Two Scandals on Hold as Presidential Primaries Unfold

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

It appears that, with only one week left until Super Tuesday, the mainstream media are content with the slow pace of the various investigations into Hillary Clinton’s malfeasance. Come March 15, over half of the states will have voted for their favorite primary candidates. Yet the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material, along with the House Select Committee’s Benghazi investigation, may be going nowhere.

“[Republican Congressman Trey] Gowdy [SC] has said he hopes to wrap up interviews with witnesses in February,” reported Sarah Westwood for The Washington Examiner on February 18. “His committee will then release a highly-anticipated report on its findings.”

But that report may not effectively tell the story of Benghazi if, as Gowdy says, he is going to allow his audience to draw their own conclusions. “It’s not my job to tell you what happened,” said Gowdy on the Don Smith radio show. “It’s my job to tell you what the witnesses say. I wasn’t there.”

Gowdy also said that he was “pleased and frankly proud” of the effort his committee had made that revealed to the public that Clinton was using a private server for all of her emails.

Continue reading


Financial Scandals Follow Socialist Millionaire Sanders

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Responding to one of Anderson Cooper’s softball questions, socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told the CNN Town Hall on Wednesday night that he lives a frugal life and indicated that he doesn’t care about money or status. “I have a small Chevrolet,” he said. “It is one of the smallest Chevys that they make.” He said it was about five years old.

But James O’Brien, a political consultant and former publisher ofCampaigns & Elections magazine, says the career politician, who has been a mayor, member of Congress and U.S. senator, has achieved the financial status of a millionaire.

O’Brien has analyzed the financial status of Sanders and his wife, including their financial disclosure report, and has concluded they have a net worth in the range of $1.2 to $1.5 million, not the $700,000 or less that is usually reported by the media.

Rather than “Feel the Bern,” the phrase associated with popular support for the self-declared “democratic socialist,” O’Brien says that Sanders is personally “Feelin’ the Wealth.”

Equally significant, his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, left her position as president of Burlington College under controversial circumstances and is now being accused of federal bank fraud. She left her position at the college and was given a severance package known as a “golden parachute” that also benefited Senator Sanders’ personal wealth.

Brady C. Toensing, a partner with the law firm of diGenova & Toensing, has filed alegal complaint with federal authorities requesting an investigation into apparent federal bank fraud committed by Ms. Sanders. His complaint was sent to Eric S. Miller, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont, and Fred W. Gibson, Jr., Acting Inspector General with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

A Sanders spokesman told the Burlington Free Press that the complaint was an effort to throw mud at the presidential candidate.

O’Brien says that Sanders’ financial disclosure forms are incomplete. “For someone who doesn’t care about money, he goes a long way to cover up his true net worth,” he says. “Bernie does not disclose the value of real estate holdings. He can. He is not required to, but he could if he chose. It is known that he and/or his wife own at least two homes—one with rental income in Vermont and one near Capitol Hill where the median home value is $722,000.”

O’Brien bases his conclusions about Sanders’ millionaire status on what is known and can be estimated about his salary, the income of his wife, joint income, investments, pension, and value of his real estate properties.

On top of this, O’Brien notes that Sanders benefits from a multi-million dollar U.S. Senate staff and a multi-million dollar U.S. presidential campaign staff.

In addition to the questions about his real net worth, Jane Sanders’ exit from Burlington College continues to generate controversy, even scandal. She was president of the college from 2004 until 2011.

Federal officials have acknowledged the complaint about Jane Sanders from attorney Brady C. Toensing, but they won’t say whether they are going forward with an investigation.

Although Senator Sanders frequently complains about the “corporate media” that are supposed to have a bias against his candidacy, the necessary task of digging into the finances of his wife has been left to the conservative media and some local Vermont news organizations.

At the very least—as noted by Bruce Parker, a Vermont reporter for Watchdog.org—Senator Sanders should be asked to explain how his opposition to severance packages for corporation executives squares with his wife getting a cushy severance of $200,000.

In a story headlined, “Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank,” reporters Blake Neff and Peter Fricke of the conservative Daily Caller News Foundation reported the essential facts of the case, noting that she nearly bankrupted Burlington College when she took on $10 million in debt to finance the purchase of a new, far more expansive campus. “The move backfired massively, leading to Sanders’ departure from the college and the near-collapse of the institution,” Neff and Fricke report.

By any standard of fair and objective news reporting, a candidate who promises “free college” to America’s young people should be asked to address the issue of his wife’s financial shenanigans almost bankrupting an institution of higher learning. But it hasn’t been raised in the debates.

At one point it was reported that Burlington College was fighting for its very survival. “As a result of its financial woes, Burlington College is on academic probation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges,” reportedVTDigger.org, a statewide news website, in 2014.

VT Digger confirmed the nefarious role played by Jane Sanders, noting that she “overstated donation amounts in a bank application for a $6.7 million loan that was used by the college to purchase a prime 33-acre property on Lake Champlain in 2010.” Jane Sanders “resigned under pressure from the Burlington College board of trustees nearly a year after obtaining the multi-million dollar loan,” the site reported. “After both sides lawyered up, the board gave Sanders the title of president emeritus and a $200,000 severance package.”

A Republican activist named Skip Vallee produced a 60-second television advertisement entitled, “Bernie’s Golden Parachute,” describing the nature of the $200,000 severance package and making the point that while Sanders was planning a presidential run “on a theme of railing against golden parachutes and excesses” on Wall Street, he took “his own golden parachute” through his wife’s curious dealings with the cash-strapped college.

The ad features the “S” in Sanders in the shape of a dollar sign and shows Sanders saying the rich in America “manipulate a rigged system” and benefit from “golden parachutes.”

On top of this scandal, The Washington Free Beacon has reported that Senator Sanders used campaign money to benefit members of his family, and that Jane Sanders directed six-figure sums from Burlington College to her daughter and the son of a family friend.

“Getting money out of politics” is one of the planks in Sanders’ presidential campaign platform.


