*VIDEO* Mark Levin: Hitlery In Violation Of Espionage Act At The Very Least


.

.

*VIDEO* Greg Gutfeld Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat Over His Insane Priorities

.

.

Leftist Treason Update: FBI ‘A-Team’ Investigating Hitlery For Violating Espionage Act

FBI ‘A-Team’ Leading ‘Serious’ Clinton Server Probe, Focusing On Defense Info – Fox News

.

.
An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News.

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign’s standard defense and that of Clinton is that she “never sent nor received any email that was marked classified” at the time.

It is not clear how the FBI team’s findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for – as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

The FBI offered no comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.

“Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information,” attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. “Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held.”

Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton’s defense.

The Code of Federal Regulations, or “CFR,” states: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the “send” or “receive” distinction.

Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.

Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.

“Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified,” said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. “There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something – that’s not an excuse.”

The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet “safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency.” Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business – and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall – appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.

The regulations also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified “to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”

Farrell said, “There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and our outlaw server.”

Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton’s immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.

Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.

“I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I’m very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone,” she said. “It will prove what I have been saying and it’s not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn’t change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified.”

The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hillary Clinton Crime Spree News Roundup

Hillary’s State Department Routinely Hid Emails On Purpose – Big Government

.

.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department routinely failed to preserve its own emails in order to intentionally hide them from official records.

Clinton-era email use at the State Department was fraught with widespread, intentional concealment, according to an October 2014-March 2015 semiannual report to Congress filed by the State Department’s office of inspector general (OIG).

Only a fraction of the messages sent by email were stored as “record emails,” according to the report.

“The review of the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) and Record Email found that, out of the more than 1 billion emails sent in 2011, employees created just over 61,000 official emails; and they created even fewer – 41,000 – in 2013,” the inspector general found. “OIG recommended that the Department establish policies governing usage and that system designers engage with focus groups to enhance the system’s efficiency.” (p. vii)

Clinton’s administration did nothing to teach people how to store emails and oversaw the widespread cover-up of emails that should have been kept.

“A 2009 upgrade in the Department’s system facilitated the preservation of emails as official records. However, Department employees had not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve ‘record emails,’” according to the OIG report.

“Record email usage varied widely across bureaus and missions. The Bureau of Administration needed to exercise central oversight of the use of the record email function. OIG found that some employees did not create record emails because they did not want to make the email available in searches or feared that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions.”

Former Secretary Clinton has turned over thumb drives and a private email server containing her emails from her tenure at the State Department. An inter-agency government task force led by the Department of Justice and the FBI is currently investigating how classified information ended up on Clinton’s server, and whether foreign agents were able to obtain any of the information on Clinton’s server.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
CNN National Security Analyst Unloads On Hillary Over Email Scandal: ‘I Wonder Whether She Is Capable Of Being President’ – Daily Caller

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal should disqualify her from the Oval Office.

At least so says former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, who is not known for being a political partisan.

“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.

“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good – and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.

“If this in fact were on her hand held [phone] – was sent to her or she forwarded it in any way – I wonder whether she is capable of being president,” he added.

Pressed by the host as to whether he really thought this situation was a “deal breaker” for Clinton’s presidential candidacy, Baer said, “As a national security employee, a former one, yes.”

“I can’t tell you how bad this is,” he went on. “A lot of things get talked about, a lot of gossip, but having documents like this sent across the Internet, it could be hacked very easily and probably were hacked, is a transgression that I don’t think the president of the United States should be allowed to, you know, have committed.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Number Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Flagged For Classified Data Grows To 60 As Review Continues – Washington Times

While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.

That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months.

The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.

Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.

Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

State officials and the intelligence community are working to resolve questions about those and other emails with possible classified information, a process that isn’t likely to be completed until January.

That will be right around the time Mrs. Clinton is slated to face voters in the Iowa caucuses in her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

As the number of suspect emails grows and the classification review continues, it is clear that predictions contained in a notification Mr. McCullough sent Congress this summer is likely to hold true: Mrs. Clinton’s personal emails likely contained hundreds of disclosures of classified information.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
How Did Hillary’s Lawyers Search A Server No Longer In Her Possession – Legal Insurrection

There is a time gap which may hold the key to Hillary’s hide-and-seek email game.

According to the Washington Post and other reporting, a Colorado server company obtained possession of Hillary’s server in 2013, transferred the data, leaving a blank server with no usable data at a storage facility in New Jersey.

Yet, in a letter filed on August 12, 2015 with the federal Court in the Judicial Watch FOIA litigation regarding Huma Abedin’s outside employment, Hillary’s lawyer, David Kendall. represented that Hillary did not ask counsel to review her emails until late 2014. [Full embed at bottom of post.] He also confirmed that the Colorado company has had possession of the original server since 2013.

.

.
* * *

.

.
David Kendall letter Clinton Emails 8-12-2015 excerpt 2

So how could Hillary’s lawyers review a server no longer in Hillary’s possession, and which had been wiped clean?

It’s worth noting that at her March 10, 2015, UN press conference, when a reporter noted that some people suggested an independent review of the server, Hillary did not say that she no longer had the original server or that it had been wiped clean.

Instead, she said “the server will remain private.”

The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private…

.

.
(transcript)

It is that original server that apparently has been turned over to the federal government. Plus a thumb drive, which purportedly only has work-related emails.

If the data was transferred to some other server, where is that one?

On Friday, August 14, 2015, the State Department is required to provide additional information to the Court.

Maybe that will shed some light.

But I’m not hopeful.

