FBI Source: Clinton Foundation can bring down the entire government

From Tom Fernandez’s blog, with a hat-tip to Peppermint blog:

The Clinton Foundation is a “massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people,” according to an anonymous insider who revealed why the FBI stopped short of indicting Hillary Clinton.

Before FBI Director James Comey announced the FBI wouldn’t recommend pressing charges against Clinton, an insider with “intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case” hosted an little-publicized AMA session on 4Chan, and the statements he made on July 2 corroborate with later developments of the scandal.

It’s not so much that the Clintons have their tentacles everywhere, which they probably do. It’s that whatever hurts the Clintons is bound to hurt those they’re connected to. They protect each other because they need to.

This is a useful reminder that the story isn’t really over yet. They will all have to be watching each others’ backs for a long, long time.

What “commonsense” really means

First, I see that left-winger Jeff Sharlet retweeted Congresswoman Yvette Clarke:

She claims to want “commonsense gun legislation.”

The latest scheme is to stop gun-sales to those on no-fly lists. It’s a dumb idea, seeing as how no-fly lists usually affect honest flyers more than terrorists. It can be justified for air travel, but barely. There is no due-process. We put up with it because flying isn’t actually a right.

Then Sharlet allows a little bit of the truth to slip in:

He knows it’s crap that would accomplish nothing. The word “commonsense” means nothing at all to these people.

Via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

Congressman John Lewis, who took part in the sit-in, was
“Once Erroneously Placed on No-Fly List He Wants to Use to Deny Due Process.“

Gun control is all a sham.

How I would close Guantanamo

Camp X-Ray in 2007, five years after it closed.

My plan for closing Guantanamo would be rather different than President Obama’s.

I would first restrict the detainees’ access to news, and then stop their lawyer visits.

Then I’d feed them fake news. Make it look like Hillary wins the election, and that Al Qaeda is winning the war on terror. Make them think the war is ending, and Al Qaeda is victorious. Give them better food, and more benefits, as we’re ostensibly remorseful.

Tell them they’ll all be leaving soon, now that the war is ending. Promise each of them millions of dollars in reparations upon their return to the new Caliphate.

Our guards will need to audition so that they can act suitably humble.

Park a 747 at the airfield with a black-and-white color scheme suitable for an Al Qaeda airline. They’re going home in style. Some would surely have tears in their eyes. This is everything they dreamed of.

Finally, tell them the truth. Guantanamo is not closing. They’re not going home. Maybe, if we’re lucky, President Trump can deliver this news personally. Take away all the new benefits we gave them. Make Guantanamo worse than ever before.

Like Trump, I see no reason to close Guantanamo. The war’s not over yet.

The critics can whine all they want, but my idea isn’t really all that much worse than telling people you’re going to “close Guantanamo” when you’re really only planning to move it to a prison in the U.S. — the Obama plan.

It’s a pity they don’t do stuff like this in real life. Not precisely, anyway.

I am aware of one trick they did, reported in the file of detainee Jamal Al-Harith (ISN 490):

[D]uring a recent PSYOP/JDOG experiment in Camp Delta called “Dining Out” (where ethnic food was prepared for a select group of detainees), the detainee was noticed calling out to other detainees in other blocks that the food tasted just like that from a restaurant in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. According to the detainee’s story, he has never been to Saudi Arabia.

Al-Harith was released to the U.K. in 2004. He told stories of being served old food and dirty water — and the beatings. The human rights movement repeated those stories without a hint of skepticism. The British government gave him one million pounds for all his trouble.

The money must have run out. His last reported location was in Syria, where he now resides as a member of ISIS.

Peace protesters not so bright

But you knew that. Not exactly headline news.

I spotted an article today about a peace protester couple in New London, Connecticut.

Her parents were also peace protesters, then against the U.S. side of the Vietnam war. So’s her husband:

She’s married now, to Patrick Sheehan-Gaumer, who was raised in Norwich by parents Rick Gaumer and Joanne Sheehan, who founded the New England chapter of the War Resisters League in 1985 and are still active in the cause.

Here’s the funny part:

They are “purposely poor,” Sheehan-Gaumer, 34, said, explaining they are “a family of five living below the taxable income level on purpose, so that we don’t pay federal taxes.”

Asked why, he said, “Because about 50 cents of every dollar paid in taxes goes to the Pentagon.”

It’s really only about 16%, plus a portion from an additional 8% if you include veterans’ benefits — although that number includes retirees from other federal departments.

But they didn’t entirely make their number up. Left-wing groups like to play games with the number, first pulling the Social Security surplus from the budget (not unreasonably), then (very unreasonably) allocating all the debt to Defense.

Assuming we were going to take them seriously (always a big mistake), there are several problems with this. First, health and welfare alone are enormous (and we’re not even counting the portion paid through state taxes). And to lump all those debts to Defense simply forgets the fact that our budget has been almost entirely in the red since the Great Society. We used to spend a much larger portion on Defense in the 1950s.

If you think the government spends a lot on health care, that’s not even all of it. The state budgets come out to a similar amount.

Regardless, I’m not so sure they have to be that poor. It sounds like they work at non-profit charities. If the Clintons didn’t teach them how to skim money off of that, they’re missing out.

Then again, I said they’re not so bright.

This election is too important not to have a second choice

This is a difficult election.

First off, I’m a Trump supporter.

