Hillary: Lock Her Up!

By: Lloyd Marcus

Hillary’s post-election speech about fake news was beyond the pale; the height of arrogance and deceit. Her wickedness makes my skin crawl. Blaming fake news for her loss, this deplorable woman had the chutzpah to say, “…it’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences. Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs. Its a danger that must be addressed.” http://bit.ly/2h2tmOz

So we are suppose to believe Hillary cares about ordinary people. Remember the leaked emails exposing Hillary’s team’s disdain for Catholics, Southerners, needy Latinos and common folks? http://bit.ly/2dxwkpL

Knowing how the Democrats roll, Hillary saying fake news is “a danger that must be addressed” is yet another attack on free speech, justifying government censorship and regulations. Why are leftists called liberals when they are power obsessed control freaks?

Meanwhile, Hillary and her leftist minions planted, watered and nurtured fake news which continues to reap them a bountiful harvest of racial hate and division. Hillary and Company’s fake news has painted a bright red bulls-eye on the backs of America’s police; our brave men and women in blue. http://bit.ly/2gQiFLW

Hillary’s long list of lies which have devastated lives and even led to the deaths of Americans are well documented. http://bit.ly/2hDfZRH And yet her fake news speech emitted an air of moral superiority. Clearly, Hillary will continue lying and deceiving the American people for as long as she can get away with it – no remorse, no humility and no humanity.

Some have advised President-Elect Trump not to pursue further investigation of what a former FBI agent called the Bill and Hillary Clinton “Crime Family.” http://bit.ly/2eY7wuY I was pretty neutral on the issue. After hearing her nose-up-in-the-air fake news speech, I say, let the law follow its course.

The average jail time for a kid possessing a small amount of drugs is 3 years. Why should Hillary walk with multiple crimes that jeopardized national security? Everyone knows she became filthy rich by selling influence to whomever from banks to foreign governments. http://bit.ly/2a3hwSY

Knowing that the mainstream media has her back, Hillary dared to boldly come to the national microphone and preach to us about fake news. Truly repulsive.

Please do not think I am advocating locking her up without following the legal process; indictment, trial and being found guilty. Some are saying it would be politically wise to give Hillary a pass; not pursuing further investigation. I disagree. The woman is like Jason and Michael Myers in those horror movies. Her fake news speech confirms that unless she is stopped, Hillary will relentlessly keep coming back; finding new ways to attack our freedom and liberty.

Move forward with the investigation Mr President! If all proceeds as the evidence so far leads, lock her evil crooked condescending derriere up!

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee


Van Jones is Behind this Electoral College Vote Challenge

***NOTE: Megaphone Strategies is connected to George Soros and they are the firm representing the Hamilton Electors seeking to keep Donald Trump from the presidency. They are also the firm that handled Barack Obama’s campaigns and Hillary Clinton’s. They also represent Black Lives Matter.

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

July, 2016:

PHILADELPHIA— Self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones is starting a new “social justice” public relations outfit to be called Megaphone Strategies.

The firm touts itself as a “social justice media strategy firm run for purpose, not profit.” (Good luck with your efforts to circumvent human nature, Comrade Jones.) Molly Haigh, communications director for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is his partner in this new adventure in antisocial activism.

Jones, who was President Obama’s green jobs czar until it was revealed that he was a 9/11 truther, will chair the organization’s board while Haigh will be president and oversee five staffers in the beginning.

AdWeek’s Fishbowl DC blog reports, quoting Jones:

Everywhere we look, we discover courageous people finding ways to break down barriers and solve tough problems. We need to hear their voices, and we need to elevate their work,” said Van Jones of the reason behind the firm’s creation, which will offer strategy, publicity, media training and event/social justice campaign planning services.

Megaphone’s clients include Vote.org, the ACORN-affiliated Working Families Party, and Demand Progress.

Jones, by the way, said Donald Trump’s speech on the closing day of the Republican National Convention makes him an American Hitler.

Well, actually, the America-hating communist didn’t literally say that but he came fairly close.

Although Trump’s speech was widely applauded in Republican circles, Jones called it a “schizophrenic psychopathic attempt to pull apart the Obama coalition,” like a moment “where there’s some big authoritarian movement, and some leader that’s rising up,” and “a disgrace.”

What do you expect from someone who hates everything America stands for?

What Jones said about Trump’s address probably isn’t anywhere near the worst garbage to have spewed from his mouth on CNN where he is a paid contributor. His commentary throughout the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last week was fairly uniformly malicious, ugly, and unfair.


Megaphone Strategies lists a majority of its clients as environmental and “social justice” organizations such as 350.org, Green For All, Democracy Fund, and Demand Progress. More here.

Going back to 2009, Van Jones called the Republicans ‘assholes’ before his audience at a time when he worked for the Obama White House.


Will history record this as The Great Trump Robbery?

***NOTE: Jill Stein’s Green Party is dropping its court case to force a recount in Pennsylvania, saying that it’s unable to afford the $1 million bond set by the Commonwealth Court.

Conscience of a Conservative

No one on the front lines of the conservative movement seem to be aware of what is going on during the post-election Trump victory party. While the over enthused Trumpeters are preoccupied with opening their Christmas presents, neither Drudge, Breitbart or Fox News have bothered to check their calendars to see the looming deadline of the December 19th meeting of the Electoral College and compare that to the timeline of the recount effort in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Some very crafty undercover Hillary operatives have devised a plan to upset the presidential election and turn American History inside out.

