RUTHFULLY YOURS

So now Hillary finally knows what the “(C)” stands for in government documents: It’s Cartwright . . . as in four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, the retired 67-year-old former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the expendable federal official against whom laws protecting classified information actually get enforced.

(C), see? Oh wait — sorry. I don’t mean to confuse Mrs. Clinton by starting this second paragraph with “(C)”. After all, as she diva-’splained to the FBI, she could only “speculate” that “(C)” must have something to do with organizing paragraphs “in alphabetical order.” Speculation was necessary, she said, apparently with a straight face, because she didn’t really know what “(C)” meant.

The question arose because the “(C)” designation — applicable to classified information at the confidential level — turned up in at least one of Clinton’s personal e-mails. Those would be the e-mails that, she repeatedly insisted, never, ever contained classified information. Or at least, that’s what she insisted until government agencies confessed that hundreds of the e-mails do contain classified information. Then Clinton’s “never, ever” tale morphed into the more narrowly tailored lie that there were no e-mails “marked classified.” Alas, that claim could not withstand examination of the e-mails, during which the “(C)” markings were found . . . whereupon the explanation underwent more, shall we say, refining. Thus the final, astonishing claim that she didn’t know what the markings meant, along with the laugh-out-loud whopper that maybe it was all about alphabetical order.

Yeah, that’s the ticket!

In case you’re keeping score: When a person being prosecuted for a crime changes her story multiple times, as if she were playing Twister (kids, ask your parents), the prosecutor gets to prove each of the evolving lies at the trial. As you’d imagine, juries grasp that the truth doesn’t need an editor. That’s why people whose explanations can’t keep up with the evidence are pretty much a lock to get convicted.

But that’s when it’s “(C)” as in Cartwright, not Clinton.

General Cartwright pled guilty this week to making false statements to FBI agents who were investigating his mishandling of classified information. The general admits to falsely concealing his communications with two journalists. They involved “Stuxnet,” a covert American–Israeli operation to infect the computer systems that controlled Iran’s main nuclear-enrichment facility. The information was top secret, regarding a crucial program. Its exposure caused diplomatic problems and threatens our spy agencies’ relationships with foreign intelligence services, which are based on the ability to keep secrets secret.

Still, compared with Clinton, Cartwright is a piker. As the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin reports, Cartwright appears to have been a “confirming” source. That is, reporters from the New York Times and of Newsweek already had the Stuxnet intelligence (from some other leaker whom the administration has not prosecuted). Cartwright merely acknowledged the information’s accuracy — and, he says, only after it had appeared in published news reports. His claimed purpose was to prevent additional intelligence from being published to the detriment of our national security. This does not excuse his conduct, but it may go a long way toward explaining why the Justice Department charged only a felony false-statement count, not a classified-information offense.

Clinton, by contrast, willfully set up a homebrew e-mail system. Given that the secretary of state’s duties preponderantly involve intelligence matters, this made it inevitable that classified information would unlawfully be transmitted and stored on non-secure servers (i.e., outside the multi-layered protection of the government’s classified communications system). Thus did the FBI find, for example, that of the 110 e-mails on Clinton’s non-secure system that were — contrary to her claims — classified at the time she sent or received them, eight involved top-secret information.

“Is the November election rigged? Certainly not in the way you might have thought it was. The election is afflicted with something far more dangerous than a single plot to flip the outcome. The affliction is diffuse, decentralized, and funded by millions of dollars.”

Donald Trump gaslighted the left when he suggested the upcoming elections may be “rigged.” The usual comic trove of Democrats posing as academics, journalists, and civil rights groups pounced on Trump. It’s a revived “Southern strategy” that tars “Democrats as cheaters,” wailed Rutgers professor Lorraine Minnite.

Democrats as cheaters? You mean Democrats like Wendy Rosen, Melowese Richardson, and Lessadolla Sowers?

Whether Trump was correct or not depends on the meaning of “rigged.” If “rigged” means a group of Democrats sit in central command and control the output of voting machines from outer space, then no, the election isn’t rigged.

But what Democrats are really doing is far more dangerous, far more diffuse, and far harder to fix than a conspiracy to control voting machines.

The integrity of our elections is suffering from a coordinated, multi-million dollar attack on multiple fronts. It’s far more complicated than one centralized high-powered conspiracy to “rig” the election. A more sophisticated understanding of what is happening is essential to combat the real threat to our elections.

Here are five ways that the integrity of elections are under attack:

Big money organizations fight against election integrity

Large brick-and-mortar organizations with multi-million dollar endowments are fighting to undermine the integrity of American elections. These organizations, such as Project Vote, Demos, the ACLU, Advancement Project, and the League of Women Voters have vast financial resources. They have used these resources in key states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere to attack election integrity measures. They bring attacks against Voter ID laws, but they also bring more important efforts, such as attacks against citizenship verification.

I’d wager that more votes are cast in American elections by ineligible aliens than by those impersonating voters.