That Voice

By Joan Swirsky | Canada Free Press

February 6, 2016

So many issues, so little time, which is why I am studiously avoiding any issues about Hillary other than that voice!

I am definitely not going into the terminal dishonesty thing, you know, when she told the American public, and also the parents of the murdered victims in Benghazi, that the four patriots who lost their lives to a savage Islamic attack was because of an anti-Islam video; that Wall St. and specifically Goldman-Sachs is not donating to her campaign and that, according to Dick Morris, FEC reports say that Hillary has received $21.4 million from the financial and insurance industry—almost 15 percent of the total $157.8 million she raised, and she’s still trolling them for big money.”

How about that she won a smashing victory in Iowa (by six coin tosses that magically landed in her favor)? Dozens of websites have catalogued Hillary’s lies, starting decades ago with her debut on the political scene. Also here and here and don’t miss this one. Not going there.

I’m definitely not going into the incompetence thing, the colossal failure of her secretly-conducted socialized-medicine initiative as First Lady, her stunning lack of accomplishments in the U.S. Senate, or, most damning, the dangerous state of the entire world under her tenure as Secretary of State, which has resulted in a chaotic, devolving Europe, saturated in Islamic-terrorism; a catastrophic Middle East, also inundated with Islamic terrorism; and the mysterious loss of six-billion dollars! Uh uh, not going there.

Also definitely not going into the crook thing, the perjury thing, the slush fund thing vis-à-vis The Clinton Foundation and the zillions she extorted—oops, accepted—from thug nations and tin-pot dictators throughout the world while, ahem, representing our country. Or the e-mail thing and the threats to our national security her fecklessness brought about, or the laughable denials, or looming Leavenworth. Not going there.

Most definitely not going into the abused-wife syndrome, the paranoid streak, the harassment and attempts to destroy the women assaulted by her, ahem, better half, or the laughable notion of her being a role model for any woman, much less the millions of American women who earned their way without the taint of scandal and criminality. Sooo not going there!

And definitely not going into Hillary’s disturbing laugh, which according to writer Elspeth Reeve, has been covered extensively. A few years ago, Reeve cited the National Journal which compiled “The Comprehensive Supercut of Hillary Clinton Laughing Awkwardly with Reporters” and The Washington Free Beacon, which created “Hillary Clinton’s Interview Tour: A Laughing Matter,” to name but two out of hundreds of articles that have covered Hillary’s aberrational trait over the years. Nope, not going there.


For years I’ve wondered what that clap-your-hands-over-your-ears assault weapon is that emanates from Hillary Clinton’s mouth, specifically her wince-evoking, cringe-producing, decibel-shattering voice.

I don’t mean ear-splitting shrillness or the screech of a banshee, although God knows those are prominently featured in her vocal repertoire, but rather the shriek-like, hectoring tone that suggests that Hillary was born without the normal fluttering of the vocal cords, a function that helps to moderate speech sounds. This results in campaign speech in which every promise sounds menacing. Quite a feat!

I’m going to produce more jobs, Hillary says, get incomes rising again, make Obamacare work, improve early-childhood education, pay down student debt, fight for more abortions (oops, “defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions”), on and on, and yet every word comes out sounding like the patronizing, finger-wagging lecture of a screech-owl harpy.

Hillary fan Geraldo Rivera speculates that this unfortunate trait might result from a hearing loss, the kind that makes people who don’t hear very well think that other people need to be shrieked at to hear their message.

Steven Hayward from Powerline.com simply describes her pronouncements as “cackling.”

Writer Elspeth Reeve asks: why do so many people hate the sound of Hillary’s voice? “It’s just so loud and annoying. Or maybe it’s like a nagging wife…inauthentic‚and that phony Southern accent! Those flat Midwestern vowels! Whatever it is, her voice is burned into your brain.” Maybe “she sometimes SPEAKS SO LOUDLY in hopes of conveying ENERGY and FORCEFULNESS.”

Republican pollster Frank Luntz explains to Sean Hannity: “Forget the words. Listen to the way she communicates. It’s ALL AT THE SAME LEVEL…her voice turns people off. Because they feel like they’re being lectured.”

Journalist Peggy Noonan compares Hillary to an irritating landlord. “She lately reminds me of the landlady yelling up the stairs that your kids left their bikes in the hall again.”

According to writer Kathy Miller, Hillary hired a voice and drama coach, Michael Sheehan, after her last unsuccessful presidential run in 2008, paying him $7,500. Yoo hoo, Hillary, ever consider a malpractice suit?


A person’s emotional affect is simply the way they display their feelings. They can be manic or flat, bubbly or dour, sincere or snarky, relaxed or intense, serious or light-hearted, on and on.

Once you see someone three or five or 10 times, you “get” what they’re all about. Unless, they have distinctly different affects…the stern executive during the day and the party girl at night; the all-American dad on the weekends and the internet troller of child porn during his working day.

Most of us fall along this spectrum. But few of us, in our travels, change our speech patterns when we go from state to state.

Not so of Hillary, who segues from high-falutin’ Wellesley girl when she’s courting East Coast donors to plantation Southerner when she’s addressing a black audience, for instance when she cited the hymn of James Cleveland: “Ah don’t feel nowhere tired….” Talk about cringe-producing!

Then there’s her affect of sincerity—eyes a little too wide open, gaze a little too fixed, head a little too bobbling, smile a little too plastered, the tacit message a little too “get me away from these irritating hicks!”

And there, too, is old Bubba, standing behind her…stooped, skinny, wizened, looking not a little out of the loop, applauding on cue, still too narcissistic to want her to win, but still counting on her to perpetuate the gigantic Ponzi scheme they created.


Was Hillary born with that weaponized voice of hers, or did she acquire it along the way? My bet is on the latter. It’s not uncommon for people who are essentially—when all the layers of the onion are peeled back—inauthentic to appropriate behaviors of other people, the better to make themselves appear to be the real thing.

