Thursday, January 11, 2018


 Where is Planned Parenthood when a pregnant woman’s choice is violated and her health is threatened by an employer demanding a flu vaccine? 
They’re only interested if an abortion is the choice.
"In a statement, hospital officials told News 12:
“NYU Winthrop Hospital maintains the highest standards to protect the health and well-being of not only our patients but our employees. When we established the mandatory influenza vaccination program many months ago, every employee was notified and given the opportunity to apply for a valid medical or religious exemption. Every exemption request was evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a panel of clinical experts and senior HR executives. It was determined that pregnancy alone was not a valid basis for an exemption. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to recommend that all women receive the influenza vaccine, including pregnant women, who are at increased risk of serious illness and mortality due to influenza. This recommendation is applicable in any trimester. Moreover, as the ACOG states, ‘Maternal vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect newborns because the vaccine is not approved for use in infants younger than six months.’
“While we cannot comment on specific instances due to privacy issues, we can say that, absent other extenuating facts, an exemption request for pregnancy would not be granted. NYU Winthrop Hospital believes that, as healthcare workers, every one of our employees has a moral obligation to protect the health and safety of our patients and our fellow employees. Mandatory flu vaccination is a commitment to that responsibility.” - John Collins, President and CEO, NYU Winthrop University Hospital"


Islam was not for me - Amil Imani (Free Iran) 


Whistleblower reveals Islamist movement to subvert America & Israel, facilitated by Obama

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Thank you, Amil. I’m humbled by and grateful for your words. As the foes of freedom become more ruthless and relentless everywhere, certainly Benjamin Franklin’s quip is truer than ever: we have to hang together now, or we will all hang separately.

“Saluting Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer,” by Amil Imani, Capitol Hill Outsider, January 9, 2018:
…People such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, have set themselves apart from the shameful gang of self-serving loudmouths who find themselves suddenly tongue-tied when speaking up does not serve their myopic and parochial agenda. If President Trump is for it, they are against it, no matter what.
I am certain that I speak for millions of severely tormented Iranians, where women in particular are subjected to unbelievable atrocities, in thanking you. You are true friends of freedom. You are standing with the people of Iran in their life and death struggle. We thank you for your support.
In my opinion, the liberty-loving people of America and the world owe a debt of gratitude to Pamela and Robert, for valiantly exposing the racist and supremacist nature of the barbarity of Islam, for fearlessly braving where others dare not tread, and for passionately defending freedom of speech, rights of the individual and oppressed people of the world.
Both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been sounding this alarm from the very beginning about the true nature of radical Islam and jihadists’ imminent deadly threats to our way of life and American values. While America is the last haven of hope where liberty can reign, Islamic jihadists draw heavily from their treasury flush with oil extortion money to bribe politicians and hire mercenaries to further their evil objectives.
In my opinion, both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are true heroes. They stand for all that is dear to free people. They are in stark contrast to the masses of the politically correct, the apathetic, and the hired Islamic apologists.
It is noteworthy that their work not only serves what is right, it also serves the best interests of America and all of humanity. It proves to the world that these two-liberty loving cherish and support freedom and the rights of all people to speak freely.
“Where are the champions of … what did they call it? Oh yes, the “Arab Spring” — that great euphemism for the oppressive Islamic supremacist movement that sought to overthrow secular rule for the vicious and brutal and sharia. Here, now, when a genuine movement for freedom takes hold in a viciously oppressive Muslim country, the left stands with the murderers and oppressors. The media, aligned with the jihad force, will never report fairly or even remotely accurately on these matters, as they are the tip of the spear of the anti-freedom, anti-American fifth column in this country.” Pamela Geller
“Today, as the Iranian people courageously stand for freedom, it is most fitting that the removal of the hijab has become the symbol of this movement. We can only hope that the protesters will succeed in overthrowing or at least drastically weakening the Islamic Republic, such that the rights of women, and of all people, can flower. Iranian women deserve better than the Islamic Republic. The Iranian people deserve better than the Islamic Republic. The protesters deserve the wholehearted support of all free people.” Robert Spencer
Sadly, during these times of great peril, truth is sacrificed by the politically correct, the myopic self-serving in the liberally dominated media, and the ruling class.  Against this backdrop, two people of great courage and integrity labor tirelessly in speaking the truth and in the defense of liberty.