What seems to have escaped the brilliant minds of the mainstream conservative media is the fact that Hillary Clinton has aimed at a Hail Mary attempt that may actually succeed in nullifying the electoral ballots of the 55 delegates from Wisconsin (19), Michigan (16) and Pennsylvania (20) by forcing a last minute recount that will most certainly not be completed before the federally mandated December 13th deadline. The consequence of this action will be that the electoral votes from these three states will be forfeited. The recount effort is a ruse and a smokescreen to distract the victors. Hillary Clinton’s real plan is to stall the recount until it is too late to complete before the federal deadline.

The second Left-wing flank attack on Donald Trump’s 306 electoral votes comes from the deluge of intimidating threats directly aimed at some of Trump’s delegates. So far the rumor has it that almost 15 of them have indicated they will not vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets on December 19th. While various parties representing Donald Trump and the Republican Party are filing lawsuits to stop this attack in Michigan and Wisconsin, the state of Pennsylvania has announced that the deadline for requesting a recount has expired. But this hasn’t deterred the Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein camps from filing their own lawsuits to force a Pennsylvania recount. Looking at the numbers it thus appears that subtracting the 55 delegate votes from the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will reduce Donald Trump’s total to 251, well below the 270 votes needed to win. If the rumors prove to be true about the number of “unfaithful electors” who plan to renege their pledge to vote for Trump then Trump’s total drops even more to 236 votes. If those 15 “unfaithful electors” actually switch their votes to Hillary Clinton then her actual total of electoral votes jumps from the 232 she won on election day to 247 and she beats Donald Trump by 9 votes.

So maybe its time to put the cork back in the bottle of Champagne and get out the gun oil and clean up your weapons because we may wind up with a full-blown uprising before Christmas.

A long time ago a very astute Washington observer once said, “In Washington, the conservatives get the rhetoric and the liberals get the action.” And before that candid revelation was inscribed, George Santayana, a Spanish-born, American philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist, wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Hey, Breitbart, hey, Drudge, its time to wake up and start spreading the alarm. The biggest robbery in history is taking place right under your noses. My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Smokescreens and deception hide the purpose of Hillary’s vote challenge.

By: Nelson Abdullah | Conscience of a Conservative

Democrats love contested elections because there are so many ways they can steal them. And so many ways for them to win some advantage point with them. There also happens to be two major developments going on right now regarding this election. Without addressing them both at the same time in the same story the point of the recount issue by itself is meaningless. The current effort to recount the votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania is a distraction and a smokescreen for the Democrats real purpose. The Trump delegates in the Electoral College are under siege to change their votes and this recount push is certainly not helping them maintain their positions. This recount effort is really being used to demoralize them. The Democrats also have everything to gain by creating doubt and confusion with voter recounts. Read this opening paragraph about the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota from Wikipedia.

After a legal battle lasting over eight months, Al Franken from the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in one of the closest elections in the history of the Senate. Al Franken took his oath of office on July 7, 2009, more than half a year after the beginning of his term on January 3, 2009. By the way, Al Franken won after several hundred absentee ballots mysteriously reappeared after being discovered at the bottom of someone’s desk.

The Democrats have already admitted they have thousands of lawyers standing by to challenge the election results. If the recount issue is allowed to hold up the final election results it may delay the Electoral College vote on December 19th. If it winds its way into the courts, that keeps Barack Obama in the White House until it is finalized. That also puts a lot of pressure on the thin GOP Senate majority to postpone the nomination hearings of Chief Judge Merrick Garland that Obama made to the Supreme Court. If that happens then it is very possible that the liberal Democrat that Obama nominated will be confirmed, either by the Recess Rule or by a frustrated Senate. If so, score a major win for the Democrats, even if Donald Trump is eventually sworn in.

My gut feeling is the big push for a recount is a smokescreen and a distraction to the Democrats real purpose. That purpose is to demoralize the Trump delegates to the Electoral College. These elected delegates are already being besieged with death threats to make them change their vote when the Electoral College meets on December 19th.

This fact doesn’t diminish the importance of the vote recount and the national Tea Party has called for loyal Trump supporters to act as witnesses in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania when the recount takes place. Read more on their web page:


It wouldn’t be the first time Democrats have tried to steal an election with a recount. They have done it many times before by getting dead people to vote and busing in illegal voters that are not hampered with voter ID restrictions. And believe me, it won’t be over until the fat lady sings Trump’s victory song or the Patriots run out of ammunition.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


MSNBC’s Election Day “Crystal Ball” is Broken

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


Instead of underwriting media stars who fail to predict the future, perhaps the University of Virginia (UVA) ought to get back to teaching students marketable skills so they can obtain good jobs.

One of the big losers on November 8 was UVA media star and Professor Larry Sabato, who said on MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell show that “Our prediction is that Hillary Clinton will get 322 electoral votes, and Donald Trump will get 216.”

Trump/Pence are projected to get 306 electoral votes to Clinton/Kaine’s 232.

Perhaps he should take up astrology.

His Crystal Ball newsletter “has been a leader in accurately predicting elections since its inception,” says Sabato’s website. Described as “authoritative,” the newsletter is part of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

His total compensation in 2014 was $380,000.

On the November 7 O’Donnell show, Sabato predicted Clinton would win North Carolina (Trump won it) and that Clinton had a real shot of winning Ohio (Trump won it by nine points).

Sabato said, “One of my great people at the Crystal Ball, Kyle Condik, wrote a book called Bellwether about Ohio…so his contacts are the best and they keep telling us that it’s much, much closer than people realize and that Clinton might, might be able to pull out a victory there…”

Kondik is managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball newsletter.