Judicial Watch Foia Case Huma Abedin – Defendant’s August 12, 2015 Status Report

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Fox Poll: Two Percent Of Voters Think Hillary Told The Truth About E-mail Server, And Only Three Percent Of Democrats – Hot Air

Six months ago, Hillary Clinton insisted that her private e-mail system contained no sensitive material, and that the federal government had no need of her server. With federal investigators trying to track down all of the records from her private e-mail server and revelations about Top Secret/compartmented material on her unauthorized system, Hillary’s public statements look like lies to a majority of those polled in the latest Fox News survey. In a poll of 1,008 registered voters, 58% say Hillary lied about the e-mails, and 54% believe she damaged national security:

A Fox News poll released Friday finds a 58 percent majority thinks Clinton “knowingly lied” when she announced in a March press conference that no emails on her private server contained classified information. A third says there is “another explanation” for internal government investigators determining secret info was in fact on Clinton’s server (33 percent).

Moreover, by a 54-37 percent margin, voters feel Clinton put our national security at risk by using a private email server.

The poll gave three options: Clinton lied, There’s another explanation, and Clinton told the truth. Only 2% overall think Hillary told the truth, a staggeringly bad number, and only 33% overall think there’s another explanation than Hillary lying. On option 3, the internals on this poll are instructive. The highest that Clinton told the truth polls in the demographics is 5% among black voters, where 63% choose another explanation. Among Democrats, the number is a whopping three percent. And among younger voters – who are presumably very familiar with e-mail – the “Hillary’s honest” option didn’t get enough responses to register.

Frankly, this question is designed to let respondents get off the hook for deciding whether Hillary lied or not. The middle option of another explanation implies incompetency – not exactly a good look for a presidential candidate – or some milder form of dishonesty. And yet, not many voters took the middle option. Self-described liberal, Democrats, and black voters all had majorities choosing the less-bad option, but almost none of them chose told the truth.

Instead, majorities in almost all other demos believe Hillary lied, even when given a softer option. Younger voters under 35 years of age were especially harsh on this judgment at 63/30/0, but the next age demo (35-54) was almost as dismissive, 61/31/2. In a rare show of consensus, those with (59/34/1) and without (58/33/2) college degrees agree on Hillary’s dishonesty. Two-thirds of independents believe she flat-out lied (67/23/2), and even a majority of women agree (51/40/2).

The responses to the question of harm to national security fall into the same pattern. This was presented as a yes/no, and 54% overall chose yes. The key demos all have yes majorities:

* Independents – 54/36
* Women – 50/40
* College degree – 53/38
* No college degree – 55/37
* 18-35YOs – 61/34

In other words, she’s rapidly approaching Richard Nixon levels of trust in, say, August 1973 or so.

A couple of other notes in the poll will have an indirect impact on Hillary, who’s going to be a continuity candidate based on her participation in the Obama administration. A recent trend toward the positive in Barack Obama’s job approval reversed itself in this poll, the first taken since the Iran deal was announced. He slid from a 46/46 in the beginning of July to 42/51, his worst showing since March. Voters want Congress to reject the Iran deal 31/58, and substantially more of them believe Iran can’t be trusted, 18/75, which is actually a slight improvement from the historical trend. With that hanging in the air, Hillary would have had trouble gaining trust from voters anyway – but the e-mail server scandal all but moots the point now.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

More August headlines:
.

Exclusive: Hillary’s IT Contractor Did Not Have Proper Security Clearance – Daily Caller


The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now – Sidney Powell


Tech Company Which Maintained Hillary’s Secret Server Was Sued For ‘Illegally Accessing’ Database And ‘Stealing White House Military Advisers’ Phone Numbers’ – Daily Mail


Hillary Clinton Emails Contained Signal Intelligence From Spy Satellites – Washington Times


*VIDEO* Judge Andrew Napolitano Describes Hillary Clinton’s Crimes


FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post


Judge Orders Hillary Clinton To Answer For ‘Home-Brew’ Server – Gateway Pundit

.
.

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Explains In Detail How Hitlery Has Committed Multiple Crimes


.

.

Sundance Over At The Conservative Treehouse Is Apparently Not A Megyn Kelly Fan

Murdoch’s Little Princess Retreats To The Hills – Amid Backlash Megyn Kelly Takes 1.5 Week Vacation

Last night on Megyn Kelly’s Fox TV show she announced a 1.5 week vacation returning on 8/24. Lil Miss stated she hadn’t taken a vacation in six months. Of course the 8-day memorial day break, and 6-day July Fourth break, don’t count as vacation for the intense 4 day work-week schedules of a princess pundit, or something.

.

.
However, given the scope of the fallout from Megyn’s intentional set-up of candidate Donald Trump, and the severity of the backlash therein, it’s not difficult to see why the outline of this NY Magazine article is essentially correct.

Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, the reality of her position has slapped her in the face like a cold fish

NY Mag […] Having backed down to the GOP front-runner and all but sacrificed one of his biggest stars to appease the conservative base – a.k.a. Fox viewers – Ailes has set a dangerous precedent. The message is clear: Fox reports, but the audience decides. (link)

LOL, only in the mind of a progressive publication would listening to your customer be considered “a dangerous precedent“; I digress. Alas, ego’s the size of Princess Megyn need respite, from the fish. And princesses never eat crow.

For those who have followed the story, which began weeks prior to the debate, the attack by Megyn Kelly was entirely predictable. A full week before the debate itself, we warned of Kelly’s transparently obvious intentions toward Donald Trump – HERE July 30th.

Kelly actually had a plan to begin the attack on Monday August 3rd, three nights before the debate. What she planned was to lay the groundwork for a sexist narrative, and then follow up with the attack on debate night. Kelly is nothing, if not predictable.

Somehow, Team Trump caught wind of the set-up, and while Mr. Trump was in Scotland his team cancelled the Monday appearance. However, it is highly doubtful Trump actually knew the severity of what was planned.

Perhaps the cancellation contributed to the even more severe vitriol viewed by over 25 million debate watchers three nights later. Everything about it was planned by Megyn, for Megyn – the center of her own condescendingly self-important universe.

