Thread: Cataloguing the Clinton lies

Cataloguing the Clinton lies

Hillary’s server and Monica’s blue dress make for a sordid history


Illustration on Hillary’s server troubles by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times more >


By R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. - - Tuesday, December 29, 2015

To those of us who have followed the ongoing Clinton Saga, which now reaches back almost 25 years, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s computer server promises to become as historic as Monica Lewinsky’s stained dress. That is to say, that her server may indeed become as significant to her presidential prospects as Monica’s dress was to Bill’s prospects for impeachment.

It is now apparent to fact-finders across the nation that some of Hillary’s emails — thousands of which have been saved on her personal server — show that she lied to the American people as surely as Monica’s dress proved that Bill lied to the American people and to the grand jury when he denied having sex “with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Would it not be fitting that at the end of the Clinton Saga a dusty old server and a tired old dress go on display in the penultimate room of “The Clinton Museum and Souvenir Shop” down in jerkwater? Beyond that room comes the basement, featuring the words “They Lied to Us.”

What the server’s emails indicate is that on the night that four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, Hillary emailed the truth of how they died to her daughter. She told Chelsea that the Americans were the victims of an organized terrorist attack. She later admitted that to the Egyptian prime minister also. Nonetheless, she signed a public statement from the State Department proclaiming that the Americans were the victims of a riot provoked by a YouTube video. After lying to the American people the evening of the attack, she repeated the lie to the relatives of the victims, whose bodies were flown in to Joint Base Andrews. Moreover, she stood by her false account when she testified to the House Select Committee.

There are other untruths that have been passed on from Hillary’s server. She has lied about arranging lecture fees from her State Department office for the gifted Bill Clinton. There are lies about arranging donations for her family foundation, her forthcoming political campaign, and her own speaking fees. There are lies on the topic of influence-peddling and with whom she kept in contact. It must rankle President Obama that she communicated with Sidney Blumenthal from her office after the president specifically asked that she not. And of course, there are questions about what manner of classified information she kept on her personal server. This is being scrutinized even now by the FBI. In point of fact, Hillary’s server may become even more historic than Monica’s dress.

As a veritable scholar of the Clinton Saga, I remember entertaining inquiries from doubters on national television, for instance, James Carville and the earnest Paul Begala. They wanted to know why in a controversy over the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings
Independent Counsel Ken Starr was pursuing the president on questions so marginal as his sexual adventures with la Lewinsky. Well, I had answered that the Clintons were part of the liberal camorra that had raised thitherto harmless sexual advances to the level of a criminal offense. Surely, the Clintons were as answerable to these new laws as the rest of us. I never had the opportunity to spurn the ravenous advances of an overheatedMonica, but Bill did and he allowed Monica to ill-use him. For Mr. Starr, that was easier to prove than allegations about a second-rate real estate deal.

One sure way to prove that Bill or Hillary has lied is to subject their lies to the incontrovertible examinations of a DNA test or to the disinterested workings of modern engineering. Bill, when pressed, could babble on for years with learned hypotheticals about the meaning of “is” or “was” or “oral sex.” He actually argued that oral sex was not sex. So Mr. Starr was forced to bring in the DNA experts, and hesto presto: Bill lied. Now we shall have to bring in the contents of Hillary’s server. It will prove she lied on a wider range of topics than mere sex with a hot-blooded intern.

The only question is will the Republicans running for the presidency have the fortitude to ask the tough questions. Last weekend Donald Trump hinted menacingly that he does. Will the others? They should fill the airwaves with such questions about Benghazi, influence peddling, $500,000 speeches, campaign finances, and forget not that uranium concession to the Russians.

Remember what I said in one of my scholarly disquisitions published years ago at the beginning of this historic saga: “The Clintons lie when they do not have to lie, and they tell a gaudy whopper when a little white lie would be perfectly satisfactory.” Pursue the lies, you who seek the highest office in the land. The majority of the American people already believe Hillary is a liar and untrustworthy. As to Monica’s old blue dress, I think they have forgotten.