Sabato also predicted a net gain of four for Democrats in the Senate, resulting in a 50-50 tie in Congress’ upper chamber. “If we’re right about the presidential contest, that means Vice President Tim Kaine (D) will be breaking ties after Inauguration,” Sabato claimed.

Sabato thought there was a chance of Democrats taking the Senate. “If we’re off on the total number of seat changes [in the Senate],” he said, “we think it’s slightly likelier that Democrats get to 51 or 52 than Republicans. That could mean the Democrats pulling out a win in Indiana, Missouri, or North Carolina. If Republicans hold on to the majority, it probably would be because Ayotte survives in New Hampshire.”

In fact, Ayotte lost in New Hampshire and Republicans won in Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina.

Ayotte alienated Republicans by abandoning Trump. Her campaign alienated conservatives by passing out free condoms to get votes at the University of New Hampshire.

Rather than being losses, the GOP victories were:

  • In Indiana, the Republican Todd Young beat Democrat Evan Bayh by 52.1 to 42.4.
  • In Missouri, the Republican Roy Blunt beat the Democrat Jason Kander by 49.4 to 46.2.
  • In North Carolina, the Republican Richard Burr beat the Democrat Deborah Ross by 51.1 to 45.3.

After the Trump victory, Sabato’s UVA website declared, “We heard for months from many of you, saying that we were underestimating the size of a potential hidden Trump vote and his ability to win. We didn’t believe it, and we were wrong. The Crystal Ball is shattered. We’ll pick up the pieces starting next week as we try to unpack what happened in this election, where there was so much dramatic change from just four years ago.”

He added, “We have a lot to learn, and we must make sure the Crystal Ball never has another year like this. This team expects more of itself, and we apologize to our readers for our errors.”

Perhaps Sabato ought to spend more time teaching classes and less time on MSNBC, CNN and other channels.

To make matters worse, O’Donnell brought on Ana Marie Cox, a rabid feminist now with MTV, who breathed a sigh of relief at Sabato’s prediction that Trump wouldn’t win. But she said America still had a lot to fear because Trump’s success in the primaries had revealed some “real ugly things” about the U.S.

She added, “I am hopeful this is going to be a fairly resounding victory and that is going to put some shame back in people about the kinds of things that have come up during this election.”

Former Jeb Bush communications director Tim Miller was then brought on to say that he was hopeful that Hispanic immigrants would be “the ones to put the nail in Donald Trump`s coffin” in states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida.

Trump lost in Nevada by only 2 points and Colorado by only about 3 points. Trump beat Clinton in Florida.

Sabato told O’Donnell that a firm called Latino Decisions had estimated that Clinton would get a higher percentage of Latino votes than Barack Obama, and that Trump was at only 16 percent.

The results were much different. In fact, the Pew Research Center says Clinton had a lower percentage of Latinos than Obama, and Trump got 29 percent, two more points that Mitt Romney in 2012.

My crystal ball says Sabato will not change the name of his newsletter and that he will be back in four years making another round of predictions.

O’Donnell himself bought into the hype, declaring that the fear is that “the presidency will be handed over to ignorance, incompetence and bigotry,” but that “the latest polls indicate that…America should have nothing to fear.”

He added, “Donald Trump has taken this country to the brink, and tomorrow voters are likely to take it back.”

This episode of the O’Donnell show demonstrates how the media talk among themselves, using sources that reaffirm their biases, while ignoring objective reality.

We have come to expect this from MSNBC, but to have a prestigious university like UVA participate in such a charade is an absolute disgrace.

“The glass ceiling did not break Tuesday night, but the Crystal Ball shattered,” wrote Andrew Cain of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, in a story about Sabato’s humiliation.

But don’t think that Sabato will slink away in disgrace. He was back on CNN on Monday giving his opinion on the Electoral College.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.


Media Bias Has Become Mental Illness

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


Aware that their credibility is shot with the American people, the publisher and executive editor of The New York Times sent a “To our readers” note on Friday, saying, “we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.”

This was another way of saying, “Sorry, we blew it,” without being honest with readers.

Those familiar with the paper’s “journalism” understand this to be media bias. But Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet were suggesting something else—that something had gone wrong and they don’t quite know what happened, but don’t worry because the Times will get back to its mission of reporting truthfully.

Beating around the bush, they said Trump’s victory was “the biggest political story of the year,” which had “reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night…”

The word “unexpected” means that the paper’s predictions were wrong.

Then they said that the paper’s newsroom had covered the campaign “with agility and creativity,” which are terms for incompetence and bias. Some people cling to the old-fashioned idea that a paper should report events objectively.

Pretending to reflect on the poor coverage, they finally got to the problem without saying so directly. They asked, “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” and “What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?”

In other words, Trump’s “sheer unconventionality” caused the paper to misreport what was happening. He had appealed to mysterious “forces and strains,” terms that apparently refer to the voters.

Sulzberger and Baquet insisted that the Times will “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”

In other words, they blew it during the 2016 campaign and will try to do better next time. But nothing is really changing at the paper. Nobody is being fired. And nobody is being hired who has an understanding of the conservative electorate.

The paper, they said, will “hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.”

But who will hold The New York Times accountable?

In a real howler, they then claimed, “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”

This is another indication that the paper is hopelessly liberal, and that nothing will really change.

The business as usual attitude was reflected in the front-page headline in the Times after Trump won: “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”

As Accuracy in Media Chairman Don Irvine noted, the headline was even funny to various MSNBC personalities, because it focused on the disappointment of liberals at Trump’s victory, rather than the victory itself.