As US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said it beautifully: “We must not be silent. The people are crying out for freedom. All freedom loving people must stand with their cause. The international community made the mistake of failing to do that in 2009. We must not make that mistake again.”
On behalf of all freedom loving Iranians, I want to say: Thank you. Thank you for reporting the Truth while the MSM blocked the accurate flow of news from reaching the public. Thank you for standing with the valiant Iranian people.
Both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are champions of freedom, liberty and human rights. They rightfully deserve to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I am honored to call them my friends.
 Rush Limbaugh on Amil Imani

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“For a large part of the last four or five years we’ve been unable to take enforcement action against those individuals,” the Washington Examiner quoted ICE official Matthew Albence as saying earlier this week in explaining why U.S. immigration officials have a backlog of 550,000 illegal aliens. Albence is executive associate director for enforcement and removal operations.
Two reasons are given for this exceptionally large backlog. One, former President Barack Obama handed many of them temporary amnesty, and two, others were allowed to stay by judges sympathetic to illegal immigration.
Obama began delaying deportation actions in large numbers in 2014. Albence explained that even if officers of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) found an illegal alien in jail, they were discouraged from taking him into custody. “Our officers had to turn their heads or walk the other way. So that’s a large part of that problem, the fact that we couldn’t enforce the law.”
Even some illegals sought for murder were protected.
Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan also asserted, “We need to hold judges accountable.” Another problem he cited was the hundreds of sanctuary cities which have not allowed ICE officers to take illegal aliens into custody, even if they are in their jails. ICE under the Trump administration intends to fight those cities and other obstacles, Homan added. He believes this will send a message to those here illegally that they are still subject to deportation, even if they have been in the country for a decade.
“There has to be a consequence and a deterrence to illegal activity or the illegal activity won’t stop,” Homan pointed out. “We’ve made a lot of headway this year — more than I’ve seen in a long time — and we’ve got to keep going down this road. We’ve got to keep momentum going.”
It is quite clear that the Obama administration, up to and including the president, favored the influx of illegal aliens. What would be the motivation?
Certainly, a long-range goal was increasing the number of voters expected to cast their ballots for Democrat candidates. In the meantime, the Obama administration probably assumed that, by taking such a lenient approach to removing persons inside the country here illegally, he would garner increased political participation from ethnic groups with large numbers of immigrants. While many often think of Hispanics when they hear of “illegal aliens,” ICE also has had problems in dealing with a large Iraqi population in the Detroit area.
The problem, of course, did not originate with Obama. In 1965, the Hart-Celler Act radically changed American immigration laws, abolishing the quota system. The law replaced the quotas with preferences based on family relationships. In 1988, Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy praised the Kennedys for this change, declaring, “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”
Historian Tom Woods commented on the effect of this surge in immigration, legal and illegal, asking whether we will “be more or less free after even two more generations of immigration the size and composition of recent decades. That immigrants and the American bureaucracy that serves them will become yet another pressure group, clamoring for privileges and benefits in Washington, can scarcely be doubted.”
He continued, zeroing in on the problem we now face. “In order to destroy the cultural and ethnic cohesion that acts as a bulwark against its expansion, the state has a history of engaging in deliberate scrambling. When this forced integration inevitably produces animosity, the state is all too eager to impose order on a chaos of its own creation.”
Woods concluded, “A facile advocacy of open borders gives the central state exactly what it wants: the chance to supersede the preferences of property owners, and to provide the pretext for further encroachments on local and individual liberty.”
So, it is not too surprising that President Obama and his allies favored the coddling of illegal aliens.