• R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. He is author of “The Death of Liberalism,” published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ary-clinton-l/

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman has argued, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

Judge orders production of 'treasure trove' of Hillary docs

Lawyer suing feds over NSA, Stuxnet, Clinton Foundation asks for discovery

by Bob Unruh Published: 1/14/16
The scandal-prone Clintons

State Department documents connected to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have become fodder for scandal, from classified emails sent through an unsecured personal server to her disclosure to her daughter that the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism, even while she publicly blamed an obscure YouTube video.

Now there’s a whole new pile of State Department documents that are being looked through, and no one knows for sure what’s there.

The revelation came on Monday when attorney Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, engaged with U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper and Department of Justice lawyers.

Klayman has pending multiple actions concerning the Clinton documents, the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program, even the Stuxnet virus, and had a routine hearing.

Then DOJ attorney John K. Theis asked for more time, since a new cache of State Department documents, which may or may not be applicable to the case, had been discovered.

As of the hearing, no one knew exactly what they contained. They could be entirely new revelations or they could be copies of documents of which the public already is aware.

Cooper agreed to give the government more time to review and evaluate.
“Per the court’s discussion with the parties in a teleconference held January 11, 2016, [45] Defendant Department of State’s Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. The Department of State shall have imaged the set of documents at issue by January 22, 2016, and shall conduct a search of those documents by January 29, 2016. The parties shall file a joint status report February 1, 2016, updating the court on the production of any responsive, non-expect documents from the set of documents at issue, and proposing a summary judgment briefing schedule as necessary,” he ordered.
Klayman told WND the documents at issue apparently have just been discovered and never have been searched.

And he said he was requesting immediately discovery involving the documents, referencing an ordinary procedure in court disputes in which the two sides exchange evidence that they have.

“They don’t know what they’re dealing with. There’s a treasure trove of stuff … just uncovered at the department,” he said.

In the case at issue, Klayman has been trying to get the government to take physical control of a thumb drive reportedly held by the Clintons’ lawyer.
The lawsuit, a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case against Bill and Hillary Clinton and their family foundation, alleging it is more or less a criminal enterprise to benefit the Clintons, has been part and parcel of the arguments over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state.

Klayman has been fighting efforts by the Clintons to have the case dismissed. Recently, a judge suspended plans for depositions by the Clintons pending resolution of other issues.

He argues that “some of the predicate acts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint concern Defendant Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized release, in exchange for financial gain, of classified information concerning U.S.-Israeli war planning to wage a [preemptive] strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and the joint U.S.-Israeli cyber-attack on Iranian nuclear centrifuges with a virus named Stuxnet.”

A federal court in Florida already has scheduled a trial later this year.

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman has argued, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

He said the case is about much more than access to hidden documents, which he is seeking.

“The production of documents at issue is relevant because they evidence a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … created and further by each of the defendants, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, acting in concert as part of a conspiracy, to extort hundreds of millions of dollars in money – that is, bribes – from individuals, entities and persons upon which the defendants have bestowed favors and gratuities, principally in the form of granting waivers to do business with Iran. ”


The allegations, he explained, set “forth all of the operative facts to plead a valid RICO claim.”

The case brought by Klayman pleads “multiple acts of racketeering activity by travel in interstate or international travel for the purpose of bribery, money laundering and obstruction of justice.”

“These actions were done with the specific purpose of defrauding plaintiff and others out of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations,” he said.

He alleges, for example, that Hillary Clinton “granted a waiver to Victor Pinchuk and his company Interpipe Group as an exemption from U.S. congressional sanctions against doing business with Iran.”

He alleges that was “as a quid pro quo for bribes disguised as donations made to The Clinton Foundation.”


He said the company “then, using the wires and mails and other illegal means fraudulently, donated $2.35 million to The Clinton Foundation.”

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s multiple attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.




http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/judge-ord...-hillary-docs/