Mark Halperin commented, “If a Democratic candidate who was thought to have a 10 percent chance of winning by The New York Times that ended up winning, and winning red states as Trump won blue states, I don’t think that would have been the headline. And I’ll just say again, the responsibility of journalists is to not report on their biases. It’s to go out and understand the country through the prism of the election and say, ‘Why are people feeling the way they’re feeling?’”

Of course, the Times was not alone.

Consider the story in Politico headlined, “Insiders: Clinton would crush Trump in November.” It began, “In the swing states that matter most in the presidential race, Donald Trump doesn’t have a prayer against Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

In a story headlined, “The Democrat Media Complex Will Never Understand What Happened Tuesday Night,” Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media commented that the talking heads want desperately to avoid the topic of the “overwhelming lack of political and intellectual diversity in their ranks,” but that the problem of their liberalism is compounded by their laziness.

This is a fact, as reflected in my analysis of Post “journalist” Dana Milbank, who got caught asking Democratic Party officials for help on an anti-Trump column.

For his part, Milbank crafted another anti-Trump column after the Trump victory, in the form of a letter to his daughter. “This is a sad day for our country,” he told her. “I want you to know that I did everything I could to prevent this from happening. My efforts and those of many others came up short.”

Those “many others” were in the media and the Democratic Party, for whom Milbank worked. Perhaps Post owner Jeff Bezos ought to ask the Democrats to pay Milbank’s salary.

Milbank told his daughter, “You are going to be okay.”

That’s more than what we can say about Milbank. He is not okay. He is more than just a lazy liberal who gets the Democratic Party to help write his columns. He is completely out of touch with the America he claims to be writing about.

Like those at the Times, Milbank and others at the Post will never change. They are elitists whose hatred for their fellow Americans borders on mental illness.

Like other liberals, they claim to be on a crusade for “the children,” in his case his daughter. It’s frankly despicable that he would use his kid as a political prop. She needs our prayers.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.


FBI Director Confirms that Hillary Lied, and Mishandled Classified Material

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media


On Sunday, FBI Director James Comey sought to put a cap on the bottle he opened on October 28 when he announced that the FBI was once again investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails, based on a device they had discovered containing what turned out to be approximately 650,000 emails. The device was the shared computer of sexting pervert and former congressman Anthony Weiner and his long suffering wife, Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton and a woman with deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Comey caused an uproar in the campaign, on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and their allies in the media were outraged that Comey would drop this bomb into the campaign with 11 days until the election, and not explain the urgency or the substance of his findings. Many Republicans, and their allies, who were outraged by Comey’s conclusions back in July—namely that Hillary Clinton was guilty of serious violations of the law, but that he didn’t believe that she had any criminal intent, nor that “any reasonable prosecutor” would attempt to prosecute the case against her—were saying that maybe Comey was going to implicate Hillary in serious criminal activity after all. He wouldn’t have reopened this matter, they believed, if he didn’t have something new and serious that he had seen.

Now, the roles are reversed again, with Democrats claiming that Comey’s latest statement represents a complete vindication for Hillary, while Republicans are questioning the timing and point of the whole exercise. Did the FBI, even with their high-tech reading devices, actually go through 650,000 emails in a week, and conclude that there is no there there? And why is the State Department only able to process 500 emails per month? The wheels of justice seem to turn at whatever pace the Democrats need them to.

I have a bit of a different take. In the November 6 letter to Congress, Comey stated:

“I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation. During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.

“Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

While Comey did, in fact, argue back in July that he was not recommending an indictment or prosecution of Hillary, he also drew other “conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.” He had concluded that she lied when she said that she hadn’t sent or received classified materials on her private, unsecured server. She lied when she said that nothing that she sent or received was marked classified. She lied when she said that she only used one device, when in fact she used at least 13 devices, at least two of which were destroyed by hammers. And she lied when she said that she had turned over all of her work-related emails. No, in fact Comey said that there were “thousands” of work-related emails they found that she had not turned over. You can watch here to see Comey draw all of these “conclusions” back in July.

This is what the Clinton campaign is wearing as a badge of complete exoneration, and a closing of the books on her so-called email scandal, which is actually a national security scandal. As we have often pointed out, others have gone to jail, been fined, lost their security clearances and were run out of public life for far less egregious examples of mishandling classified material.

Andy McCarthy, the former U.S. Attorney who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh for his involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, argued back in July that Comey basically rewrote the law. Comey “conceded that former Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’ and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.”

McCarthy added that “Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.”

“In essence,” wrote McCarthy, “in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.”

But this has been a corrupt process. The fix was in. It had to be to protect President Obama as well, who knowingly exchanged emails with Hillary on her private server. As Politico pointed out, “President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records…” Those FBI records, released in late September, confirmed what McCarthy had earlier predicted:  “As I explained in February,” wrote McCarthy, “when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.”

It is possible that America will be electing someone as president on Tuesday who has committed serious crimes that could all be wiped away by a presidential pardon. The media’s failure to accurately cover this story could very well be the cause of a major constitutional crisis, the likes we’ve never witnessed before.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.


“People Power” Versus Manipulation of the Masses

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


On November 8, the election will come down to Donald J. Trump’s “people power,” a largely spontaneous uprising of the “silent majority,” against Hillary Clinton’s scientific manipulation of the electorate, using personal data to identify and provoke people to go to the polls. In this effort, Mrs. Clinton has the support of the giant company Google and the president of its parent company, Eric Schmidt. Experts say the effort resembles how the Communist Chinese dictatorship monitors people and modifies their behavior through media manipulation and censorship of the Web.

As Trump suggests, the election process seems “rigged,” and the evidence has come in the form of another John Podesta email.

