theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Friday, September 30, 2016

FBI REVEALS Clinton Server Was Created In K Street Lab

Image result for It's Alive: FBI files reveal how Clinton server was created in K Street lab

Socio-political commentary ...

 Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne

If Hillary Clinton’s ‘homebrew’ server ever got the Mary Shelley treatment, IT specialist Bryan Pagliano would make a fine Dr. Frankenstein – FBI documents reveal new details about how he painstakingly created the machine over a series of months while working in a room along Washington’s storied K Street.
According to files released last Friday evening, Pagliano worked to design and build the now-infamous server inside a room once used as part of Clinton’s campaign headquarters. On the street known as Washington’s power corridor, Pagliano even used computer remnants from Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential bid, where he had worked as an IT specialist.
The story of how the server came into existence became clearer thanks to witness interviews known as 302s. Though they were highly redacted, the bureau files include new details Pagliano revealed in a June 24 interview with the FBI.
In that interview, Pagliano said it was longtime Clinton Foundation aide Justin Cooper who asked him to build the server “in the fall of 2008” and that Pagliano completed the work in early 2009. (Pages 155, 163)
After the server’s completion in the makeshift lab on K Street, Pagliano stated that he “rented a minivan and drove to Chappaqua New York to install the email server in the Clinton residence.” 

Pagliano and Cooper were separately interviewed by the FBI five times during the bureau’s investigation into Clinton’s use of private server and private email for government business while secretary of state. According to the reviewed documents, Pagliano was interviewed first on Dec. 22, 2015 and again six months later on June 21, 2016.
Cooper was interviewed three times -- once in 2015 and twice in 2016 -- and appeared before Congress. Pagliano was one of five people who received limited immunity from the Justice Department, has taken the Fifth and refused to testify before Congress. 
In his interviews with the FBI, Pagliano said that “he could not recall any existing computer systems at the Chappaqua residence other than the Apple server described previously to the FBI.” 
Widely published reports including one in the New York Times indicated that Clinton was informally announced as Obama’s choice of secretary of state on Nov. 22, 2008, with her formal nomination on Dec. 1. After working in her 2008 presidential campaign, Pagliano joined Clinton in the State Department as an employee and IT specialist, but he also continued to work on the homebrew server he built.
Pagliano, though, insisted to the FBI that he “believed the email server he was building would be used for private email exchange with Bill Clinton aides.” 
In addition, it was during his second interview with the FBI in June, that Pagliano suddenly “recalled being given a list of user names and passwords that Cooper asked to be transferred from Cooper’s Apple server to Pagliano’s system.” (Page 164)
The 302 continued, “Pagliano did not recall transferring an account for Hillary Clinton and does not know how her account was installed on the server he built.” 
Justin Cooper did not work for the State Department but stated in his March 2016 interview that he registered the domain,, because he handled financial issues for the Clintons.  Cooper continues to works for Clinton Foundation entities which include Teneo. 
Despite handing out limited immunity deals to five people including Pagliano, FBI Director James Comey has stated that Clinton’s actions with her email practices were “extremely careless” -- but not criminal. As a presidential candidate once again, Hillary Clinton continues to refer to the server and her use of private email as “a mistake.”
Strikingly, Cooper also said in his March interview that Hillary Clinton “had Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF’s) in both her New York residence as well as her residence in the District of Columbia (DC).”
In his last interview with the FBI in June, Cooper suddenly remembered there were also two identical iMac computers inside what were supposed to be tightly secured rooms used to review classified materials. The interview states, “Cooper recalled a personally-owned iMac computer in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) of both the Washington, DC and Chappaqua, NY residences of Hillary Clinton.”
Cooper added he did not have the combination to open the SCIF and admitted: “The SCIF doors at both residences were not always secured.” This on its face is a direct violation of security protocol. 
Cooper added further insight into close aide Huma Abedin’s access to the SCIFs by stating “Abedin was frequently there but did not know if Abedin could access the SCIF when it was secured.”

Media’s Not Even Pretending To Be ‘OBJECTIVE’ About Trump

Socio-political commentary ...