.

.
As the days ticked down to the confrontation, the severity of her tone increased – the objective was brutally evident, again, in an interview with Ted Cruz. on the Monday Trump cancelled. Again, we warned x 2.

Post Debate – When you get the cold fish slap, you have two decisions to make.

#1 You can: a.) Admit your intentions, b.) Ask for forgiveness, and c.) put forth your humility.

~ OR ~

#2 You have to surround yourself with sycophants, hide in your bunker, and refuse to take responsibility.

Kelly chose the latter. Essentially removing the last vestiges of credibility, diminishing herself more, and broadcasting the transparency of guilt. Public cold fish-slaps, which you try to hide, never end well – everyone sees them.

However, on the positive side, and thanks to the assistance from the go-to punditry (Dana “Baby Bush” Perino), Kelly and Co. used neon orange paint on the next tripwire.

In an effort to wipe away the remaining fish scales, Megyn and Perino set up the next Rupert pro-Bush strategy a little more obviously than last time. [ie. the advancement of Ben Carson.]

.

.
LOL, Carson, Kasich and Bush even sounds like a group of republican lawyers.

Now they will go all back-door on Trump by going with the “temperament” narrative. The only acceptable Republican is one who comes bubble wrapped for safety.

Kaisch, Bush and the ever soft-spoken Carson will be sold as temperate and comparative candidates to the grossly vulgarian Trump.

It’s that reachy-over-the-aisle narrative, with an intellectual high-brow MSM twist.

Think: crust-less cucumber and mayonnaise sandwiches on wonder bread, along with a side of rice cakes and Perrier w/ lime. Mmmm mmmm safe and delicious, swear. Just ask George Will and Charles Krauthammer, they’ll tell you all about it.

Full disclosure. I ate, well, sort of, one of those rice cakes once, just once. Flippin’ thing tasted like I’d bitten into a Styrofoam coffee cup. As far as palates go, it was profoundly typical – and brutally similar to – what I envision a professional republican would taste like. Never again, and never since.

.

.
Of course they’ve already got iCarly kick-started to take lead on the “Trump is Sexist” angle; and God please, I hope Trump has the opportunity in debate #2 to compare his immensely smart and successful daughter Ivanka, to the brutally inept and scripted talking point that calls herself Fiorina.

The narrative collapses when you think about Trump being so sexist he puts his daughter in charge of his Empire.

Actually, I shouldn’t publicly write that wish because I’ll just be giving a head’s up to the target of it. Oh well… I was, after all, previously speaking of cold fish.

Nuf said.

Time for some sorbet:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Ben Carson Discusses His Campaign On ‘Your World With Neil Cavuto’


.

.

*VIDEO* Judge Andrew Napolitano Explains Why Hillary Clinton Is Screwed


.
H/T Western Journalism

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
ABC, NBC Ignored Hillary’s Above Top Secret Email News – Sweetness & Light

After all, what is more important? That Hillary was giving up secrets that could get people killed or the ‘Republican War On Women’?

From NewsBusters:

ABC, NBC Punt on News Two Hillary E-Mails Have Been Found to Be ‘Top Secret’

By Curtis Houck | August 11, 2015

On Tuesday night, ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News ignored a new development in the growing Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal with news just prior to the newscasts that two of Clinton’s e-mails were found to have been “top secret” by the intelligence community’s inspector general.

Meanwhile, the CBS Evening News was only able to scour together a 27-second news brief on the story… On CBS, anchor Scott Pelley explained how: “Late today, we learned that the intelligence community inspector general has found that two e-mails on Hillary Clinton’s private server should have been classified top secret.”

Not to pick nits, but they are now classified to compartmentalized. Which, as we have noted, is actually above top secret.

Pelley further noted that this IG “had earlier revealed that at least four e-mails contained classified information” and that “[t]op secret is one of the highest security classifications.” The CBS anchor concluded with the caveat that “the e-mails were not classified at the time they were created.”…

This is an absurd point that Hillary and her media minions have latched onto. It is physically impossible for the people who classify documents to classify everything in real time, or even within hours. The top officials who handle sensitive information have to use their own common sense. And they are told what to look for when it comes to things that should be kept secret. (Such as any information that would reveal intelligence sources or methods.)

The Hillary emails in question have now been classified at such a high level it’s clear it would have taken a true idiot to not realize they contained highly secret information. (That is, their current classification shows that they revealed sources and/or methods.)

Instead of covering this Clinton scandal on Tuesday during its report on the 2016 campaign, ABC’s chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl played up on World News Tonight Hillary’s criticism of Donald Trump and the rest of the 2016 GOP field from the day before: “While what Donald Trump said about Megyn Kelly is outrageous, what the rest of the Republicans are saying about all women is also outrageous.”…

Naturally.

.

.

Ed Rates The Top 10 GOP Primary Candidates On Their Fox News Debate Performances


NO. 1 – BEN CARSON

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: Tied For 4th (6.6%)
DEBATE GRADE: A
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 4th

.

NO. 2 – TED CRUZ

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 6th (6.2%)
DEBATE GRADE: A-
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 5th

.

NO. 3 – MIKE HUCKABEE

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: Tied For 4th (6.6%)
DEBATE GRADE: B+
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 6th

.

NO. 4 – MARCO RUBIO

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 7th (5.2%)
DEBATE GRADE: B
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 7th

.

NO. 5 – SCOTT WALKER

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 3rd (10.6%)
DEBATE GRADE: C+
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 3rd

.

NO. 6 – JOHN KASICH

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 10th (2.8%)
DEBATE GRADE: C
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 10th

.

NO. 7 – JEB BUSH

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 2nd (12.8%)
DEBATE GRADE: C-
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 2nd

.