One of the internal Clinton campaign emails disclosed by WikiLeaks shows that Schmidt, chairman of the Google parent company, offered a detailed campaign plan for the Clinton campaign. The April 15, 2014, message, addressed to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, said, “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better.” The details included “Size, Structure and Timing” and a campaign budget of $1.5 billion, with more than “5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers.” The Schmidt email was sent along to several key Clinton people, including campaign chairman John Podesta.

The plan examines how information is received and reviewed by voters, and what provokes them. Indeed, in a section titled “The Voter,” Schmidt says, “Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.” Schmidt goes on to say, “For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote. Analytics can model demographics, social factors and many other attributes of the needed voters.”

Patrick Wood, editor of Technocracy News, comments that Schmidt’s scoring idea “is just like China’s social scoring of citizens to see who is for them and who is against them.”

On one level, this means that search engine results are manipulated. In his evaluation of the Schmidt email, Michael Cantrell comments, “For some time now, people have wondered if Google, the world’s largest search engine, might be a tad bit slanted when it comes to politics, favoring left-wing candidates over conservatives in how search results are displayed. Well, it seems those suspicions may not be so far-fetched after all.”

Earlier this year, in a column carried by Accuracy in Media, Seton Motley documented how Google was designing its search engine to maneuver people away from the issue of Hillary Clinton’s health problems.

It’s a fact of life that in this era of access to many different sources of information, some people go to the Google search engine and rely on the first item that pops up. That’s how I got banned (temporarily) from the campus of the State University of New York at New Paltz. A feminist professor used Google to search my name and passed around derogatory information from the first source on the search engine page—the Southern Poverty Law Center. She then passed around the information, creating a stink that caused the campus administration to cancel the debate I was scheduled to participate in.

A new book, Islamic Jihad, Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West, examines the role of Google as a new media “gatekeeper” that determines how people see the reality of the world. The author, William Mayer of PipeLineNews.org, examines how Google produces search engine results on the subject of Islamic terrorism that play down criminal activities of leading Jihadists. Mayer says the results can be confusing unless the search terms are assembled with scrupulous precision, “a difficult task when one isn’t exactly sure in advance the extent of the associations being pursued.”

In his excellent book, Mayer documents in detail the “leftist/Obama/Media merger” that played a significant role in Obama’s 2012 victory and figures prominently in Hillary Clinton’s plan for victory on Tuesday.

Mayer comments, “…if we think of the Internet as the largest depository of information ever to be created, it assumes in many sense the role of the book of common wisdom. When the universal storehouse of information obfuscates and hides knowledge it becomes censorious, preventing or at least stifling access to non-ideologically approved ideas and information.”

When Barack Obama campaigns against Trump by citing the KKK, you can rest assured this has been determined by analysts in the Hillary campaign to be at least somewhat effective in scaring blacks. Getting blacks to vote against Trump is a part of what they hope will be their winning strategy. Similarly, when Hillary Clinton campaigns with a profane rapper named Jay Z, the calculation has been made by some brain in the campaign structure that using such a spectacle will inspire other blacks to turn out for the former secretary of state on Election Day. Hillary hopes that the rapper’s popularity will somehow rub off on her.

These two campaign events are more evidence of how truly “scientific” the progressive movement has become. People are perceived by the Clinton campaign as subjects to be manipulated.

Even with the use of these scientific techniques, victory is not assured for the “progressive” forces. That is why reports of vote fraud are mounting as Obama sounds the alarm about the KKK. For Trump to win, the “silent majority” will have to be a real majority with millions of votes to spare, surpassing the artificially created “progressive” bloc bolstered by fraudulent votes and created by an emerging technocratic dictatorship of access to information.

The “media monopoly” that the left used to rail against is now controlled by them.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.


The Hillary Clinton File

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

October certainly lived up to its reputation as being a month for surprises in this year’s presidential election, especially for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The media have done as much as they could to help minimize the damage, but a massive amount of new information came out that has confirmed and revealed a pattern of deceit, duplicity and corruption, unmatched in any presidential candidacy in modern times.


October Surprises

Until this recent information made its way into the public consciousness, the narrative for this upcoming election was largely intact. Hillary Clinton, the most intelligent, qualified, experienced, compassionate, and yes, the first ever female candidate was headed for an historic win. Sure, she had some people who didn’t find her honest or trustworthy, but that was just because they spent too much time watching Fox News or listening to conservative talk radio. Her opponent—a crude, rude, undisciplined, tax dodging, female-groping, reality television star with a checkered business career—was going down to defeat in historic fashion, while taking down what’s left of the Republican Party he did so much to destroy.

But with just one week until the most anticipated, feared, dreaded, controversial, shocking and unpredictable campaign in history comes to an end, and we enter the uncharted waters of a post-election that, if the race is close, could be a period of massive civil unrest regardless of which candidate wins—the narrative is in flux. For example, a Washington Post/ABC News tracking poll has shifted in one week from a 12-point lead by Mrs. Clinton, down to a one point lead. And as of November 1, Trump holds a one-point lead in that survey. Both sides largely view the other side’s victory as the end of the world as we know it, and simply unacceptable.

Despite the media’s best efforts to hold off this late rally by Trump, the cumulative effect of these various October Surprises has dramatically changed the landscape. While some aren’t complete surprises, they are corroboration and confirmation of a number of very damaging stories. First, we have the WikiLeaks revelations. At this point, with the latest release, there are more than 41,000 emails from what WikiLeaks is calling the Podesta file. John Podesta is a long-time Clinton associate who is the chairman of Hillary’s presidential campaign. He also served as chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton and counselor to President Barack Obama. And he is the former president, and now chairman of the Center for American Progress, a far-left Washington think tank.