It’s as if Hillary looked around and observed how a regular person or even an animated character acts when he or she is angry or impassioned or wants to get a point across or appeal to someone, and she said to herself, “Aha, I’ll take Alec Baldwin’s anger from Column A, Ida B. Robinson’s passion from Column B, Johnny Appleseed’s ardor from Column C,” on and on, and then adopts whichever behavior fits the occasion.

But it never works, never comes across as authentic because, well, it isn’t! Hence the strangely hyena-like laugh, the hectoring tone, the weird meet-and-greet affect, and, occasionally, the bursts of raw anger—“What difference does it make?”—in which the public gets a vivid and decidedly unpretty picture of what lies beneath the phony façade.


Looming over the entire Clinton agenda is ole genuine Bernie Sanders, grabbing the young vote, the far-left vote, the entitlement vote, the socialist and communist votes, and now we learn the woman vote, effectively telling the largely anti-Semitic world that American Democrats prefer a Brooklyn-born Jew to a female career-politician with an alienating affect, a scandal-ridden past and present, and indictments of downright treason hanging over her head,

Yes, Hillary’s dishonesty thing looms large with voters, as does her incompetence thing and crook thing and abused-wife thing and weird laugh thing,

But nothing is as predictive of her ultimate defeat as the voice thing, even though she can’t help it, anymore than someone afflicted with barnacles. Millions of people may want a woman in the White House, so much that they overlook Hillary’s Mt. Everest heights of deficits and failures. In and of itself, as even her advocates grudgingly admit, living with that voice for the next four years will compel every man in America to buy earplugs and every woman in America to wonder what the entire estrogen fetish was all about.

I predict that nothing—not the trendiest public-relations firms or the most credentialed drama coaches—will stop the American public from voting against Ms. Hillary because of that voice!

Joan Swirsky is an award winning author and journalist. Her work can be found at joanswirsky.com and she can be reached at [email protected].


Hillary Clinton Faces Legal and Political Obstacles in Presidential Bid

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

This is not how Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House was supposed to go: full of never-ending scandals, with a close primary competitor, and two FBI investigations. There is but one week to go before the Iowa caucuses, where the first votes in this year’s presidential race will finally be cast.

While Hillary Clinton is still the clear leader in national polls and likely to receive the nomination, the numbers are extremely close in Iowa between Hillary and the democratic socialist candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). And in the first actual primary, the following week in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton is trailing in a CNN poll by almost 30 points. Yes, New Hampshire is right next to Sanders’ home state of Vermont, but Sanders’ potential victories in Iowa and New Hampshire could dramatically alter the dynamics of the race.

But winning the Democratic presidential primary might be the least of Mrs. Clinton’s worries. As the State Department continues its monthly release of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, in compliance with a federal judge overseeing their release, the news keeps getting worse and worse. In the meantime, the weekend snowstormserved as an excuse for the State Department to try to get an extra month to release the final batch of emails, which would conveniently be after—instead of before—the first four states’ primaries and caucuses.

It was recently reported that the emails that crossed Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured “home brew” server included those with the Top Secret classification of SAP, or Special Access Programs, including “‘dark projects,’ such as drone operations,”according to The New York Post. In addition, Paul Sperry reports, “at least one of Clinton’s emails included sensitive information on spies.”

To date, at least 1,340 emails that went through Mrs. Clinton’s server have been deemed classified. Clinton’s defense is that none of these emails were marked classified when she sent or received them. Yet, “An intelligence official familiar with the matter told NBC News that the special access program in question was so sensitive that [Inspector General Charles] McCullough and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails.”

In other words, this information was too important for the intelligence community’s inspector general to view it without special access, yet it made its way freely through an unsecure server almost certain to have been hacked by foreign nations. If the CIA were to ever have such access to the Russian foreign minister’s email server, it would be considered a bonanza for them.

Even if Mrs. Clinton’s claims were true, it would make no difference. It doesn’t matter if the material was “marked” classified. What matters is if the content was, in fact, classified. It was her responsibility as secretary of state to know the difference. Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President Bush, spelled it out: “Having any classified information on your private server is against the law. But Special Access Programs contain information so sensitive, it is given a secret ‘codeword’ and placed into a ‘compartment’ to which only a small number of specially cleared people have access. To see this information, it is not enough to have Top Secret security clearance; you have to be cleared for that specific compartment.”

The truth is that as secretary of state, Clinton showed blatant disregard for the security of our nation. When her aide Jake Sullivan said that aides were having trouble sending information via secure fax, Clinton wrote back, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

“This is gigantic,” argues former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova. “The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

The FBI investigation will no longer be examining just the transmission of classified information. There are also 150 FBI agents looking into allegations of public corruption between Secretary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

But the cronyism and corruption didn’t just start when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Peter Schweizer’s recent article on the Clinton-pardoned international fugitive Marc Rich highlights some of the continuing rewards the Clintons are reaping in return for that last minute pardon of Rich, who was on the list of the FBI’s ten most wanted.

“Rich died in 2013,” writes Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash. “But his business partners, lawyers, advisers and friends have showered millions of dollars on the Clintons in the decade and a half following the scandal.”

Rich’s ally, a Nigerian businessman named Gilbert Chagoury, who was previously convicted of money laundering and working with a criminal organization, “organized an event at which Bill was paid $100,000 to speak (in 2003), donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and in 2009 pledged a cool $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative,” according to Schweizer. One of Chagoury’s relatives even served on Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

No matter where one looks, there seems to be even more Clinton corruption. But don’t expect the mainstream media to report on it.

The mainstream media have been fond of saying that Mrs. Clinton is not the “subject” of the FBI investigation. However, according to Andy McCarthy, subjects may or may not be charged with a crime after the investigation is completed.

“As a technical matter, no matter how extensively the FBI pokes around on its own, no one can be a subject of a real investigation—i.e., one that can lead to criminal charges—unless and until there is a grand jury,” writes McCarthy. “That does not happen until the Justice Department hops on board.”