I set aside a ton of baggage to remain a Trump supporter. It’s another nuisance when a few other Trump supporters add to my difficulties, but that’s just the way things are.

Now Roger Stone of the DailyCaller, adding to my grief, says GOP-establishment money is going to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and RedState.com’s Erick Erickson. Citing ad revenue, Stone says, “Don’t fool yourself. They’re doing it for the money.”

The article is here, but I give you the link only out of general principle.

The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord, also a Trump supporter, states the obvious: Stone and his source are off their rockers:

In addition to being a Trump supporter, I am also a friend of Mark Levin, having known him since we both worked for Ronald Reagan. Precisely because of this I know with certitude that my friend Mark has been an outspoken conservative since he was, yes indeed, a teenager. He is the real deal. Those best-selling books are best sellers not because of the Senate Conservatives Fund but because Mark is a serious thinker who works long and hard at writing these books. As someone who knows him and has read and reviewed his books, I know exactly why they have so much appeal to conservatives all over America. Take a look at this Levin book signing from seven years ago in Tysons Corner, Virginia. See that long… long, long, long… line of Americans waiting to see Mark and get a signed copy of Liberty and Tyranny? You can’t manufacture something like that.

As Jeffrey Lord said, Mark Levin is the real deal. I understand his position regarding Trump. I just disagree on how bad things are. We shouldn’t be tearing each other apart over this.

As for Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson, they were both solidly anti-Trump long before #NeverTrump became a thing. There’s nothing odd that Trump’s opponents would choose these venues for advertising. They are where the conservative listeners and readers are.

We’re in trouble, folks. Benjamin Franklin is attributed to have once said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” I hope we can all bear that in mind.

Jeffrey Lord is a Trump supporter who still likes Ted Cruz, who remains my second choice as well.

This election is too important not to have a second choice. Support your candidate. But don’t sink your #2 if your #1 doesn’t get the nomination.

Never charged with a crime

Note: This could be a post I’ll be referencing in the future — not just a thought for the day. I could be making changes periodically. Apologies in advance for the length.  [shortcut: http://wp.me/p71dva-7V ]

A guest of Bill Maher recently complained of Guantanamo, “people have not been charged, or tried, and what happened to rule of law? That’s the whole principle of the Constitution.”

She apparently has been lied to, and it’s about time we clear this up. We see a lot of articles about Guantanamo detainees being “released without charge” or “never charged with a crime.” They want us to believe we’d have convicted them if they weren’t innocent.

The short answer is: The founding fathers knew charges and trials are for crimes. This is a war.

That’s not a flippant answer either. Where the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless…,” — right there you can see they are obviously talking about crimes. They were very careful about the words they used (much like the way they outlawed torture but only as punishment).

Then in the Sixth Amendment, it begins, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Again, they were very specific that this was about crimes.

People have gotten the mistaken idea that one can either be a civilian entitled to due process, or a prisoner of war entitled to the rights and privileges of the Geneva Conventions, but nothing else. Well, that’s not true. We have often held people without trial during wartime without POW status — and in peacetime as well.

Continue reading “Never charged with a crime”

Colin Powell never thought terrorists should get POW status

I’ve written before about Trump following the law. There’s never been any doubt in my mind. And, as we’ve seen, the U.S. military would not follow an illegal order.

Rosa Brooks thinks they would. She’s a former Pentagon official under the Obama administration with a full assortment of left-wing credentials before that.

Among other things, Brooks uses as her rationale that we didn’t give full rights to our detainees. She writes:

Think back to the first few years after the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon initially planned to treat Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners in accordance with the rules laid out in the Geneva Conventions, but the White House considered this inconvenient. (Under those rules, prisoners can’t be detained secretly and with no review process, and they most definitely can’t be waterboarded.) So the White House found some unusually compliant Justice Department lawyers, and by January 2002, the department’s office of legal counsel was instructing the Defense Department that Geneva Convention protections did not apply to Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters.

Colin Powell, the George W. Bush administration’s secretary of state and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, objected immediately, as did several top active-duty military officials. The Justice Department’s position would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions,” Powell argued, making the United States “vulnerable to domestic and international legal challenges” and creating a risk of criminal prosecution for American officials and troops.

Well, those were Colin Powell’s words, but he wasn’t talking about giving the detainees Prisoner Of War status. Or much of anything beyond what they received at Guantanamo.

As I explained in my book, This is War! Quit Sniveling, it’s true that Powell wanted the U.S. to apply the full Geneva Conventions to the War on Terror. But he never believed that terrorists should then be entitled to POW status. He doubted that any of them would qualify for it.

On that review process she talks about, Powell only concedes that “some” Taliban soldiers “might” be entitled to that. Most weren’t even entitled to that review. None of the al Qaeda detainees were.

Powell then said, “This would not, however, affect their treatment as a practical matter.” And ultimately, it didn’t for the Taliban. Of the Taliban detainees that Powell is talking about, Bush had already determined they would get Common Article 3 status anyway. It’s the al Qaeda detainees that didn’t get it until later.

Colin Powell’s January 26, 2002 memo has been added to the latest edition of my book. It’s also in my documents page here.

Rosa Brooks is a lawyer with a history of working for left-wing activist groups, George Soros’s Open Society Institute among others. Expect more like her in the Pentagon if Hillary Clinton is elected.