Citizenship verification is essential. Naturally, groups like the NAACP and ACLU do absolutely nothing about alien voting, except whatever they can to ensure that barriers to illegal voting are struck down in court.

I am involved in litigation across the country to help election integrity. In one lawsuit in a swing state, we discovered that non-citizens were voting illegally in presidential elections. This is both a federal and state felony. When we asked the election supervisor for records showing referral to law enforcement officials, none existed — because no referral was ever made. Never mind that dozens and dozens of aliens were participating in the election process in just one county. Imagine how many participate statewide. Yet nothing was done to prosecute the illegal voting — so word spreads through the community that illegal voting is a hobby that goes unpunished.

Rigged?

These same big money organizations send swarms of lawyers to the smallest court hearings, so many that sometimes there isn’t enough room for them in the courtroom.

A comic scene unfolded in another case I was involved in — an attack on the Election Assistance Commission by a swarm of leftist groups. The federal agency issued rules allowing states to use a federal voter registration form that incorporated state citizenship verification requirements.

Robert Creamer, founder and partner of Democracy Partners, the group behind the organized violence at Trump rallies, as shown in the video by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, is no ordinary agitator. Creamer, a convicted felon, is arguably the spiritual godfather of ObamaCarre and much of the current progressive left agenda.

Creamer, along with his wife, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky is no stranger to agitation, violence, and expanding the progressive agenda. As Investor’s Business Daily pointed out in March 5, 2010 editorial regarding protests against House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski over the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, which expanded Medicare benefits and funded the change with a supplemental tax:

An interesting historical footnote is that leading the protest against Rostenkowski was Jan Schakowsky — then Director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens -– and currently Democratic representative from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, and chief deputy whip to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was Schakowshy’s husband, Robert Creamer, a Huffington Post blogger, who wrote what is arguably the bible of current health care reform efforts, Stand-Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, while serving a prison term for check kiting.

As Breitbart has reported, Creamer, in addition to being the inspiration for ObamaCare, was also involved in heavily promoting the Iran nuclear deal, which effectively removed all impediments to Iran becoming a nuclear power and in providing $150 billion for this state sponsor of terror to foment revolution targeted against Israel and American interests:

Creamer, a political consultant who is intimately connected with Obama’s inner political circle, pleaded guilty in 2005 to tax violations and bank fraud. He served time in a federal prison and was under house arrest. After finishing his sentence, Creamer worked for Obama’s presidential campaign, training organizers.

As Breitbart News first exposed in 2009, Creamer used his prison time to work on a political manual: Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win. In it, he devised a strategy to guide a future “progressive” president. His plan included implementing “universal health care” as a first step to other radical reforms, including amnesty for illegal aliens. Obama strategist David Axelrod called the book “a blueprint for future victories.”…

The Wall Street Journal reports that Creamer advocated for the Iran deal with the help of the Ploughshares Fund, a pro-Iran organization.

According to a transcript of the [Ploughshares] call reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, participants stressed that the Iran agreement was the most important of the Obama administration’s second term, and they needed to prepare for battle with Republicans.

Following Wednesday’s presidential debate Pentagon officials found themselves completely dumbfounded as to why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would feel it appropriate to announce U.S. Special Access Program intel on national television.

According to sources within the Department of Defense speaking under anonymity, Clinton likely violated at least two Dept. of Defense SAP protocols during the debate by announcing on live television the United States Government’s response time for a nuclear launch.

In case you missed it:
Hillary Divulges Nuclear Intelligence from True Pundit on Vimeo.

“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton

To the dismay of intelligence officials, the fact that this top secret information is now publicly known not only proves that Clinton is “unfit to be commander-in-chief,” but it also poses a direct threat to national security.

One high ranking intelligence official explained that any time frame calculated pertaining to a US nuclear launch “would have merely been an educated hypothesis, absent leaked documents and there have been no such breaches” prior to Clinton’s admission Wednesday.

My Vote, Explained Because she’s a dishonest, soulless, big-state progressive By Charles Krauthammer http://www.nationalreview.com/node/441305/print

“Blah, blah, blah….. I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.”

Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn….not voting for Trump IS VOTING FOR HILLARY…..RSK

The third and mercifully final presidential debate also turned out to be the most conventional. Fox News’s Chris Wallace did a solid job pressing the candidates on issues in Las Vegas, giving them space to spar but not enough space to get out of control.

Of course, not even a strong moderator will deter candidates from misleading, lying, and prevaricating all night. And since we know Trump’s performance will be comprehensively fact-checked by the entire media, let’s talk about three of Clinton’s biggest whoppers.

First, was there anything more ridiculous in the debate than Clinton’s answer on guns? When pressed by Wallace to explain her opposition to the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Clinton went through a checklist of platitudes before saying, “You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns.”

Clinton brought up “toddlers” a few more times because little children are mostly adorable and no one wants to see them shot. The thing is, the Heller case revolved around Richard Heller, a then-66-year-old police officer in Washington, D.C., who was allowed to carry a gun in a federal office building to protect politicians and strangers but not in his home to protect himself, his family, or his property. Also of note, the Heller decision had nothing to do with toddlers or saving toddlers’ lives or toddler gun safety or toddlers shooting at one another. As my colleague Sean Davis has pointed out, the word “toddler” doesn’t appear anywhere in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case.

