Clinton misdeeds – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of unresolved and relatively undiscussed issues, including media bias and potential criminal actions, that inappropriately influenced the 2016 presidential campaign.

Evidence of the stunning level of abuse by the Obama Administration of national security facilities to influence the campaign in favor of Ms. Clinton continues to grow. Fox News reports that “In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned ‘that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration.”

Of course, the misuse of federal agencies was nothing new. The Obama Administration had used the IRS to harass Tea Party opponents of the White House, the FCC tried (unsuccessfully) to muzzle conservative news outlets, the Department of Justice refused to investigate Secretary of State Clinton’s profiting from the sale of A-bomb fuel to Russia or prosecute her email misdeeds—all these received scant attention from a media thoroughly absorbed in the task of insuring that Democrats kept their hold on the White House.

Attempted tilting of the 2016 campaign in Ms. Clinton’s favor may not have been restricted to misusing federal agencies or DNC resources. The Voter Integrity Commission is examining illegal activities in New Hampshire that tilted the state in the former Secretary of State’s position. According to the Washington Times, “More than 6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle…’Having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real. It’s very serious…White House policy adviser Stephen Miller told ABC News in February.”

This buy sildenafil india is all of a sort of stupidity to remain in darkness about the treatment of the condition and they involve lifestyle changes, psychological and physical conditions. You should buy Kamagra only the dosage suggested by doctor, before 45 mins of sexual sales uk viagra act. To do the sex practice these generic levitra anti-impotence pills admitted best amongst all to response well. They are abnormal hormone levels; abnormal levels viagra pills wholesale of particular hormones can interfere with erections and sex drive. Rather than focus on the DNC, Obama, or Clinton misdeeds, which combined do indeed amount to the greatest scandal in U.S. history, the media has followed a storyline aimed at distracting the public. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government reported in August,

“Despite a clear lack of substantive evidence, an entire press and prosecutorial industry has been developed based on claiming that the damning evidence provided by Julian Assange and others about the corrupt Clinton machine and the machinations of the Democrat Party to deny primary rival Bernie Sanders a fair chance to compete with her in the 2016 primary season was provided by Russian agents in an attempt to promote a Trump victory.” The fact that the current investigation into the as yet baseless allegations that Russians worked with one or more individuals in the Trump campaign is being conducted by a team consisting largely of pro-Clinton donors apparently is too inconsequential for the media to comment on.

The Washington Times revealed: “Leaked emails show that Hillary Clinton’s campaign officials boasted about getting favorable news coverage from compliant journalists, received political advice from cozy reporters and circulated the names of journalists who were “friendly” to the candidate… Clinton campaign officials clearly exude[d] an air of confidence that much of the mainstream media are in the bag for their candidate and hostile to Republican rival Donald Trump. Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill was practically gloating after a series of local media interviews with Mrs. Clinton in Michigan in March before the Democratic primary. .’[Six] radio interviews and [two in] coffee shops this morning,” Mr. Merrill wrote. “No flags. Every single interviewer was for her…Mr. Podesta’s emails show that CNBC anchor John Harwood offered advice to the Clinton campaign…”

Rehashing the 2016 campaign is less important than outlining the collusion between the majority of the media with the major officials of one political party.

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews, in two parts, unresolved and relatively undiscussed issues, including media bias and potential criminal actions, that inappropriately influenced the 2016 presidential campaign.

There was a great deal of rage when President Trump asserted that there were “good guys” as well as extremists with evil intentions on both sides of the right-left divide.

The furious reaction to this rather bland and self-evident comment, in which the President was accused of everything from racism to being a neo-Nazi, revealed a great deal about how much of the media operates, both in the way particular news stories are reported, and, perhaps more importantly, which news items are completely ignored.

The list of vitally important news that has been downplayed or ignored by much of the media is stunning in its scope and in the importance of the particular items.

While the media has tilted left since the 1960’s, (when journalism schools replaced teaching their students about the importance of objectively describing who, what, when, where and why with “advocacy” which inevitably tilted left,) the current extreme nature of reporting beginning in the 1990s, which centered around unquestioning support of the Clintons and eventually Barack Obama, is unprecedented. That has resulted in downplaying the most significant political scandals in American history.

It is becoming increasingly clear that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Democrat elected officials as well as party leadership conspired (that word is used in the full legal sense) to insure that Hillary Clinton both secured the Democrat Party nomination and won the general election.

DNC misdeeds during the primaries prompted appropriate howls of anger from Bernie Sanders supporters

The Observer reported: “In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, (released by Wikileaks) DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.”
Because of this, a diet that is high in fat, negative habits like drinking alcohol, smoking, using viagra generico cialis drugs, obesity and also via chronic diseases like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and overweight, thus to overcome these problems one needs to modify his lifestyle. Cowhage/Velvet Bean or Kapikachchu-It helps in prevention as well as treatment of low sperm count viagra shops in india in males. free prescription viagra Erectile dysfunction, or ED, is a major concern for couples. Individuals proceed in direction of snoring mouthpiece among the treatment to get rid of it completely. viagra 50 mg http://djpaulkom.tv/music-bobby-shmurda-hot-boy-dj-paul-k-o-m-edm-remix/
Donors to the DNC reacted with anger to the bias.

One example, as noted in Newsweek: “Jared Beck, a Harvard Law graduate and one of the several attorneys who filed the suit against the DNC and its former chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, wants retribution for donations made by supporters to the Vermont senator’s campaign, citing six legal claims of the DNC’s deceptive conduct, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The DNC violated Article 5, Section 4 of its own charter by working with a single campaign to effectively choose who would win the Democratic ballot, the attorneys stated in the suit.” (The lawsuit was eventually dismissed, not on the merits but because the judgein the case considered the matter more appropriately resolved within the DNC itself, and that those donors bringing the case lacked the legal standing to bring the action to court.)

Despite a long history of important scandals, both personal and professional, Hillary Clinton was given a relative free pass in both the primaries and the general election by a media that acted far more like partisan cheerleaders than journalists. Trump, of course, provided a near daily fare of over-the-top comments, which were reported with exuberant glee. But, other than in the few conservative outlets, where was the discussion of Clinton’s abundant misdeeds?

As National Review noted during the campaign, “Felony mishandling of classified information, including our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets; the misappropriation and destruction of tens of thousands of government records — these are serious criminal offenses…Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation;…Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Having secured the nomination, actions were taken to rig the fight against Trump, including using federal agencies to illegally harass and surveil his campaign. To their credit, a limited number of news outlets rose above the general bias to ask questions that many other media outlets still find uncomfortable.

USA Today provided an important example, when it asked “…what are we to make of the recently unveiled Obama administration program of massively spying on political opponents in violation of clearly established law?… The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans. … The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard Americans’ privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.