NO. 8 – CHRIS CHRISTIE

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 9th (3.4%)
DEBATE GRADE: C-
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 9th

.

NO. 9 – RAND PAUL

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 8th (4.8%)
DEBATE GRADE: D+
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 8th

.

NO. 10 – DONALD TRUMP

.
PRE-DEBATE POSITION: 1st (23.2%)
DEBATE GRADE: D
PROJECTED POST-DEBATE POSITION: 1st

.

*LIVE STREAMING* Fox News Republican Primary Top 10 Candidates Debate (08/06/15 – 9pm ET)



……………………….Click on image above for live stream.

Stream 2
Stream 3

Participants: Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* Fox News Republican Primary Early Leftovers Debate (08/06/15 – 5pm ET)



……………………….Click on image above for live stream.

Stream 2
Stream 3

Participants: Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham and Jim Gilmore.

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Regime Siding With Muslim Terrorists Against American Citizens In Court


.

.

President Asshat Claims Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners

Obama’s Terrible Iran Speech: My Republican Critics Are Making “Common Cause” With Iranian Hardliners – Hot Air

.

.
The lowest moment from what was probably the lowest speech of his presidency – so far. David Harsanyi, watching this, asks a good question:

————————————————————————————————————————–
David Harsanyi
@davidharsanyi

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

12:50 PM – 5 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

The GOP opposes the nuclear deal because they think it’s too favorable to Iran and not favorable enough to America. The hardliners in Iran’s parliament oppose the deal for the opposite reason. Insofar as they both want the deal to fail, I suppose that’s “common cause.” But then, as Harsanyi says, it must also be true that Barack Obama made “common cause” with Saddam Hussein since both of them thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obama thought it was a bad idea for U.S. and Iraqi security whereas Saddam thought it was a bad idea for his own personal security, but the reasoning is immaterial apparently. All that matters to “common cause” is how the parties to an issue align. Or at least, 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, that’s all that matters now. I wonder what Democrats like Steve Israel, who came out against the Iran deal yesterday, thought when they found out today that they’re on the same side as the worst fanatics in Iran’s government.

Actually, Obama’s insult may be worse than it at first appears. The major theme of this speech, as it always, always is – and always disingenuously – when Obama talks about diplomacy with Iran is that the only alternative is war. Reportedly he went so far today in a private meeting with Jewish leaders as to claim that Iranian rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv if the GOP-led Congress blocks the deal, because that will lead to war with Iran and war will lead to Iranian reprisals against Israel. Never mind that Iranian-made rockets already rain down on Israel every few years thanks to Hezbollah and that the sanctions relief Iran is getting from this deal will help pay for more of them. Never mind too that Israel’s own prime minister seems to think reprisals are a risk worth taking in the name of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb. The point, at least to Obama, is that only a warmonger would oppose this terrible deal, which all but endorses an Iranian bomb 10 years from now. Equating the Republicans in Congress with Iran’s hardliners was his way of suggesting, I think, that both of those groups actually seek war with each other in the name of advancing their own political interests. There’s no such thing as good-faith opposition to an Obama policy, at least outside the Democratic caucus. If GOP hawks hate his nuclear deal, it can only be because they’ve got Gulf War III on the brain and refuse to let some master stroke of diplomacy deter them.

In fact, that’s basically an Iranian talking point coming out of the president’s mouth, that some elements of the U.S. government are stone-cold fanatics who’ll accept nothing short of war with Iran. You hear a lot of Iranian talking points coming from the White House lately, curiously enough: Ed wrote this morning about John Kerry warning his former colleagues in Congress not to “screw” the country’s lunatic supreme leader by torpedoing a deal he kinda sorta supports. Here’s another choice bit from the same interview when Kerry was asked why we would agree to advanced enrichment 10 years from now by a country that’s sworn it’ll destroy Israel:

Though he says he is in tune with this set of Israeli fears, he does not endorse a view widely shared by Israelis – and by many Americans – that Iran’s leaders, who have often said that they seek the destruction of Israel, mean what they say. “I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that translates into active steps to, quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know…” Here I interjected: “Wipe it off the map.” Kerry continued: “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me – they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”

That’s some fine PR for the mullahs: They haven’t tried to destroy Israel yet, and as far as what the future holds, who knows? And yet it’s the GOP, according to this guy’s boss, that’s making common cause with Iranian lunatics, not the White House. Over to you, Michael Weiss:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Michael Weiss
@michaeldweiss

Please posit these two news stories, conveniently placed side by side.

2:03 PM – 5 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Two clips for you here, one about “common cause” and the other of Obama acknowledging that, sure, some of the money Iran gets after sanctions are lifted will go towards funding terror. This too he defends as if his deal was the only possible outcome of the negotiations: Sanctions relief was always going to be part of a nuclear agreement, he notes, so if you oppose that, you oppose diplomacy altogether. That would be a fair point if the agreement had produced something more meaningful for the U.S., like a permanent end to Iranian nuclearization. If the program had been “dismantled” rather than simply slowed down for 10 years, even Netanyahu could have gone along with it; the benefit would have been worth the cost of some extra cash in Iran’s terror treasury. Instead they got the money and we got nothing more than a 10-year respite from having to decide what to do about a fanatic Shiite regime with nuclear “breakout” capacity. And you know what the weirdest part of all of this is? For all their demagoguery and desperation in pushing this deal, Obama and Kerry don’t need to sell it at all. There’s nothing the GOP can do to stop it. The purchase has already been made in Congress. Obama and Kerry are getting nasty here not because they think it’s essential to getting Democrats to buy in but because, I think, they simply resent having their diplomatic master work criticized so sharply. It’s personal.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Barack Obama’s Lowest Moment Yet? – John Hinderaker

Today President Obama gave a speech at American University, urging acceptance of his nuclear deal with Iran. It was the usual exercise in deception and demagoguery, and he skated up to the edge of accusing opponents of the deal – a majority of Americans, apparently – of treason.