“So Obama is hedging his bets. He is letting the FBI investigate, but on its own, without Justice Department prosecutors and the grand jury,” writes McCarthy. He adds, “The FBI cannot convene a grand jury and present an indictment. But you’d best believe the FBI can make the Obama administration look very bad if it shrinks from doing so. Then it will be a matter of how far Barack Obama is willing to stick his neck out for Hillary Clinton.”

The Clinton family cannot run away from its corrupt and scandalous record, no matter how far the mainstream media will go to avoid mentioning specifics. Mrs. Clinton set off a firestorm recently when she accused Donald Trump of having “a penchant for sexism.” This brought out people who the Clinton campaign would have much preferred stayed beneath the radar, such as alleged Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick.

The Trump campaign shot back about Bill Clinton’s history with women. There is a lengthy list of women who claim to have been hit on, assaulted, or even raped by Bill Clinton. And Hillary was forced to answer those questions in the context of having just recently tweeted that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

Mrs. Clinton’s best ally at this point is a corrupt establishment media that largely ignore her legal and ethical challenges, and which regularly portray the Democratic Party race as being fought over such high-minded virtues as “heart vs. head,” or between “Bernie Sanders’s idealism and Hillary Clinton’s pragmatism.” We’ll see how long they can continue to enable her.


Clinton Scandals Threaten Her White House Run

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

While Republicans are deciding among themselves whether to open a separate investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email controversy, evidence keeps piling up that shows serious problems ahead for Mrs. Clinton. Yet the media continue feasting on what they perceive as turmoil in the GOP presidential race. When looked at objectively, Mrs. Clinton’s problems should prove far more consequential than anything facing the Republicans. And current polls reflect that problem.

The media are still basking in Hillary’s great October turnaround. Not only did she have what they considered to be a strong debate performance, but Vice President Joe Biden announced he wasn’t running for the presidency, and Hillary, they assure us, scored a big victory in the Benghazi hearings. Game over. The march to the White House can proceed unimpeded.

But a closer look at what should be very troubling issues to the media, and to Democrats who want a candidate without so much baggage, reveals much that they should be concerned about.

The latest batch of emails was released on October 30, revealing an additional 266 messages that are now “deemed classified, bringing to 666 the total number of messages so far,” as reported by The Washington Times, but ignored by most of the media. “One of the messages, sent by a State Department staffer, even labeled itself ‘confidential’ in the subject line to Mrs. Clinton, despite her insistence that none of the information should have been secret at the time. The email contained what the staffer called ‘a good report’ from a top German official who’d met with then-Serbian President Boris Tadic. All information gleaned from foreign governments is deemed classified.”

Other revelations from this latest drop included correspondence showing that in response to security concerns in Benghazi, Mrs. Clinton “made an effort to help evacuate the acting Libyan prime minister from Benghazi amid a crumbling security situation.” This was released about a week after her testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that she had not seen some 600 requests from Libya that had to do with the security of American personnel, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the terrorist attack at the Special Mission Compound on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi. A case of misplaced priorities?

Remember, the FBI is investigating whether or not classified materials were mishandled on Mrs. Clinton’s private, unsecured email server. This occurred as a result of the Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCulloch III saying back in July that he had found four of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that were classified out of the first 40 he viewed, including one that was Top Secret.

It got worse. In August, “the scandal deepened, as Mr. McCullough sent a memo to the House and Senate intelligence committees that said two emails contained top secret information that was compartmentalized as Special Intelligence (SI) and Talent Keyhole (TK),” reported The Washington Times. “The two codes mean that the material came from communications intercepts of a foreign target and also from military spy satellites. Such data are considered the crown jewels of intelligence, for which access is greatly restricted.”

Rowan Scarborough, reporting for the Times, wrote that “Intelligence officials are aghast it sat in Mrs. Clinton’s at-home server, susceptible to hacking by adversaries such as China and Russia.

“‘SI information is not just top secret,’ said the former intelligence official,” adding that “it’s compartmented. It’s the highest level of classification you can get. It’s code word. It’s extremely sensitive.”

“‘You have a massive spill, a massive leak of classified information,’ the former official said. ‘The responsibility for that server is on Hillary Clinton directly.’”

Mrs. Clinton’s defense has changed from a complete denial: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” she said back in March of this year at her press conference at the United Nations.

Then, after two Obama-appointed IGs discovered classified material in her emails, she switched her story to saying that she didn’t knowingly send any classified material, and finally that she did not send or receive anything that was “marked as classified.”

But as former congressman and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) wrote in a column for the New York Post, co-authored with Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee, “…that statement ignores how the process works. The reason government officials with security clearances are required to keep their correspondence on the appropriate government server is so the material can be vetted and classified prior to hitting ‘send’ to an uncleared recipient.”

Ron Fournier of the National Journal wrote a column entitled “Parsing Clinton: Deflection, Deception, and Untruths,” in which he said, “What Clinton doesn’t want you to know: Federal rules put the onus on government officials like the Secretary of State to protect classified material, even when it’s not marked as such. Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material. Any chain of events or excuses that led to the disclosure of these documents begins with Clinton’s decision to go rogue with government email.”

President Obama compounded matters when he told Steve Kroft on CBS’s 60 Minutes on October 11 that he didn’t know about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State, and that he didn’t think it posed a national security problem. But back in March, after first saying that he learned about her use of a private server for all of her government emails “the same time everybody else learned it—through news reports,” he backtracked through his spokesman, Josh Earnest, saying he knew she used a private server some of the time, but didn’t know the full extent, or how it was set up.

Of course he knew. He had exchanged emails with her, emails which he is nowrefusing to hand over to the committee investigating Benghazi, raising further suspicions.

And when he told Kroft that “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,” he was prejudging the case under investigation. This “angered” members of the FBI who are investigating Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified material, and who spoke with The New York Times following President Obama’s comments. The Times also spoke with Ron Hosko, “a former senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund,” who “said it was inappropriate for the president to ‘suggest what side of the investigation he is on’ when the F.B.I. is still investigating.

“‘Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,’ said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.”