The latest batch of 2,500 of Podesta’s emails has produced another major smoking gun, as if any more are needed. The New York Post is reporting that:

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman directed her former chief of staff to ‘dump all those emails’ the same day a bombshell report revealed Clinton’s use of a private computer server while U.S. secretary of state, WikiLeaks revealed on Tuesday.

“John Podesta sent the message to Cheryl Mills the evening of March 2, 2015, hours after the New York Times reported that Clinton may have violated federal records requirements by using the server, according to the latest batch of Podesta’s hacked emails.”

This sounds like intent to destroy evidence, and obstruct justice.

daily-mail-video-huma-abedinIn these leaks we have learned much about how the Clinton Foundation leveraged Mrs. Clinton’s position as secretary of state to benefit her and the foundation, to bring massive wealth to the Clintons and their cronies, as well as foreign governments and other entities seeking access and favors. We have learned that many people in high-ranking positions in the Obama administration were using their private email accounts to conceal what they wanted to keep hidden from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Here is a very handy list of 100 of the most revealing and damaging of the hacked WikiLeaks emails. They aren’t all from Podesta. Some are from FBI documents, others are from Democratic National Committee leaks.

We continue to find out information from FOIA documents released by Judicial Watch, including a new batch of over 300 such documents that show how Hillary Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin exchanged classified materials over Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured, home-brew server. According to Judicial Watch, these latest documents include:

“According to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions cited in the documents obtained by Judicial Watch, three of the Clinton-Abedin email exchanges contained material ‘classified to protect national security.’

“Also included in the newly obtained documents is an additional instance of the State Department doing special favors for a high-dollar Clinton Foundation donor. And the documents include instances of the distribution by State Department officials of Clinton’s government schedule to members of the Clinton Foundation staff.”

Project Veritas, run by James O’Keefe, has exposed the inner workings of the Democratic machine in action. It has documented direct ties between Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, a Clinton super PAC and far-left activist groups paying people to violently disrupt Donald Trump’s campaign rallies, and help arrange voter fraud in various ways. This is criminal activity that is getting virtually no attention in the media, other than through sites such as Breitbart, and Sean Hannity on his Fox News and radio shows. The media, if they mention it at all, simply say that it comes from the “discredited” O’Keefe, that the video has been edited, and that O’Keefe has previously been convicted of a crime while doing some of his undercover videos. They ignore the substance, which is extremely damning.

Photo by BrookingsInst
Photo by BrookingsInst

The FBI is responsible for yet another October Surprise. On October 28, FBI Director James Comey dropped a bombshell with just 11 days to go before the election. He announced in a letter to Congress that new information had come to his attention about additional emails that they were previously unaware of that may have bearing on the Hillary Clinton email probe that he had said was completed back in July. It turns out that there were some 650,000 emails from and to Hillary’s top aide of approximately 20 years, Huma Abedin, the estranged wife of former New York Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation by the FBI for alleged sexting with a minor.

Before that, the FBI summary of their investigation revealed that Clinton “couldn’t remember” 40 times during her three-and-a-half hour interview with the FBI on the Fourth of July weekend. She couldn’t remember, for example, if she had been briefed on protocols for handling classified material. According to the FBI summary, “Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.”

The Clinton Legacy from the ‘90s

While Hillary Clinton’s recent history has been plagued by scandal and failure, the recent debacles are not so different from the period of time that she and her husband spent in the White House back in the 1990s. We documented much of that corruption in the 1999 documentary, “The Clinton Legacy,” which we are re-releasing with this new report.

While most people remember Bill Clinton’s impeachment and scandals as being based on sex with an intern and lying about it under oath, there was more—much, much more. FileGate, TravelGate, and Whitewater each exposed Clinton administration corruption wherein the administration inappropriately housed FBI files in the White House, worked with corrupt individuals under criminal investigation, and generally used the full force of government, including the Internal Revenue Service, to retaliate against dissenters or those they did not favor.

rcp-video-youtube-hillary-clinton-coughing-fitChinaGate, which resulted in greater Chinese nuclear strike capabilities, foreshadowed the revelations regarding Russia’s uranium purchase, and highlighted the dangers of the Clinton Foundation’s ongoing foreign conflicts of interest. It involved the handing over of missile technology in exchange for cash to the Clintons and their cronies.

With the help of Reid Collins, a reporter and anchor for CBS News for 20 years, and at CNN for 10 years, we tell the story of those years. People forget how bad these scandals really were, and we at AIM believed that had these been on the table, not only would Bill Clinton have been impeached, he would have been removed from office as well. As it was, half the Senate voted to remove him from office, but the Democrats came to his rescue.

Now both Democrats and the media are working on behalf of Hillary Clinton to obscure the facts surrounding a number of scandals which could undermine her bid for president.

Libya and Benghazi

As we have noted, Hillary Clinton claimed a prominent position in the Libyan intervention which led to the overthrow of dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Her aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote that she had “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.”