After some initial reminiscence about the Cold War, Obama leaped right into misrepresenting the agreement’s terms:

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The “prohibition” consists of a pious declaration by Iran which it can repudiate at any time. The agreement contains no provisions that will permanently impede Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons. The provisions that (if adhered to) would materially impede Iran’s nuclear weapons program expire in no more than 15 years.

Next, the president offered up a revisionist history of the war in Iraq–a topic of dubious relevance at best:

[M]any of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

Whereas others who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case in favor of the Iran deal–Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example. So what? Next comes a breathtaking series of lies:

I said that America didn’t just have to end that war – we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.

No American administration has ever preferred war to diplomacy. The war in Iraq was anything but unilateral, as more than 20 countries participated in the U.S.-led coalition. And the intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs was not exaggerated, as we know from the now-public October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. (Nor, as we now know, was that intelligence entirely wrong.)

Obama recites Iraq’s recent history, but leaves out a key point:

Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Obama neglects to mention his own role: in 2011 he prematurely withdrew all American troops from Iraq, crowing that Iraq was then “sovereign, stable and self-reliant,” a fact that Vice-President Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements.” Iraq was sovereign and stable but not, as military leaders warned, entirely self-reliant. It was Obama’s needless withdrawal of the last American troops that allowed Iraq to spiral toward chaos and permitted ISIS – the Islamic State in Syria – to move into Iraq. But Obama has never once in his life taken responsibility for anything.

Who is to blame for Iran’s nuclear program? Why, President Bush, of course!

When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges – the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb – that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges…

IAEA reports indicate that Iran’s Natanz facility had around 5,500 centrifuges when Obama took office, and over 15,000 by May 2015. With the Fordow facility, Iran now has around 19,000 centrifuges operating. But it’s all Bush’s fault!

As always, Obama misrepresented the terms of the agreement. These are issues we have written about many times, so I won’t address those misrepresentations in detail. But here are a couple:

If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snapback on our own.

Sheer fantasy. Much of the sanctions relief that Iran most craves can never be taken back–most notably, the $100 billion to $150 billion in frozen funds that will soon flow to Tehran. Further, all commercial deals that are entered into during the period of sanctions relief are excepted from future sanctions.

Even with those huge loopholes, the “snap back” is a fiction. Even U.S. sanctions will not “snap back” automatically; they will have to be reimposed by Congress and implemented over a period of time. We will have no control over whether the E.U. reimposes sanctions. The supposed “snap back” mechanism is limited to U.N. sanctions, and, as I wrote here, it is doubtful whether paragraph 37 of the agreement, the purported snap back provision, would actually cause U.N. sanctions to be reimposed based on the vote of one member of the Security Council.

It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money – revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

This is a very recent and highly dubious talking point. Until the last week or two, as I wrote here, every source I am aware of has long estimated Iran’s frozen assets at $100 billon to $150 billion. In fact, the Treasury Department, which John Kerry cited as the source for the administration’s new number, pegged the frozen assets at “approximately $100 billion” in sworn testimony before a Congressional committee in January of this year. And that is just a down payment on the economic benefit that Iran’s mullahs will receive from the end of sanctions.

No doubt the worst portion of Obama’s speech is the one that has gotten the most attention. Note how Obama walks right up to the line of accusing Republicans in Congress of treason:

Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. (Applause.)

No, but it is what Iran’s rulers believe. Iran’s Supreme Leader frequently leads mobs in chants of “Death to America.” Does Obama think he is kidding?

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus. (Laughter and applause.)

If Obama had said that the Republican caucus is making common cause with Iran’s hardliners, it would have been an unambiguous accusation of treason. By phrasing it the other way around–the hardliners are making common cause with Republicans–Obama gives himself a slight margin of deniability. But either way, it is a disgusting slander.

It is also delusional. Iran’s hardliners are the regime in power. The mullahs are not aligning themselves with Republicans; on the contrary, they are trumpeting the fact that they got everything they wanted in their negotiations with John Kerry and Barack Obama. But Obama can’t, and won’t, confront that reality. He will just go on slandering his political opponents and lying to the American people.

Barack Obama is a terrible president, but he is a worse man.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
State Department Unaware Of Reports Iran Is Sanitizing Nuclear Sites – Washington Free Beacon

State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said he was unaware of reports that claim Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear site on Wednesday.

Bloomberg reported that Congress has received evidence from the intelligence community that Iran is sanitizing a suspected nuclear military site at Parchin.

Toner was asked if the State Department has seen the report.

“The U.S. intelligence community has informed of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin in broad daylight days after agreeing to the nuclear deal with world powers,” the reporter said. “The new evidence, which is classified, satellite imagery picked up by U.S. government assets in mid and late July showed that Iran had moved bulldozers and other heavy machinery.”

“I’ve not seen those reports until you just spoke to them,” Toner said. “But, you know, we’ve been very clear that the joint agreement that we plan that you can’t hide nuclear activity. There are traces that remain.”

Toner clarified, saying that he could not elaborate.

“But I can’t speak to that specific instance you’re talking about,” Toner said.

Skeptics of the nuclear agreement have concerns about confidential side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that detail the inspection procedures into Iran’s suspected nuclear sites like Parchin.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.
U.S. SENATE HEARING ON THE OBAMA REGIME’S IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT


……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

.

Federal Sources Say FBI Investigation Into Htlery’s Emails Is A Criminal Probe

FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post

.

.
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture – it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.

The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.

“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified.

The inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.

If Clinton is proven to have knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.

The statute – which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005, is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.

Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high – they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.

Clinton’s lawyer in the e-mail probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pled guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.