Hopefully, simply enforcing present federal laws against illegal immigration will be one of the legacies of the Trump presidency.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Trump administration has decided to delay — but not yet scrap — a draconian and widely condemned “regulation” from the Obama administration known as the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) rule. The scheme, which became a lighting rod of controversy, aims to gather massive amounts of demographic data on every community in America, then use the awesome powers of the federal government to redistribute people based on race and income. It's all to advance some nebulous notion of “diversity” and “fairness,” advocates say. On both sides of the debate, though, there is an expectation that the recently unveiled delay could be a stop-gap measure while the rule is totally abolished.
Officially, the rule was “delayed” because local governments were having trouble understanding — not to mention complying — with the byzantine mandates. About one third of the initial local government plans for compliance submitted to the feds were rejected, sparking concerns, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development officials. Multiple local bureaucrats from big liberal cities and the Obama administration were quoted downplaying the confusion and celebrating the rule as if it were some great invention or innovation. Unsurprisingly, establishment mouthpieces such as the New York Times did not quote a single critic, despite quoting liberally from tax-funded supporters with a clear conflict of interest.

   The rule itself is confusing. Under the guise of making communities more “diverse” and ending “segregation,” the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) scheme would radically reshape your neighborhood. Not enough federally subsidized low-income apartments in your upper- or middle-class suburb of single-family homes? The AFFH would change that by plopping more welfare recipients and Section 8-subsidized apartments there. Not enough whites, Latinos, black people, Muslims, or Asians in your community? The AFFH would seek to redistribute people, too, until the feds' vision of racial, religious, and income levels being harmonized is realized across America.
In addition to the gnashing of teeth by the establishment's leading propaganda organs, a coalition of establishment AstroTurf groups on the left-wing fringe also whined about the delay in enforcing the rule. Basically, the alliance claimed that poverty and poor education are a result of a federal government that has not been active enough in redistributing people based on their demographics and socioeconomic status. However, federal studies that have been done show that redistributing poor or minority people into wealthier communities did not actually improve wellbeing, resulted in more food stamp use, and brought crime into safer neighborhoods.
Outraged by the delay, the coalition, which includes everything from transgender groups and the ACLU to a range of front groups for billionaire extremist George Soros, demanded that HUD begin vigorously enforcing the decree. Ironically, they claimed not allowing D.C. bureaucrats to immediately reshape communities across America was “giving local residents less voice in important decisions about their communities.” Seriously. 
But if the hysterics are correct, the delay may just be a temporary measure as the scheme is tossed into the trash heap of regulations being dismantled by the Trump administration. The current HUD secretary, Ben Carson, was actually a fierce critic of the scheme prior to joining Trump's cabinet. In a stinging rebuke of the power grab, Carson said that the Obama agency's rules relied on a “tortured reading” of the relevant federal statutes.
“The new rule would not only condition the grant of HUD funds to municipalities on building affordable housing as is the case today, but would require that such affordable housing be built primarily in wealthier neighborhoods with few current minority residents and that the new housing be aggressively marketed to minorities,” warned Carson in a column while he was running for the GOP nomination.
As intended, the Obama rule would fundamentally transform many communities — especially wealthier suburbs. “In practice, the rule would fundamentally change the nature of some communities from primarily single-family to largely apartment-based areas by encouraging municipalities to strike down housing ordinances that have no overtly (or even intended) discriminatory purpose — including race-neutral zoning restrictions on lot sizes and limits on multi-unit dwellings, all in the name of promoting diversity,” added Carson, a widely respected pediatric neurosurgeon once labeled an “extremist” by the fringe left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.
However, as with other socialist schemes that have backfired everywhere they have been tried, Carson predicted that the AFFH would end up becoming yet another government-mandated boondoggle. “These government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality create consequences that often make matters worse,” he concluded, offering examples such as the failed “busing” experiments with school children. “There are reasonable ways to use housing policy to enhance the opportunities available to lower-income citizens, but based on the history of failed socialist experiments in this country, entrusting the government to get it right can prove downright dangerous.”