This, along with recent news about a spin-off of the Clinton Foundation having to refile tax returns because in the earlier filings they had failed to disclose millions of dollars in foreign donations; and the obvious lies, inconsistencies and omissions from Hillary’s Benghazi testimony before the committee last month, are taking their toll.

When asked in the latest Quinnipiac poll, “Would you say that [Candidate] is honest and trustworthy or not?” when compared to all of the leading Republican candidates, Clinton was the lowest with just 36 percent who said yes, and the highest at 60 percent who said no. The poll shows that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is currently ahead of her by 46 to 43 in a head to head match-up. Several others were beating her as well.

Even a slumping Bernie Sanders is reconsidering the “Get out of jail free” pass that he gave Mrs. Clinton during the one Democratic debate, when he said, “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails.” He now says it’s a legitimate issue to pursue. “Let the investigation proceed unimpeded,” he told The Wall Street Journal.

The Democratic front-runner is under investigation by the FBI for her mishandling of classified information. There’s no doubt that she did. The only questions are, did she know at the time that classified material passed through her computer that it was classified? Should she have known? Does it matter whether she knew or not? What about the gross negligence aspect of not knowing? If the FBI refers the case to the Justice Department for a criminal referral, would Attorney General Loretta Lynch indict her, or would she turn to President Obama to get his okay on whether or not to indict? Is Joe Biden still waiting in the wings?


Remembering Hillary Clinton

By Frank Salvato

This article is adapted from a popular social media post afforded by Kaye Ellen Rish, with permission.

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Committee testimony, it is prudent – especially with a generation of voters having no direct memories of Bill Clinton’s presidency – to recall Mrs. Clinton’s time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Truth be told, when her “public service” is put into context, one has to wonder how anyone could support her for the highest office in the land.

It is of importance to note; before we get into the incredible events and decisions Hillary Clinton was charged with during her husband’s administration, that she once served as a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment team that investigated Watergate. Her former boss, Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat who served as counsel and chief of staff for the House Judiciary Committee, said of Mrs. Clinton, “[She]…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules.” Additionally, her office space partner at the time, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying to Zeifman that he was dismayed with, “…her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel…” Mrs. Clinton’s termination from this role has been rumored to have centered on this unethical and criminal behavior, but the fact are murky, as with everything Clinton. What we do know is that Zeifman said, “Let me put it this way: I terminated her…and advised her that I would not – could not – recommend her for any further positions.”

When Bill Clinton first became President, he charged Hillary with assuming authority over advancing a healthcare reform initiative. This initiative son became widely referred to as HillaryCare. But even after threats, arm-twisting and intimidation, she couldn’t achieve a vote for the measure, and in a Democrat controlled Congress. This fiasco resulted in a cost to the American taxpayers of approximately $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Mrs. Clinton’s first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. Both of Mrs. Clinton’s nominations for the post were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Baird was entangled in Nannygate, where it was discovered that she and her husband employed illegal immigrants from Peru as house workers and chauffeurs and failing to withhold Social Security taxes for their workers. Wood withdrew her name in the aftermath of Nannygate because she, too, had employed an undocumented worker, although she had withheld the required taxes in doing so.

Next Mrs. Clinton advanced the nomination of Janet Reno. President Bill Clinton would later recall that Reno was the “worst mistake” of his presidency. Some may not recall that Reno made the decision to attack the compound of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas, resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children. So, too, she presided over the forced extraction of Elián González to Cuba.

President Clinton then tasked Hillary to make recommendations for seating a new head for the Civil Rights Commission. Her choice was Lani Guanier, a civil rights activist, Harvard law professor and racial ideologist. When Guanier’s radical racial ideology started to emerge, many of the Clinton’s supporters in the world of politick started to get cold feet about her nomination. Racial politics was not in play as it is under the Obama Administration. And when that opposition grew to include Democrat stalwarts like Edward Kennedy and Joe Biden, Guanier’s name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, or a husband fearful of his spouse’s reprisals, President Clinton again allowed Hillary to make more recommendations.

At the President’s direction, Hillary chose former law partners Web Hubbell for the post of US Associate Attorney General at the Justice Department, and Vince Foster for the position of Deputy White House Counsel. Her selections went well. Hubbell went to prison for his part in the Whitewater Scandal that, oddly enough, existed all around Hillary Clinton but never “touched” her. Hubbel plead guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of tax fraud in connection with his legal billing at the Rose Law Firm. On June 28, 1995, he was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment. Foster, also a partner at the Rose Law Firm, presumably committed suicide due to a bout with severe depression. It was widely known that he was incredibly unhappy with the politics he was required to perform for the Clintons.

Many of today’s younger votes have no knowledge of any of these goings on. They have no memory of how the news media ran interference for the Clintons at every turn and how most of the scandals laid at the feet of Bill Clinton had a genesis in Hillary Clinton. Travelgate was another of these issues but this one was laid at Hillary’s own feet.

In Travelgate:

“[T]he incoming Clinton administration had heard reports of irregularities in the Travel Office and possible kickbacks to an office employee from a charter air company. They looked at a review by KPMG Peat Marwick which discovered that Dale kept an off-book ledger, had $18,000 of unaccounted-for checks, and kept chaotic office records. White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty and the White House Counsels thus decided to fire the Travel Office staff and reorganize it.”

In actuality, Hillary was found to have wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton family friend and Hollywood producer Harry Thomason – husband of Linda Bloodworth Thomason (also a Hollywood producer) – who had established the TRM travel company. The Clintons had been TRM’s only client, utilizing their service during the presidential campaign; the principles having had ties to the Clintons all the way back to Arkansas. When White House Travel Office staff refused to comply with Hillary’s request, the President (read: Hillary) pressured President Clinton’s Chief of Staff Matt McLarty, into firing the entirety of the Travel Office staff. She then managed to have an FBI investigation launched into the record keeping of that office. Suspiciously, the records were in such disarray that no definitive conclusion arrived. The termination of the Travel Office staff ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced that her actions were always based in political opportunity and the personal enrichment for her friends – or henpecked into appeasement, President Clinton enlisted Hillary to recommend another Clinton Family friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security. Livingstone was the central figure in Filegate, where he was discovered to have illegally accessed approximately 900 FBI background reports concerning White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors, and what has now come to be known as the Clinton enemies list. It is said that in the aftermath of this scandal the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office.

