were killed by all the depredations which germinated in the Great War, its foolish aftermath at Versailles, and the march of history into the world war and cold war which followed inexorably thereupon.

To wit, upwards of 8% of the human race was wiped-out during that span. The toll encompassed the madness of trench warfare during 1914-1918; the murderous regimes of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism that rose from the ashes of the Great War and Versailles; and then the carnage of WWII and all the lesser (unnecessary) wars and invasions of the Cold War including Korea and Vietnam.

We have elaborated more fully on this proposition in “The Epochal Consequences Of Woodrow Wilson’s War“, but the seminal point cannot be gainsaid. The end of the cold war meant world peace was finally at hand, yet 26 years later there is still no peace because Imperial Washington confounds it.

In fact, the War Party entrenched in the nation’s capital is dedicated to economic interests and ideological perversions that guarantee perpetual war; they ensure endless waste on armaments and the inestimable death and human suffering that stems from 21st century high tech warfare and the terrorist blowback it inherently generates among those upon which the War Party inflicts its violent hegemony.

In short, there was a virulent threat to peace still lurking on the Potomac after the 77-year war ended. The great general and president, Dwight Eisenhower, had called it the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address, but that memorable phrase had been abbreviated by his speechwriters, who deleted the word “congressional” in a gesture of comity to the legislative branch.

To continue reading: Thanksgiving 2017 – Why There Is No Peace On Earth

Linda Tripp: ‘It’s a Day Late, and It’s a Dollar Short’, by Peter J. Boyer

Other than the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual predation, no woman got as thoroughly and undeservedly trashed by the Clinton’s minions and the mainstream media as Linda Tripp. Here’s her take on the current situation. From Peter J. Boyer at weeklystandard.com:

As the reckoning over sexual abuse finally reaches Bill Clinton, with handwringing by some of his former defenders in the press and in politics, one Clinton White House veteran is following developments with particular interest—and a large measure of skepticism.

“It’s a day late, and it’s a dollar short,” says Linda Tripp, who, 20 years ago, was thrust into the center of the sex scandal that led to Clinton’s impeachment. It was Tripp who revealed the president’s sexual relationship with a 21-year-old White House intern and, for her troubles, was painted as the villain of the sordid episode.

Tripp has a quiet life in Northern Virginia horse country, avoiding the public attention that was so unwelcome in the late 1990s. But the unending flow of headlines about the bad behavior of powerful men, she says, “is forcing me to relive a lot of it.” She’s unconvinced by recent calls in the press for Clinton’s deeds to be reconsidered in a more critical light. “They have nothing to lose, and this is now permissible,” she says. “The fact that the Clintons are dead in the water gives [the media] tacit approval to act like human beings. . . . It’s disingenuous.”

She finds it particularly galling to hear former Clinton defenders attributing their latter-day awakening to evolving social mores. In a November 16 interview with the New York Times, New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand said that she now believes that Bill Clinton should have resigned because of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. “Things have changed,” she said.

“What information do they have at their fingertips today that they didn’t have 20 years ago?” Tripp asks. “What information has changed?”

There were people back then—Linda Tripp, for instance—who reflexively knew that when a president of the United States repeatedly summons a star-struck young White House intern to sexually service him, it is more than a private romantic dalliance. “I’m so weary of hearing that society’s mores have changed,” she says, “when I knew that this was an abuse of, essentially, a kid.”

To continue reading: Linda Tripp: ‘It’s a Day Late, and It’s a Dollar Short’