“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.

“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

The Huckster: Why Wouldn’t I Bring Up The Holocaust When ‘We’re On The Verge Of Repeating It’? (Video)

Huckabee: Why Wouldn’t I Bring Up The Holocaust When ‘We’re On The Verge Of Repeating It’? – Breitbart

.

.
Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee defended his remarks about the Iran deal, stating “we’re on the verge of repeating it [the Holocaust] again with a nation that is threatening to do that very thing,” so it makes no sense to avoid bringing up the Holocaust on Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The Five.”

When asked if he stood by his comments, Huckabee stated, “Absolutely I do. Absolutely I do. The last time the world did not take seriously threats that someone was going to kill massive amounts of Jews, we ended up seeing 6 million Jews murdered. We didn’t take it seriously. The Iranian government – we’re not talking about a blogger here, we’re talking about the Iranian government – has repeatedly said that it’s going to be easier to take the Jews out because they’re all concentrated in Israel, we won’t have to go all over the world and hunt them. They used the word ‘holocaust.’ They used that word in talking about what they wanted to do. They refused, in this negotiation, to recognize Israel’s right to exist. They refused to tone down their rhetoric and continued to say that the Holocaust did not exist, and that they’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the map. When people who are in a government position continue to say they’re going to kill you, I think somebody ought to wake up and take that seriously.”

Co-host Dana Perino then argued, “he [Obama] has said repeatedly anybody who is against the deal that he is making with Iran, that they are warmongers, they just want war, which is unfair and unserious. But I do think that, from a rhetoric standpoint, when you bring up the Holocaust, everybody loses.” And “I that think that for Democrats who are on the fence, of possibly refusing to go along with Obama on this deal, that then, all of a sudden, they get pushed into a position of defending the president. And you even saw Joe Manchin today of West Virginia say he’s probably going to support the deal.”

Huckabee responded, “Well, if I get credit for them supporting the deal, then I’m a much, much bigger deal than I think people thought I was. Look, here’s what I would want to remind people: If we don’t take seriously the threats of Iran, then God help us all, because the last time – it’s Neville Chamberlain all over again. We’re going to just trust that everyone’s going to do the right thing. Three times I’ve been to Auschwitz, when I talked about the oven door, I have stood at that oven door. I know exactly what it looks like. 1.1 million people killed. For 6,000 years, Jews have been chased, and hunted, and killed all over this earth, and when someone in a government says, ‘We’re going to kill them,’ I think, by gosh, we better take that seriously. And for the president to act like that the only two options are have a war or take his deal, that got nothing, got nothing. We didn’t get the hostages out. We didn’t didn’t get a concession that they would stop this rhetoric about wanting to wipe Israel out, or they didn’t stop chanting ‘Death to America.’ We got nothing. I read the whole thing, I read it, and I thought you’re kidding. This is it? This is the best deal? Why can’t we criticize it?”

Co-host Geraldo Rivera then stated that as a Jew, he thinks Huckabee’s comments were “inappropriate.” And “There are some place you cannot go. You cannot compare the slaughter of 6 million Jews to anything, other than, maybe the slaughter of the Armenians or something else in history. You cannot compare it to a negotiation over a deal like this.”

Huckabee asked in response, “Why do we have the Holocaust Museum in Washington? Why do we have Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, that I visited dozens and dozens of times? Why do we have it?” Rivera answered that those things are “sacred” and shouldn’t be politicized. He added, after Huckabee asked again “to remember.”

Huckabee continued, “Why? So that we never repeat it again. If we’re on the verge of repeating it again with a nation that is threatening to do that very thing, how do we not bring up that language?”

Geraldo responded, “We don’t even use that when there’s a slaying in a school, and multiple victims. We still don’t go there. Because this was the systematic attempt by an industrialized nation to wipe out a race of people. That is different. That is unique. You may not go there. And I’m begging you to apologize and to retract that.”

Huckabee declared, “I will not apologize and I will not recant, because the word ‘holocaust’ was invoked by the Iranian government. They used that very word.” Geraldo answered by asking, “Are we going to go there then?” And pointed to the Anti-Defamation League’s condemnation of Huckabee’s remarks

Huckabee responded by stating, “the Democrat Jewish community’s been universal in condemning it. For them, it is a political issue. For me, it is not. It’s a humanitarian issue. And when you have a government saying they’re going to kill every Jew on the planet earth, and they use the term ‘holocaust,’ I’m not sure why we have memorials about the Holocaust if we’re not going to remember why we had it, what happened to 6 million Jews, how they were systematically murdered. And the fact is Geraldo, that’s exactly what the Iranians have said for, I mean, as long as the ayatollahs have been in power, for 36 years. They have continually said, ‘We’re going to kill every Jew.’ Now, at what point when a gun is pointed to your head do you not take that seriously?”

Co-host Eric Bolling said he doesn’t take issue with the comment itself, but rather, “My problem is that it took the focus away from what President Obama said, that 99% of the world is in agreement with this deal, which I fully, fully disagree with, number one, and number two, who cares about the rest of the world? I care about what Americans think. And right now, I think there’s 50% of Americans who hate this deal right now. And can we just focus on that for a little bit? Can you answer President Obama’s comment that 99% of the world is in agreement with the deal?”

Huckabee addressed Obama’s comment by wondering why “none of the people in that neighborhood” supported the deal if it is was such a great deal. He also pointed to Israel’s opposition to the deal, which he argued was possibly “because they, too, have seen this movie before, and they know that it does not end well. I think it’s a naive deal, and it didn’t get anything. I mean, you should have had some preconditions. The precondition should have been three things, at least: Four hostages…should have been released. They should have been on the next plane home. You should have had a concession that no more anti-/death to America talk, and no more talk about wiping Jews off the face of the earth and destroying Israel.”