However, after becoming HUD boss, Carson has softened his tone, and vowed to “reinterpret” the rule rather than scrap it altogether, alarming those who supported him for the post due to his opposition to AFFH. “Do I believe in fair housing? Of course, I believe in fair housing,” Carson was quoted as saying by the Washington Examiner, adding that he did not believe in “extra manipulation and cost.” “So we just have to reinterpret it, that's all,” Carson said, without elaborating on how he might reinterpret it to be less costly and manipulative. Of course, lawless Supreme Court decrees notwithstanding, no amount of manipulation outside a constitutional amendment could make the rule constitutional, since the feds have no constitutional authority over housing policy, period.
In an e-mail to The New American, American Policy Center chief Tom DeWeese said much more was needed to rein in an out-of-control federal government — but that the delay could be a good first step. “I'm glad to see Carson is finally taking some steps,” said DeWeese, author of the new book exposing “sustainable development” titled Sustainable! The War on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals. “Is it enough? Time will tell. He is under tremendous pressure by the non-governmental organizations [NGOs] to not touch this sacred cow. But if we are to restore American freedoms and property rights, this must be the first target.”
An entire chapter in his new book is actually dedicated to exposing the dangers of Obama's AFFH scheme. “The main points are that the enforcement of AFFH, without a clear definition of what it really is — forcing local communities to strip search every neighborhood for ´equality,' 'balance,' and other specific measures dictated by HUD —has created specific guidelines dictating specific numbers of each for a proper "balance," DeWeese warned. “They have to do this every five years. If HUD finds the neighborhood 'out of balance' then the community needs to bring it in balance — perhaps by advertising to find the ethnic or racial groups, etc, to bring in HUD-dictated balance. It is social engineering and most specifically destroys local rule.”
Trump has cut 22 federal regulations for every new one added, sparking nationwide celebrations and a dramatic economic boost that has seen the stock market soar to record highs. The AFFH, though, is more than just another burdensome Obama-era regulation that is dragging down productivity and wasting money. Instead, it represents one of the subversive tactics used by Obama and the establishment behind him to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as Obama infamously put it. Indeed, it is an attempt to centrally plan local communities by an all-powerful government that, unless it is restrained, will continue to devour every last freedom until at last it kills its own host — the American people.
Not only is this AFFH regulation unconstitutional, it is dangerous: It undermines freedom of association, the right to self government, the rule of law, private property rights, local governance, states' rights, and much more. Trump and Carson should make good on yet another pledge by killing the rule once and for all. Then, if they want to truly show respect for their oath of office, they can work to shut down the entire unconstitutional and unnecessary “housing” bureaucracy. In the meantime, though, communities can and must protect themselves from this federally mandated social engineering by refusing to accept “grants” from HUD — and by firmly rejecting the strings that come attached to them. 

Related articles:
Bill Would Nullify Obama Plot to “Diversify” Your Neighborhood
Trump’s Regulatory Rollback: Not 2 to 1, but 22 to 1!
Battle Rages as GOP Saves Obama Plot to Diversify Neighborhoods
Obama Seeks to Reshape Neighborhoods With Housing “Diversity”
UN's “New Urban Agenda” to Assault Liberty in a City Near You
Private Property Ownership — the First American Right To Die Under Barack Obama’s Tyranny
CFR Globalist: End U.S. States, Build China-style Regional Gov't
President's New Housing Plan: Another Racist Policy
A New Symbol Has Been Cast: People • Property • Liberty
HUD Seeks to Address "Inequality" in Wealthy Neighborhoods Through Regulations
“Smart Cities” to Spy on You in Ways Orwell Never Imagined
Communist Chinese Regime Forcing Rural Population Into Cities
 Tom DeWeese: HUD's AFFH Will Destroy 
Your Neighborhood
 AFFH will allow the Federal Government to rewrite local zoning laws and build low income housing - GHETTOS - in white upper middle class neighborhoods. Rapes, robberies, burglaries and black mob violence against whites will cause race wars that will rip our country apart. Obama is a maniac working for the psychopaths that run the Federal Reserve.
 Is AFFH Really Fair?