When myriad women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual acts perpetrated at the hands of Bill Clinton – both during his time as Governor of Arkansas and as President of the United States, Hillary was tasked to take the leading in responding to the “#$%$ eruption,” coordinating the Clintons official defense to the scandal. Some of her more notable decisions in the matter:

  • She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones;
  • She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor, resulting in over $80 million dollars of taxpayer being spent on the investigation;
  • Her resistance to Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary’s politically-based and disingenuous game plan resulted in President Clinton losing his license to practice law for perjuring himself; for “lying under oath” to a grand jury, and to his subsequent and successful impeachment by the House of Representatives. And just as during her appearances before the House Committee tasked with investigating the assassination of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his security contingent in Benghazi – at least for the most part, Hillary avoided culpability and charges of perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by deflecting; by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

In addition to Mrs. Clintons actions while a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, after leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

Now Mrs. Clinton’s actions advance to the level of criminality in the destruction of government property (emails destroyed while Secretary of State), the illegal mishandling of classified and top secret information (emails disseminated via unsecured and personal email accounts and servers while Secretary of State) and the “pay to play” schemes that Mrs. Clinton hatched for the Clinton Foundation that were facilitated through her position as Secretary of State. Is it any wonder the American people have placed zero trust in this woman; in this family; in this circle of political operatives? We have no idea what shoe will fall next! But, thanks to her sycophantic followers, existing indifferent to political corruption in government, we are presented with the question this election cycle: “What difference does it make?”

The walk-away from all of this is that we – we the American people: Conservative and Liberal; Republican and Democrat – know Mrs. Clinton is dishonest, self-promoting, power-hungry, politically opportune and untrustworthy. The only question that remains is this. Are Progressives that indifferent to honesty and truth; that loathsome of a government that serves the people rather than politicians, that they would continue to support such a dishonest and nefarious person? We will find out in November of 2016. 

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director of BasicsProject.org a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy, and internal and external threats facing Western Civilization. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His opinion and analysis have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, The Jewish World Review, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Townhall.com and are syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is the author of six books examining Islamofascism and Progressivism, including “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam”. Mr. Salvato’s personal writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com.


ATTACK SCENARIO: How Hillary Clinton’s Lust for Money and Power Led to America’s “Digital Pearl Harbor”

Doug Ross @ Journal

It’s hard to overstate the impact on national security of what is commonly known as “The OPM Hack”. The secret files of 22 million individuals who have applied for security clearances — maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — was ripped off as cleanly as Michael Moore stealing cookies from a Girl Scout.


Every person who applies for a security clearance fills out an electronic application called an EQIP or EPSQ, which are questionnaires of applicants.

Those applying for a Top Secret clearance must answer an extremely detailed questionnaire delving into every aspect of their personal life: marital affairs, drug use, criminal activity, and any other bit of information that foreign intelligence services might use to blackmail or compromise a cleared individual.

All of those files were stolen by Red China.

The OPM hack has been so devastating to clandestine operations, including NOCs (agents operating under non-official cover), that the CIA just pulled its agents from Beijing “for their safety”.

Virtually every current and future military and intelligence operation was put at risk by the OPM hack.

Today the FBI has admitted they are investigating what other cyber security experts had already acknowledged: it is virtually certain that Hillary Clinton’s bathroom email server had been compromised by foreign entities.

“In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA,” said former CIA case officer Jason Matthews, an expert in Russian intelligence.

A top intelligence official under Barack Obama — Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — noted that China was one likely attacker.

Kelly asked, “What do you think the odds are that the Chinese, the Russians hacked into that server and her e-mail account?”

“Very high,” Flynn said without hesitation. “Likely.”


“Yep. Likely. They’re very good at it. China, Russia, Iran, potentially the North Koreans. And other countries who may be ‘our allies’ because they can.”


In the most recent email dump, today we discovered that Clinton consigliere Cheryl Mills warned Hillary that use of her bathroom server was unprecedented and dangerous.

n A June 4, 2011 email chain between Hillary Clinton, her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and senior aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, all of whom used private email accounts, and in Clinton and Abedin’s case, Clinton’s secret server, Mills admits she was “someone who attempted to be hacked,” and warned against telegraphing the use of private email, as it “may encourage others who are out there.”

It is clear that everyone involved with the Clintons knew that they were violating the law and endangering U.S. national security.


Even with the limited number of emails we’ve seen, the State Department revealed that over 400 messages on Hillary’s personal email server were classified.

Each violation constitutes a felony subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years.

As Democrat operative James Carville admitted earlier this year, Hillary employed a personal email server in order to avoid public scrutiny of her actions, be they her cash-for-favors deals, mishandling of classified data, or other illegal activities.


My contention is that Hillary Clinton’s use of a bathroom server led directly to the OPM hack, which cyber experts have called “a digital Pearl Harbor.”

Here’s how the attack chain worked from the perspective of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

1. PLA operative compromises HRC’s email server.

2. PLA operative sends emails to various government officials using the accounts of HRC, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills or another senior official. Nothing gets the attention of a government apparatchik like an email from the likes of Hillary.

3. The emails contained a spear-phishing link with instructions to click on the link (e.g., “please check out these travel plans and see if they sync up with your schedule”) that installed malware on the targeted device. Predicted click-through rate: 70%+.

4. Targeted device is infected and then used to launch attacks inside applicable government network. These attacks take the form of reconnoitering on the compromised device (reading documents, emails, network drives, etc.); performing reconnaissance on the government network, and launching additional attacks.

In short, compromising Hillary’s email server was a gold mine for foreign intelligence agencies.