Co-host Tom Shillue defended Huckabee’s remarks, which he argued is “a sober statement to make, because when they announced the deal they were saying, ‘Death to America, death to Israel.’ So, it makes perfect sense to me.”

.

.

Border Patrol Agent To Congress: We Are Punished If We Report Too Many Illegals (Videos)

US Border Patrol Agent: We Are Punished If We Report High Number Of Illegals – Gateway Pundit

“Agents who repeatedly reported groups larger than twenty faced retribution.”

.

.
Border patrol agent Chris Cabrera testified to Congress this past week. Cabrera said border patrol agents who regularly reported groups of illegals larger than twenty were taken out of the field and assigned them to processing detainees. Or else the agents were assigned to low volume areas as punishment.

30,558 illegal alien criminals were released on the streets in America in 2013.

John Gihon, former senior ICE attorney, went on FOX and Friends Saturday to discuss this disturbing development.

“If their bosses are telling them to lie about the number of people crossing our border, this has to stop immediately. This is a national security issue.”

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
FULL HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING ON SECURING THE SOUTHWEST BORDER


……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

.

Fox News Stomps Competition Into The Dirt… Again

Boom: Megyn Kelly And Fox News Have Just Buried Their Competition In The Trash Heap – Western Journalism

.

.
It was a little more than a year ago – in October 2013 – when Fox News boss Roger Ailes made what many at the time thought was a bold and risky programming move.

Ailes changed FNC’s primetime lineup, a schedule of shows that had been mostly unchanged for the prior 11 years. And quite an 11-year run it had been because in that time, Fox News remained a solid No. 1 in the cable news category in both total viewers and the core adult 25-54 demo.

The biggest change the channel made some thirteen months ago was the primetime addition of a brand new program in the 9pm hour. Where “Hannity” once held forth, Megyn Kelly brought in “The Kelly File,” whose soaring success since its launch has been simply stellar.

Megyn Kelly had risen to fame as an anchor on FNC’s dayside news coverage. A lawyer with a quick wit, a sharp mind, a tenacious interviewing style, and an unforgiving refusal to accept bloviating – plus the ability to hold her own with the likes of Bill O’Reilly – Kelly soon caught on and climbed high.

Now, her climb has reached a notable peak. For the first time ever, reports ratings tracker mediabistro.com, “The Kelly File” was the No. 1 show on cable news in the coveted 25-54 demo.

Megyn Kelly is becoming what many in the biz call a “category killer.”

The last time a host other than Bill O’Reilly has won the demo was in Oct. 2012, when the 10pmET hour, which included presidential debates, was No. 1. Fox News has now been the No. 1 cable news channel for 155 consecutive months in total viewers.

As for the standout performance of the Fox News Channel overall, FNC in the month of November was the second most-watched cable channel, topped only by ESPN.

FNC delivered its highest rated month since May 2013 in total viewers and April 2013 in the A25-54 demo, when the Boston Marathon bombing occurred.

Below is a chart that graphically illustrates the outstanding ranking of Fox News in all of cable…and the absolute dominance of the channel in the cable news category.

You”ll note that CNN and MSNBC are nowhere to be seen seen, as MSNBC placed 26th in primetime and 27th in total day; CNN placed 25th in primetime and 20th in total day.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Thomas Sowell: Congressional Black Caucus Employing Joseph Goebbels Tactic In Ferguson Case


.
..

.

*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Discusses President Asshat’s Lawless Amnesty Scheme


.

.

Obamacare Architect Caught On 3 Different Videos Admitting The Regime Lied, And Calling Americans Stupid (Videos)

Megyn Kelly Shows 2nd Video Of Obamacare Architect Calling Americans “Too Stupid” – Right Scoop

Last night Megyn Kelly showed a 2nd video of Obama architect Jonathan Gruber talking about how Obamacare passed because Americans are “too stupid”:

.

.
Clearly Gruber thinks he knows what’s best for us stupid Americans, just like Obama and Democrats believe they are our betters. So much so that they’d hide important information about a bill just to shove it down our throats.

Republicans have ammunition to fight this thing in the court of public opinion but so far I don’t see them doing much about it.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Video: Interview Gets Tense In A Hurry When TV Hosts Confront Senator Over Obamacare Architect’s Revealing Comments – The Blaze

The hosts of “Fox & Friends” confronted Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) on Tuesday over one of the Obamacare architects’ controversial assertion that the health care law made it through Congress thanks to a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter.” The video of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber making the revealing comments at a University of Pennsylvania event in October of 2013 went viral this week.

King said he was unsure of what Gruber was talking about and made it clear he doesn’t “endorse those kinds of comments.” He then defended the way Obamacare was passed.

“Everybody knew that there were going to be additional taxes required to support the premiums under the Affordable Care Act. I don’t see it as any deep dark conspiracy,” he added.

“Really? Senator, he said he wasn’t transparent. He wasn’t telling the truth,” host Brian Kilmeade responded.

.

.
The senator then seemingly downplayed Gruber’s role in crafting Obamacare. King was not in the Senate when the law was voted on.

“Who was he? I don’t know where he was in the process,” King said.

When co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle argued Gruber’s comments confirm the American people were purposefully not informed that Obamacare would “tax and penalize” people, King went slightly off topic and stressed the importance of having insurance.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Tax and penalize? Hold it, hold it, hold it,” King interjected. “We’ve got eight million people that have insurance now that didn’t before and don’t lecture me about this because 40 years ago, I had insurance. If I hadn’t had it, it caught a cancer that saved my life. If I hadn’t had insurance I’d be dead.”

“What does that have to do with it?” Kilmeade asked.

“It has to do with having insurance, man. If you don’t have insurance, it’s a high risk,” King shot back.