 Last week HUD released a rule so radical, you'd think Marx wrote it. In an expansion of AHF, the government created a rule intended to decrease residential segregation. So how does a government that can't manage a post office reengineer our neighborhoods? Is this even the role of the government?
 AFFH is a program that will allows the FEDS to come into your town and do a demographic study. They want to know what race of people lives where. If you take their grant money (HUD) they will then get to dictate to you whether or not your city is a "racist/segregated" city.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Congressional investigators have turned up new information indicating that high-level FBI officials including ousted director James Comey decided ahead of time to exonerate Hillary Clinton (shown) of doing anything illegal in her use of an unsecured, unauthorized, private e-mail server to send and receive classified e-mails during her tenure as secretary of state. Not only that, but evidence indicates that the FBI buried facts regrading Clinton wrongdoing.
In the myriad investigations now swirling around Hillary Clinton, it is reasonable to ponder which one she should be most concerned about. Yet it would be difficult to imagine one that could do more to damage her than the investigations connected to her use of a private server. After all, not being indicted (yet!) is not the same thing as being found not guilty. Clinton could presumably still be charged, tried, and convicted for the multiplicity of crimes she committed by sending and receiving at least 2,079 classified e-mails over her private server and account. With congressional investigators looking into the matter, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she may yet have to face charges for her actions.
As The Hill reported last week, a panel made up of “Republicans on three House committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee” have newly uncovered irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.” As that report stated:
For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.
That flies in the face of ousted FBI Director James Comey’s statement when he publicly declined to recommend indicting Clinton because “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” since the FBI did not find evidence of “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.” Because sending and receiving at least 2,079 classified e-mails, initially refusing to turn over her server, and then only turning the server over to investigators after having it wiped, and claiming that she had turned over “all work-related” e-mails while actually deleting half as many as she turned over are all apparently, in Comey’s mind, the actions of someone who did not intend to break the law. Right.
Fortunately for the American people and the cause of justice (and unfortunately for Clinton), congressional investigators don’t buy that. And Comey — already summarily dismissed from his position (and none too soon) — may have to answer for his role in protecting Clinton.
As to whether Clinton intended to break the law, two important facts should not be missed: First, her intent is irrelevant; second, she certainly knew she was breaking the law and did so with full intent.
Her intent is irrelevant because the applicable statutes do not allow for ignorance as an excuse; nor should they — national security demands that those responsible for guarding it are held to a very high standard: 18 USC Sec. 1924 criminalizes the unauthorized removal and storage of classified information. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to one year. And while Clinton claimed early on that many of the classified e-mails should not have been classified, she lacked the authority to make that call.
In 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13526, which spells out — in uncharacteristically clear language — the process for declassifying intelligence and who has the authority to do so. One part of the order says, "Information shall be declassified or downgraded by ... the official who authorized the original classification ... [or] the originator's current successor." Since other agencies (such as the CIA) classified the intelligence in those e-mails, Clinton could not simply decide it didn’t count.
Furthermore, 18 US Code 793 — which is part of the Espionage Act — says:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
“Gross negligence” does not require intent. Clinton broke a slate of laws designed to protect national security from actions exactly like those she directed and performed. Intent is not the germane issue here.
And — just to put in the for-what-it’s-worth column — Clinton certainly was aware of her responsibilities and the salient fact that her actions were contrary to those responsibilities. In short, the evidence is indisputable that Clinton knew she was breaking the law, and she did so deliberately.
First, there are the two non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that Clinton signed as part of her employment as secretary of state. As this writer said when the first of those NDAs came to light in November 2015:
The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton on her second day as secretary of state spells out — in language so clear that the meaning of the word "is" is quite unambiguous — her responsibility in handling the sensitive information to which she would have access in her new job. One part reads, "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." The agreement goes on to address how Secretary Clinton could be sure she was abiding by the letter and the spirit of the agreement. "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be SCI," the NDA says.
And yet, while the ink of her signature was still wet, Hillary made the decision to re-purpose Bill's old e-mail server into her own server to be used for official government business. She and her campaign have made much of the fact that she was permitted, by State policy, to operate a private server. Par for the course, though, the fact is conveniently left out that her server was not authorized to contain, store, transmit, or receive classified information.