I can assure you we haven’t heard the last of tragic, needless compromises of America’s national security due to Hillary Clinton’s voracious lust for power and money.

Hat tip: BadBlue News.


Interviewing Mrs. Clinton, Avoiding the Tough Questions

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The carefully selected members of the media chosen to interview Hillary Clinton during her run for the Democratic nomination are sure to continue providing her with nothing but softball questions, giving her candidacy an opportunity to claim its honesty and transparency where little exists. Previously we cited Andrea Mitchell’s interview on MSNBC. Most recently it was Chuck Todd, whose interview on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday exposed how these reporters deliberately avoid discussing topics which run counter to their favored progressive narratives.

“And a reminder, and I know there’s always conspiracy theories out there, there are no limitations to this interview,” said Todd.

He asked several questions about Hillary’s private email server but few regarding the classified information found on that server, a much more serious issue.

While the Clintons like to blame the attacks on themselves as partisan politics, Hillary’s lies are becoming harder and harder for the liberal media to defend.

When Todd questioned Mrs. Clinton about her claim that she had turned over her emails as part of a general request from the State Department, he had to press her to provide answers about the discrepancy between the timing of when State asked for her records, and when the campaign claimed that this request was made.

“Well, we have explained that,” replied Clinton. “The campaign has explained it.”

This is far more than the mere discrepancy that Todd made it out to be.

The Washington Post Fact Checker gave Clinton three Pinocchios, because “there was a pressing need for the State Department to seek Clinton’s e-mails” due to the “Benghazi inquiry—and the State Department had made clear…its interest in the Clinton e-mails months before an official letter was sent.” The New York Times recently reported that experts in government classification laws said that Clinton aides may have “violated federal laws that govern how intelligence information is handled.”

The question remains how much of the State Department’s turning against Hillary Clinton is being orchestrated by the White House, which appears to be backing Vice President Joe Biden.

As we have reported, Mrs. Clinton’s receipt of classified email over a private server remains a national security concern: “Whether or not classified information was sent and received, not whether or not it was marked classified—which is the current iteration of her evolving explanation—is the real issue.”

On Monday’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, on CNN, he demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s inconsistent, evolving answers regarding the selection process for deciding which of her emails were personal and which were business, as Accuracy in Media’s Don Irvine cited. Yet on the transcript page of that show, CNN simply omitted that segment, as if it never occurred.

Mrs. Clinton has provided a wealth of excuses in the past that have been proven to be false. When questioning Mrs. Clinton about her dealings with the Clinton Foundation, for example, Todd focused on whether these emails would have been personal or work.

“You know, I did not communicate with the foundation,” replied Mrs. Clinton. “Other people in the State Department did. In accordance with the rules that had been adopted.”

This was another of her many transparent lies, as can be seen in an email already released to the public in June.

An October 28, 2009 email shows Mrs. Clinton copying Doug Band and Justin Cooper on a message to Clinton confidante Sid Blumenthal. “Bill Clinton’s senior adviser Justin Cooper was the man responsible for running the email network, according to archived Internet records,” reported Breitbart on September 2. “Cooper also works as a top fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation. He also serves as a senior adviser to Teneo Holdings, a private corporate advisory and investment banking firm founded by former Bill Clinton adviser Doug Band.” Band was active with the Clinton Global Initiative and on the Clinton Foundation’s Board of Directors at the time.

“Sid—I’m copying Doug and Justin who are traveling with Bill [Clinton] since he will be in Europe and may have some ideas about what could be done, and asking that they share it w him and then get back to you,” wrote Mrs. Clinton.

Questions also remain about possible pay-for-play during Mrs. Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.

“Newly released financial disclosures reveal Bill Clinton received $16.46 million in payments from a George Soros-backed for-profit education company, as Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled tens of millions of dollars to a group run by the company’s chairman,” reported Peter Schweizer for Breitbart in August. “From 2010 until just days before the 2015 release of Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton served as [Laureate Education’s] ‘honorary chancellor.’”

“When the Clinton campaign team obtained a copy of the book and its Clinton-Laureate connection revelation, Bill Clinton abruptly resigned.”

Todd could have also taken Hillary to account for her many falsehoods and role in the Benghazi cover-up, such as her decision to coordinate with the White House to blame the 2012 Benghazi attacks on a YouTube video.

As a counter to Todd’s biased reporting, and in our continuing effort to help keep the media on an aggressive yet unbiased path, we are offering up some suggested questions on various topics that the press should start demanding that Hillary Clinton answer:

  1. You’ve apologized for not using two separate email accounts. But you haven’t apologized for using a private, unencrypted server, which could have easily—and probably was—hacked by Chinese, Russian and North Korean operatives. Will you now apologize for endangering national security?
  2. If in your position as Secretary of State you would have received training on how to handle classified information then why did you and your aides exchange information now marked “Confidential” with Tony Blair regarding his role as Middle East Envoy over your unsecure server?
  3. Why did your department send out a memo encouraging department staffto “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts” yet you yourself used a private server for your work as Secretary?
  4. Why did the State Department and the White House coordinate the Benghazi YouTube video narrative when your staff became aware that this was a terror attack approximately a half hour into the attack?
  5. Why did the State Department provide inadequate security leading up to the attacks, despite multiple requests for assistance from Tripoli?
  6. If you neither sent nor received classified emails using your private server, then why has the Inspector General marked two of them as classified, and Reuters identified another 87 exchanges as born classified?
  7. If you assumed that the State Department would capture your emails when they were sent, then why were your aides also using private email accountsfrom your server?
  8. You told Chuck Todd, “I’m not by any means a technical expert. I relied on people who were.” Bryan Pagliano, who maintained your private server while simultaneously working at the State Department, has pled the Fifth and won’t talk to the FBI. How does this reflect on your statements that you have been transparent with the public?
  9. While you chose to erase and destroy more than 30,000 emails from your time as Secretary of State, why didn’t you allow an independent figure to determine which emails were personal, and which were somehow business related?
  10. If you provided all of your work-related emails, why has the Defense Department now found approximately 10 exchanges which were not turned over in the first place?
  11. Why has the State Department now turned over 925 additional emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi some of which, according to The Daily Beast, were “previously assessed to be of a ‘personal nature and unrelated to the former Secretary’s official capacity?’”
  12. If you say that you’ve deleted all your personal emails, then why have emails from an “old friend,” Sidney Blumenthal, been released by the State Department? Does that mean Blumenthal, who was being paid $10,000 a month by the Clinton Foundation, was conducting official business for you as Secretary of State?
  13. You have said you’re very proud of the “life-saving and life-changing work” that the Clinton Foundation is currently performing. Why, then, does it only spend approximately 10 percent of its funds on direct charitable grants?