Confronted again with claims that Gruber’s remarks show “they lied about a health plan to the American people,” King asserted he was only “one guy” involved in the creation and passage of Obamacare. He then suggested the TV hosts believe “people shouldn’t have health insurance.”

“Are you that cruel? That is what you’re saying,” the senator added.

“Oh, my goodness,” a frustrated Kilmeade reacted.

Watch the video via Fox News below:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
In Third Video, Obamacare Architect Talks About ‘Basic Exploitation’ Of American Voters – Daily Caller

A third video has surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public in order to help implement Obamacare.

“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a speech at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.

He was discussing what is known as the Cadillac tax and how it came into being.

In an effort to add a cost-control measure to Obamacare, former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who Gruber called a “hero,” successfully pushed through a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies for plans that cost more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,000 for families.

This was an alternative to putting a cap on tax breaks employers provide employees for health insurance plans, which, according to Gruber, the public mistook for a tax increase rather than the removal of a tax break.

“You just can’t get through, it’s just politically impossible,” Gruber said during his talk.

The purpose of the Cadillac tax is to force the “overinsured” – people with expensive health insurance plans – to cut back on “excess benefits.” Many economists believe that such plans cause inefficiencies in the health-care system. The Cadillac tax, which will be implemented in 2018, is projected to save $250 billion.

Gruber has made remarks before in which he espouses a dim view of the American public while discussing the deception behind passing both the Cadillac tax and Obamacare in general.

The first instance came to light on Sunday when a video was published showing Gruber telling a University of Pennsylvania health-care panel that Obamacare was “written in a tortured way” and that it passed, in part, because it was difficult to understand.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass,” Gruber said at the November 2013 event.

The discoverer of the video was not a journalist or a political operative, but, rather, a financial planner who was one of the millions of Americans who lost his insurance plan last year despite President Obama’s pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it, period.”

Gruber, who was paid $400,000 to consult on Obamacare, backtracked from those remarks on MSNBC on Tuesday, saying that they were “off the cuff.”

But the randomness of Gruber’s remarks was cast into doubt Tuesday night when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly revealed a second video that also shows the professor discussing the Cadillac tax in a speech at Washington University in St. Louis in October 2013.

Gruber said that the kludge worked because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference” between capping subsidies and taxing insurance companies.

Watch:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Meet The Guy Who Found All Those Jonathan Gruber Obamacare Clips – American Thinker

The story about Rich Weinstein, an unknown investment advisor who poured through hours and hours of YouTube videos, radio interviews, and other media featuring Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is both incredible and inspiring.

It is Weinstein who is responsible for ferreting out Gruber’s toxic comments about the “stupidity of the American people” and, more importantly, Gruber’s insistence that Obamacare subsidies were limited to state exchanges and should not be made available at the federal level.

Bloomberg:

A few days ago, Weinstein pulled a short clip from Gruber’s year-old appearance at a University of Pennsylvania health care conference. As a crowd murmured with laughter, Gruber explained that the process that created the ACA was, by necessity, obfuscated to pull one over on voters.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” said Gruber. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the America voter, or whatever.”

Weinstein’s scoop went around the world in a hurry. American Commitment, a conservative 501(c)(4) founded by Americans for Prosperity veteran Phil Kerpen, published the clip on its YouTube channel. Kerpen promoted it through tweets, which quickly became live coverage of the media outlets discovering Gruber.

The University of Pennsylvania actually pulled the clip for a few hours before a Tsunami of outrage forced them to put it back up.

Weinstein’s activism is the result of him losing his insurance in 2013:

Weinstein dates his accidental citizen journalism back to the end of 2013 and the first run of insurance cancellations or policy changes. He was among the people who got a letter informing him that his old policy did not meet ACA standards.

“When Obama said ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period’—frankly, I believed him,” says Weinstein. “He very often speaks with qualifiers. When he said ‘period,’ there were no qualifiers. You can understand that when I lost my own plan, and the replacement cost twice as much, I wasn’t happy. So I’m watching the news, and at that time I was thinking: Hey, the administration was not telling people the truth, and the media was doing nothing!”

So Weinstein, new plan in hand, started watching the news. “These people were showing up on the shows, calling themselves architects of the law,” he recalls. “I saw David Cutler, Zeke Emanuel, Jonathan Gruber, people like that. I wondered if these guys had some type of paper trail. So I looked into what Dr. Cutler had said and written, and it was generally all about cost control. After I finished with Cutler, I went to Dr. Gruber. I assume I went through every video, every radio interview, every podcast. Every everything.”

His second shot across the bow of Obamacare was an even bigger coup:

Weinstein dug and dug and eventually discovered the first Gruber quote, known in conservative circles as the “speak-o.” Gruber had been on TV arguing that the case against subsidies in non-exchange states was ludicrous. Yet at a January 2012 symposium, Gruber seemed to be making the conservatives’ argument. “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits – but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” said Gruber. “So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.”

The investment advisor e-mailed this around. Nobody cared. Nobody noticed the clip until after the D.C. circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of plaintiffs who were suing to stop the subsidies. Weinstein clicked around for articles about the decision, and left a comment on The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, pointing to the clip. In short order, Ryan Radia of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute noticed the clip and promoted it. Within hours, Gruber’s “speak-o” had greatly muddied the liberal argument.

SCOTUS now has not only evidence of congressional intent to limit the subsidies, but also evidence that the people who wrote the law had the same intent. It’s going to be very hard for John Roberts to finesse this one, which probably means SCOTUS will uphold King and the subsidies gotten through the federal website will end.

That doesn’t mean the end of Obamacare. It is pssible that many states without exchanges will set them up to prevent the disruption in coverage for those in their states who got insurance through healthcare.gov. But Weinstein’s efforts have thrown a monkey wrench into Obamacare’s inner workings and whether the program can survive is open to question.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

.

.