Besides the NDAs showing that Clinton was well aware of her responsibilities under the law, there is the also fact that an e-mail exchange, dated June 22, 2015 and published by WikiLeaks in October 2016, shows that Clinton’s inner circle didn’t even buy into her claim of ignorance where the e-mail server was concerned. As this writer reported at the time, the e-mail was written by Erika Rottenberg, an attorney with tremendous experience in matters related to the intersection of technology and law. Given her résumé, Rottenberg can safely be assumed to know a thing or two about the law as it relates to the mishandling of information over an unsecured, unauthorized, private e-mail account. The e-mail (addressed to Stephanie Hannon — who is the the chief technical officer of the Clinton Campaign — and Ann O’Leary — who serves as a senior policy advisor for the campaign) addresses the “twisted truth” of the way Clinton claimed she “only used one device” (a BlackBerry) “when 2 weeks earlier, it was an iphone, BB [BlackBerry] and ipad.” But the most damning part of the e-mail is when Rottenberg says:
I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.
Phrases like “secure documents,” “took it upon herself,” “above the law,” and “discovery sanctions” — coming from a lawyer with so much experience in matters of the law where technology is concerned — speak volumes about Clinton’s intent.
Furthermore, if Clinton had no intent to break the law, her deliberate actions — and those of her associates (read: accomplices) — aimed at hiding her use of that private server, would make no sense: one who is unaware she is breaking the law does not attempt to hide the fact that she is breaking the law. But in February 2016, records disclosed by Department of State as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit reveal that Hillary Clinton — and senior officials within the State Department — acted to set up a hidden computer network to allow her to access her private e-mail server without going through the secured — and archived — government network.
As this writer reported at the time:
The revelation came to light Monday when Judicial Watch made public the records received as the result of a court order in its FOIA lawsuit about the private e-mail server and account Mrs. Clinton used during her time as secretary of state. According to a release by Judicial Watch, the records included an e-mail thread detailing plans to "set up a stand-alone PC in the Secretary's office, connected to the internet (but not through [the government] system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk."
The e-mail thread — covering a two-day period right after Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state — destroys any doubt that Mrs. Clinton and her accomplices were aware that they were keeping her e-mails "off the grid." It discusses — in clear language — the plan to allow “email be accessed remotely through the web using a non-DOS [Department of State] computer” and to set up another office unconnected to the government network “for HRC so she can go across hall regularly to check her email.”
Given all of this, it is no wonder that congressional investigators have found “irregularities” in the FBI investigation that claimed Clinton did not intend to break the law.
Those investigators have also discovered more evidence that Comey’s FBI had already decided to exonerate Clinton even before the investigation was complete. The Hill reported:
Some Republicans on the committee say the findings and revelations have left them more convinced than ever that FBI leadership rigged the outcome to clear Clinton.
Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — who serves on the House Judiciary Committee — said, “This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome.” His comment was prompted by revelations that Comey had already begun drafting his report recommending against indictment before FBI investigators had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses including Clinton herself and the computer firm employee who used the open-source program (Bleachbit) to permanently wipe the private server before Clinton turned it over to investigators. Gaetz’s analogy of pre-baking a cake is spot on; in this case, the cake was taken out of the oven and served before all of the ingredients were even assembled.
Senate Judiciary Committee Charles (Chuck) Grassley (R-Iowa) is equally critical of the FBI’s handling of the case. The Hill quoted Grassley as saying:
Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it.
While the investigation continues, the Justice Department inspector general “is expected to release initial findings” in the case in the first quarter of 2018, according to The Hill. That probe has also been looking into “whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that affected their work.”
Any way you slice it, the Clinton e-mail scandal is not going away any time soon. And before it is over Clinton and those who helped and protected her may have to face the music.


 Children’s channel KIKA broadcasted a program about a 16-year-old German girl, Malvina, who fell in love with a Syrian Muslim migrant called Diaa, 
aged at least 19.