Does that mean that Mrs. Clinton had a part in sending weapons to the Libyan rebels? Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) member, and former CIA officer, Clare Lopez toldWorldNetDaily that “We have ample evidence the Libyan gun-running operation was a White House operation and that the State Department under Hillary Clinton ran the show.” Many of these so called rebels were known al-Qaeda affiliated jihadist groups, which is why we called our first CCB report, “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror.”

hillary-clinton-diane-sawyerBut Hillary Clinton’s involvement in Libya has been more than an embarrassment—it has actually cost lives. The Obama/Clinton administration was offered a chance to negotiate Qaddafi’s abdication under a white flag of truce, as the CCB revealed. But they refused the offer, choosing war instead, and thousands of Libyans died as a result. Later, when four Americans were killed in Benghazi on September 11 and 12, 2012, Hillary was peddling the lie that the attack was based on spontaneous demonstrations in response to a YouTube video called “The Innocence of Muslims.” She knew that it was, in fact, a planned terrorist attack by jihadis, and said so to her daughter, and top officials in both Libya and Egypt. She then lied to the family members of the dead Americans, telling them that we were going to get the filmmaker of “The Innocence of Muslims,” who she said was responsible for their deaths.

Ever since the West’s intervention that prompted regime change concluded, Libya has devolved into a conflict-ridden haven for the Islamic State and other terrorists. AIM’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has thoroughly documented this tragic blunder.

Russian Reset

Mrs. Clinton’s Russian reset hasn’t fared much better. As we have reported, President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Russian re-set policy paved the way for Russian aggression in Syria and Ukraine, as well as “Vladimir Putin’s decision to give sanctuary to NSA defector Edward Snowden,” whose leaks have helped ISIS.

Back in 2014, Reuters admitted that the Russian reset had failed and that the “Cold War” was back. Now, with Mrs. Clinton running for president, the media portray her international experience as secretary of state as a grand success. The New York Times, in its January endorsement of Hillary, wrote that “The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.” They asserted that Hillary “brought star power as well as expertise to the table.”

Clinton Foundation Corruption

Other things that Hillary Clinton brought to the table included a number of conflicts of interest and an endless string of donors who may have benefited from her term as secretary of state. As we reported, Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, wrote, “Any serious journalist or investigator will tell you that proving corruption by a political figure is extremely difficult.” He continues, “…That is also why investigators primarily look at patterns of behavior.”

clinton-foundation-1In the case of the Clintons, the pattern of behavior is stunning. We have called it “blatant, willful, and indisputable” due to the growing number of examples of favors that were done, and donations accepted, while Hillary was secretary of state. The Associated Press reported that “More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money—either personally or through companies or groups—to the Clinton Foundation.” Hundreds of millions of dollars were involved. According to the AP, “Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.”

In 2015, the Clinton Foundation announced that it would amend four years of tax returns because of an error in how it reported income from foreign government donations, according to Breitbart. The years refiled just happened to include most of the years that Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State—2010 through 2013—and involved $20 million.

While Trump University has garnered significant attention from the media, Laureate Education has received much less mainstream press attention. As Honorary Chancellor of Laureate Education, Bill Clinton received more than $16 million that he routed through a shell corporation, WJC, LLC, as we have reported. Then, “more than $55 million American taxpayer dollars flowed out of Hillary Clinton’s State Department to a non-profit run by Laureate CEO Douglas Becker.”

The recent WikiLeaks documents pertaining to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reveal that Mrs. Clinton was invited to a Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) event in Marrakesh, Morocco in 2014. However, the Moroccan King Mohammed VI pledged $12 million to CGI and the foundation under the condition that Hillary Clinton attend the conference herself.

Longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin writes in a November 2014 email that “no matter what happens, she will be in Morocco hosting CGI on May 5-7, 2015. Her presence was a condition for the Moroccans to proceed so there is no going back on this.”

Ultimately, Mrs. Clinton did not attend—but her husband and daughter did. According to The Daily Caller, the CGI event was funded by the Moroccan government-owned mining company OCP, which has been charged with serious human rights violations by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice. “Clinton vigorously supported the Moroccan King when she was Secretary of State and the U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank gave OCP a $92 million loan guarantee during her tenure as Secretary of State,” reports The Daily Caller. “The mining company also contributed between $5 million to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the charity’s web site.”

jake-tapper-interview-hillary-clintonAnd speaking of mining, this section wouldn’t be complete without mention of the Uranium One deal. Breitbart reported that “According to Clinton Cash [the book by Peter Schweizer]the total donations from Uranium One shareholders to the Clinton Foundation exceeded $145 million, in the run-up to Hillary Clinton’s State Department approving the Rosatom deal, which gave Russia control over about 20 percent of U.S. uranium.” The New York Times deserves credit for following up on Schweizer’s reporting, and confirming his findings in a front-page story in 2015.

The Clinton Foundation has also received a number of donations from human (and women’s) rights violating countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Clintons have committed to not receiving additional donations from foreign governments, corporations, or U.S. companies should Hillary Clinton become president. But until then, the foundation remains a way for bad actors to purchase future influence over this presidential candidate.

Hillary also refused to discuss pay-for-play involving the Clinton Foundation—and talked over Donald Trump when he tried to comment on it. “…I’m thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation because it is a world renowned charity and I’m so proud of the work that it does,” said Hillary Clinton. “I could talk for the rest of the debate.” She touted the foundation’s achievements, but refused to address the lingering scent of scandal. “…we at the Clinton Foundation spend 90 percent of all the money that is donated on behalf of programs for people around the world and in our own country,” she said at the debate. In fact, Schweizer claims that only “six percent goes to other charities,” according to Breitbart. “The other 94 percent is in this stew of marketing, and management, and travel expenses, and sort of all these obscure things, that it’s really hard to dissect what is the end result of that 94 percent being spent.”

But don’t look to the mainstream media to broach these issues. Instead, the spotlight is on Trump. And those media elites who donate to presidential campaigns overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton.