The Democratic Party’s Deepening Dilemma

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

While Republicans are preparing for their second debate on Wednesday night, with most of the attention focused on the surprising, continuing strength of the Donald Trump campaign, the Democrats are facing an identity crisis of their own. It could prove far more chaotic than the one that the Republicans are facing.

After years of assuming Hillary Clinton would be nominated by the Democrats and swept into office by the American people, the party doesn’t know which way to turn. With the radical, left-wing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) now leading in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Hillary, facing possible indictment for mishandling classified information, the party is looking for help. The names that emerge are Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and even former VP Al Gore. If the Obama Justice Department greenlights an indictment for Hillary, there would be open warfare between the Obama and Clinton forces, creating havoc and a deeply divided party for whoever the eventual nominee would be. And if they don’t indict, they are risking having her as a badly tarnished candidate, since she is rapidly losing the support and trust of a large percentage of the American people, including her natural constituency.

The liberal media are finally admitting Hillary Clinton’s political weakness, even if they refuse to recognize the underlying deception that has undermined her candidacy. The Washington Post devoted a September 15 front page article to a poll showing that Hillary’s overall support among Democratic-leaning voters has declined by over 20 points since July.

Her appeal among female Democratic leaning voters has dropped further, a full 29 points in just eight short weeks, the Post reports.

No longer can Mrs. Clinton be called the woman’s candidate, a historic force destined to take the White House. “Her numbers among women have declined to the point where they are about even with her share among men,” reports the Post.

“The poll suggests that the historic significance of Clinton’s campaign is being overtaken by other forces,” it states.

The idea that Mrs. Clinton should become heir apparent to the presidential throne was a narrative perpetuated by the liberal media, akin to the demographic demagoguery used to hasten President Obama’s ascendance. Whereas the media were largely derelict in their duty to investigate candidate Barack Obama’s radical background, they have been unable to avoid exposing many of Mrs. Clinton’s pervasive lies.

“All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped,” Platte River Networks spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post on September 12.

If Mrs. Clinton’s email server was not actually wiped, then her deleted emails could possibly be retrieved. It would then be possible to determine what she withheld from the State Department, and, ultimately, the public.

“The revelation that Clinton never ordered the server wiped could bolster her statements that her actions have been aboveboard, suggesting that she did not take active steps to hide her e-mails,” contends the Post.

If no deception was intended, why would Mrs. Clinton have altered some emails she turned over and withheld other work-related correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal?

In addition, the State Department does not have “any emails Clinton sent between her first day in office in Jan. 2009 to April 12 of that year,” nor anything she “received between Jan. and March 2009,” nor sent during “her final month in office,” according to The Washington Examiner. The State Department only denied “the gap from Dec. 2012 to Feb. 2013,” according to the Examiner. These latest revelations came as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information requests, announced at a conference they held on Monday of this week. As many of the speakers stated at the conference, Judicial Watch has been doing much of the heavy lifting that both the media and the Justice Department should have been doing.

It strains credulity to presume that Mrs. Clinton did not send or receive a single work email for months, much less that nothing she knowingly sent or received during her four years as Secretary of State was classified. Yet this is what she has expected the public to believe.

“Now is precisely the time for Clinton and her team to wet the bed—indeed, they may already be doing so,” commented Matthew Continetti for National Review on September 12. He notes that “many of the campaign bundlers who donated to Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 haven’t written checks this time around” and that donors’ loyalties depend on perceptions of who can win, not who should win.

However, if Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy has been harmed, it has been by her own lack of integrity—not the liberal media’s desire to undermine her. Indeed, as werecently reported, journalists have repeatedly gone to great lengths to avoid damaging her campaign. One of the latest examples was during Mrs. Clinton’s recent, disingenuous apology tour, when NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, during an interview with Mrs. Clinton on MSNBC, ended her questions about the email arrangement out of fear that further inquiry might sabotage her access to this candidate.

In 2008, notes Continetti, Clinton’s “political and personal future did not depend on the outcome of decisions made at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC.” The question is, if the FBI says there is enough evidence to indict, would the Justice Department go along with it? My guess is that they wouldn’t, for the reasons stated above.

As National Review Senior Editor Jonah Goldberg notes, there is not one—but an “arsenal” of smoking guns implicating Hillary. “The problem is that the standards for what counts as a smoking gun keep changing,” he writes, from minor lies about wanting to use a single device to lies about Clinton’s relationship with confidant Blumenthal.

The cumulative weight of these lies has already been sufficient to seriously damage Mrs. Clinton’s credibility with voters.

“The Washington Times reports that Clinton’s unsecured emails contained spy satellite information about North Korea’s movement of its nuclear assets,” Goldberg writes. “This sort of information is universally recognized as top secret and is normally subjected to draconian safeguards. There is no way Clinton didn’t know this.”

“All of these—and many other—facts would have counted as ‘smoking guns’ if they were divulged immediately after Clinton’s U.N. press conference,” writes Goldberg. “But Clinton, with the help of her praetorian defenders in the media, keeps moving the goalposts.”

It becomes clearer by the day that no matter how many times the media move the goalposts in order to aid Mrs. Clinton and maintain the viability of her candidacy, voters will continue to recognize the dishonesty of both. That, in essence, is the Democratic Party’s dilemma.