After she was done fearmongering, Clinton went on to say: “There’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.”

No, she does not. Heller ended the “total ban on handguns” in Washington, D.C. — which was the Supreme Court’s description of the gun-control laws in the district. It codified the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Clinton admits she supports an effective ban on all handguns (for the toddlers), which is what instigated Heller. What application of the decision does she oppose, if not the individual’s right to own a gun?

Let’s move on to the only constitutional “right” Clinton believes shouldn’t have any constraints: abortion. Last night, Clinton reiterated her support for legal abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy. Although Clinton is free to hold this position, she’s not free to make stuff up.

For starters, the idea that Clinton — the woman who, in 2008, argued that President Obama’s health-care plans were too modest — wants to keep government out of health-care decisions is worthy of 8,000 Pinocchios. And while one hopes that those who are anti-abortion remain sensitive to the heartbreaking, painful decisions women make, Clinton’s insinuation that most late-term abortions are to save the life of the mother is not backed up by evidence. Dr. LeRoy Carhart, nationally known for performing late-term abortions, was taped admitting that he often performs elective late-term abortions at 26 weeks “or more.” Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of partial-birth abortion, was once taped acknowledging that 80 percent of partial-birth abortions are “purely elective.”

The headlines are in. Trump is the “anti-Democratic” candidate because he refuses to rule out challenging the results of an election that has yet to take place. Such a course of action is “beyond the pale”. It’s a threat to democracy. And it is utterly and thoroughly unacceptable.

Except when Democrats do it.

It was the day after the election. While the Democratic Party faithful waited in the rain in Nashville, William Daley strode out and announced, “Our campaign continues”. Al Gore had called George W. Bush to withdraw his concession. “Are you saying what I think you’re saying?” a baffled Bush asked. “You don’t have to be snippy about it,” Gore retorted snippily.

Gore did eventually concede. Though years later he would attempt to retract his concession a second time. But his political movement never did concede. It remained a widespread belief in left-wing circles that President Bush was illegitimately elected and that President Gore was the real winner.

How mainstream is that belief?

When Hillary dragged Gore away from playing with his Earth globe to campaign for her, the crowd booed at his mention of the election and then chanted, “You won, you won”.

Hillary grinned and nodded.

Hillary Clinton has always believed that President Bush illegitimately took office. She has told Democrats that Bush was “selected” rather than “elected”. In Nigeria, of all places, she implied that Jeb Bush had rigged the election for his brother.

But it’s not unprecedented, beyond the pale or utterly unacceptable when Democrats do it.

It’s just business as usual.

The media’s focus has been on whether Trump would accept the results if he loses. Yet a better question might be whether Hillary Clinton would accept her defeat.

Even when it came to the battle for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton refused to concede defeat until the bitter end and then past it. Not only did Hillary refuse to drop out even when Obama was the clear winner, while her people threatened a convention floor fight, but she insisted on staying on in the race for increasingly bizarre and even downright disturbing reasons.

A joke I heard when I was a teenager – growing up in a New York City neighborhood with a large population of Latino immigrants – serves as a good explanation for the (thus far) political success of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

It goes something like this:

Two friends from the Dominican Republic run into each other on a Manhattan street and one begins to boast that he is bettering himself by attending night school.

The other shrugs, unimpressed. “I don’t go to night school,” he says. “But I know a lot.”

“Oh, yeah?” the first one challenges. “Do you know who George Washington was?”

“Never heard of him,” the second replies. “But I know many things.”

“Really?” the first questions. “So who was Abraham Lincoln?”

“I don’t know who Abraham Lincoln was,” the second answers. “But I know plenty more than you do.”

“Hmmm,” the first says. “Like what?”

The second says, “I know who Juan Rodriguez is.”

“Who’s he?” the first one asks.

The second responds, “He’s the guy who’s sleeping with your wife while you’re at night school.”

WikiLeaks’ 13th batch of John Podesta’s emails revealed that Morocco’s king paid $12 million to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The payment was intended to guarantee that Hillary Clinton would appear at a conference in Morocco last year.

The star-studded guest list included heads of state and CEOs of major global corporations, who all expected Hillary Clinton to be there. But as the date for the event drew closer, it became apparent that the already-campaigning Clinton would not be able to attend.

Via Breitbart:

Clinton did not attend, instead spending the days of the conference campaigning in Nevada and California. Aide Huma Abedin repeatedly insists in emails published today that Clinton will be at the event, warning it would “break a lot of china” for Hillary Clinton to back out, before suggesting to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook that Clinton would cancel her appearance at the last minute.

“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,” Abedin asserted in a November 2014 email.

In January of 2015, another email from Abedin to Robby Mook and Podesta discussed how Morocco had paid $12M to CGI in order to gain access to Clinton.