Media Collaboration with Clinton and Obama

092612_five_media_640Despite the need for a fair, balanced, and objective press, we have cited the fact that 96 percent of the journalist donations tracked by the Center for Public Integrity went to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Politico’s Jack Shafer recounts how the WikiLeaks emails expose journalists trying to curry favor with the Clintons through compliments and sharing information about stories not yet published. “Reading the emails, we witness CNBC/New York Times contributor John Harwood slathering Podesta with flattery, giving him campaign advice and praising Hillary Clinton,” writes Shafer. “In another email, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin offers Podesta a ‘heads up’ about a story she’s about to publish, providing a brief pre-publication synopsis.” In addition, “CNBC’s Becky Quick promises to ‘defend’ Obama appointee Sylvia Mathews Burwell.”

The list of embarrassing—and disturbing—media cozying up to the Clintons goes on. “POLITICO reporter Glenn Thrush sends Podesta a chunk of his story-in-progress ‘to make sure I’m not [f—–g] anything up,’” writes Shafer. “Beyond WikiLeaks, a January 2015 Clinton strategy document obtained by the Intercept describes reporter Maggie Haberman—then at POLITICO and now at the New York Times—as someone the campaign ‘has a very good relationship with,’ and who had been called upon to ‘tee up stories for us before’ and had never disappointed.” Yet Shafer, as a member of the mainstream media, concludes that these Clinton-pandering media examples are fine—so long as the resultant reporting is “creditable work that is accurate and useful to readers.” Shafer believes these reporters hit the mark, yet, as we have reported, some journalists question whether objectivity is even necessary or prudent during this election cycle.

nbc-news-hillary-clinton-health-scareThe reporting about Hillary Clinton has been so biased that journalists can hardly congratulate themselves for an accurate and useful job well done. The scandals mentioned above were largely covered by the conservative media, with a few notable exceptions.

Yet media pundits such as ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and journalists donating to the Clinton campaign, are working hard to disseminate false journalism which excuses or downplays these scandals.

Just as the press panders to Hillary Clinton, so, too, the presidential candidate uses the many opportunities supplied by the mainstream media to pander both to the liberal elite and others watching this broadcast media love-fest.
Consider, for example, the March 9 Democratic Debate featuring Univision’s Jorge Ramos as a moderator. “You’re telling us tonight that if you become president you won’t deport children who are already here?” he asked Mrs. Clinton. “And that you won’t deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?”

Hillary answered emphatically “Yes” to both questions, engaging in what co-moderator Maria Elena Salinas called “Hispandering.” But the question of criminal records for illegals is moot; currently the Obama administration is releasing dangerous criminal illegal aliens with no intention of deporting them, we noted back in June. “Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) told Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon that ‘the administration is trying to suppress information about the release of some 86,000 criminal illegal immigrants who have committed 231,000 crimes in just the past two and a half years,’” we wrote. “The administration is not deporting these criminals after they are released from U.S. prisons, reports Kredo.”


An open borders policy already in the making threatens the safety of average Americans. Yet Mrs. Clinton wants to continue Obama’s lax immigration policies if, or when, she gains office.

While Hillary may claim now that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she once saidthat the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” Now, as a presidential candidate, she says, “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.”

Yet Mrs. Clinton told Banco Itau that her “dream” was “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” Hillary said, in one of her many speeches to bankers, that she has both “a public and a private position” on Wall Street reform. Perhaps her “open trade and open borders” comment was yet another example of the presidential candidate holding a private opinion that is opposed to her public statements. Those speeches paid very well. Hillary collected nearly $22 million for 90 speeches in less than two years, between the time she left office as secretary of state until she announced she was running for the presidency. And that was just a fraction of the $153 million that she and Bill took in from speeches between the time they left the White House in 2001, and her announcement to run to get back into the White House.

hillary-clinton-in-new-hampshireFor example, despite railing against Wall Street and the elite, she has taken millions from big donors—and is indebted to them. “Determined not to fall behind in the money race, Hillary Clinton ramped up her appeals to rich donors and shrugged off restrictions that President Obama had imposed on his fundraising team,” reports The Washington Post this October. “Even as her advisers fretted about the perception that she was too cozy with wealthy interests, they agreed to let lobbyists bundle checks for her campaign, including those representing some foreign governments, the [WikiLeaks] emails show.” By the end of September, the Post reports, Mrs. Clinton had raised $1.14 billion. “Unlike Obama, Clinton fully embraced super PACs from the very beginning of her race, helping pull in larger checks from donors than the president did.”

Hillary Clinton has lied again and again. One of her most notable lies is about the national security scandal that is EmailGate, in which Mrs. Clinton not only used a private email server for her business as secretary of state, deleting half of the emails, but also sent and received classified information through that server. She demonstrably placed national security secrets at risk in order to hide her affairs from the public, yet FBI Director James Comey decided not to recommend prosecution. The fix was in. So why did Comey bring the case back up with just 11 days until the election? Several reports suggested that FBI agents who were furious at Comey’s July announcement that he was recommending against an indictment, have now threatened to go public with the new information about Ms. Abedin’s emails unless he agreed to do it himself.

While the search for smoking guns implicating Hillary Clinton in criminal activity continues, through a mountain of emails, there are more than enough smoking guns hiding in plain sight. In a way, the endless search for a single smoking gun clouds the issue and makes it seem as if nothing consequential enough has so far been found. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The record of Clinton scandal, for both of the Clintons, extends back through a number of administrations. It wasn’t possible to cover all of the glorious legacy of Bill and Hillary Clinton in this one report. I encourage you to watch our documentary, “The Clinton Legacy,” which exposes the sordid truth about several of the real Clinton scandals when they occupied the White House back in the 1990s.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.