Rich Lowry

We are in the midst of an epic media freakout. It’s a subset of a larger liberal panic over Donald Trump’s strength in the general election.
The freakout began a few weeks ago when Trump started to close the polling gap with Hillary Clinton, and picked up intensity as the race essentially became a tie. Clinton’s debate victory on Monday will allay some worries, but assuming any bounce she gets is short-lived (pending the next debate and other events), the news media are going to be in a perpetual state of high anxiety and dudgeon until Election Day.
As Commentary’s Noah Rothman noted, the press is playing catch-up, given that Trump crossed a crucial threshold when he wrapped up the Republican nomination. It didn’t take much foresight to realize that giving Trump $2 billion worth of free publicity in his primary battle might help him win it.
Still, it was all fun and games as long as the ratings were good and Trump was trailing. As soon as the polls tightened, the press suddenly realized its conscience demanded it resist Donald Trump.
“This is not normal,” you’ll hear it said over and over about Trump (often correctly). But did anyone think it was normal when Trump said Ted Cruz was ineligible to run for president? Or questioned Ben Carson’s faith? It’s not as though Trump has gotten more wild since the primaries; in fact, he’s a little more disciplined. Nonetheless, according to an analysis by the Shorenstein Center, most coverage of Trump in the first half of 2016 was “positive or neutral in tone.”
Not anymore. There have been two seminal events in the freakout. The first was the absurdly over-the-top criticism of Matt Lauer for not being tough enough on Trump at an NBC national security forum.
The second was a New York Times “news analysis” on Trump’s disavowal of birtherism that was intended as an exemplary act of journalistic aggression. The Times has long run slightly stilted opinion pieces in its news pages, but this was different — a rhetorical assault worthy of the poison pen of Maureen Dowd that led the paper with the extremely hostile headline, “Trump Gives Up a Lie, But Refuses to Repent.”
The Times hadn’t been soft on Trump up to that point. Even so, the birther piece was a departure and a signal to the rest of the press: If it’s OK for the Gray Lady to take off the gloves, you can do it, too.
Some of the anti-Trumpism in the press has been expressed in pointless and annoying gestures, such as CNN’s practice of fact-checking Trump’s statements in snarky chyrons. I’ll believe that this reflects the network’s disinterested pursuit of truth as soon as I see, say, a CNN chyron declaring: “Clinton: Tax Cuts Caused the Financial Crisis (They Didn’t).”
More significantly, Lester Holt tilted anti-Trump during the debate. Trump got tougher questions than Clinton, who was spared queries on matters such as the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi. It was fair game to ask Trump about birtherism, but Holt asked two follow-ups about it. And he fact-checked Trump in real time twice, arguably getting his correction of Trump about a complex stop-and-frisk case wrong.
So it goes. Outlets are more and more using the formerly thermonuclear word “lie” in their coverage of Trump and liberal analysts are hailing the end of he said/she said journalism. Trump is indeed a different kind of animal and has stressed every institution that has encountered him over the past year, from the RNC to rival campaigns to the press. But the current media freakout is hard to take, and a mistake.
One, the press is collectively deciding to give up on an objectivity it never had. John McCain and Mitt Romney, upstanding, honorable men who weren’t allegedly threats to the republic, were on the receiving end of more negative coverage than Barack Obama. McCain received twice as much negative coverage as Obama in the 2008 election, according to the Pew Research Center.
Two, it speaks to a certain contempt for the media’s fellow citizens, who are presumed incapable of rationally evaluating the candidates without their thumb on the scale.
Three, if Trump loses, the press will go right back to its pose of objectivity. Whereas the only good thing about the media’s current jag is that it might represent another step toward a more British-style (and traditional American-style) journalism, with outlets forthrightly acknowledging their partisan allegiances.
Nothing is going to dissuade the press from its current course, though. There is no reasoning with fear and loathing.

Obama Admin Ripped Over ‘SECRET’ DEAL Aiding Iranian Banks

Image result for Obama admin ripped over ‘secret’ deal aiding Iranian banks
Socio-Political Commentary ...
The Obama administration is coming under tough new criticism for its dealings with Tehran after a Wall Street Journal report claimed the U.S. agreed to sign a “secret document” lifting international sanctions on Iranian banks just as the regime was releasing four American prisoners.
House Speaker Paul Ryan on Friday called on Obama to provide “an immediate explanation.”
According to the Journal, the Obama administration agreed to support removing United Nations sanctions on the banks well in advance of the 2023 date agreed upon in the nuclear deal. The early removal of sanctions on Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International reportedly was part of a broader list of “tightly scripted agreements,” including the controversial prisoner exchange and transfer of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran that Republicans characterize as a “ransom.”
Ryan said the move violated the nuclear deal.
“This story grows more disturbing with each passing day," Ryan, R-Wis., said in his statement. “It now appears that on the same day American hostages were freed from Iran, the administration not only agreed to the $1.7 billion cash ransom payment, but violated a key term of the nuclear deal by prematurely lifting ballistic missile sanctions.” 
The White House downplayed the details, though, as old news.
“I'd note that this information is not new and was reported on back in January,” a National Security Council official said.
A senior administration official said the U.S. was “comfortable” removing the bank from the U.N. sanctions list since the U.S. was already removing Bank Sepah from its own “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List.” The official said the bank will still be cut off from the U.S. financial system, and the U.S. government has the ability to “quickly re-impose” sanctions if needed. 
The Treasury Department designated both banks as facilitators of Iran’s nuclear program in January 2007 but sanctions were not to be lifted until 2023.
“Bank Sepah is the financial linchpin of Iran's missile procurement network and has actively assisted Iran's pursuit of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction," said Stuart Levey, Treasury's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence (TFI), in his 2007 statement initiating the sanctions.
The series of newly revealed agreements, including delivering millions to Iran in cash payments, has angered Republicans on Capitol Hill.
The Treasury Department has conceded it made two wire transfers to Iran in July 2015 and April 2016 despite claims that sanctions prevented non-cash payments to Iran.
“These wire payments contradict the Administration’s claim that American sanctions laws prevented payment to Iran in any other form than cash, and raise questions about why they agreed to pay in cash over more transparent and accountable methods,” wrote Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., in a Thursday column in The Hill.
Members of Congress reportedly were kept in the dark about the secret deal and Pentagon officials admitted in recent congressional testimony that they did not participate in the cash and prisoner transfers. 
"We weren’t involved in this," Secretary of Defense Ash Carter testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September.
"I don’t know all the details of it, and the chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was taken by the law-enforcement and diplomatic [agencies]," added Carter.

NUKE FACE-OFF! Pakistan Threatens to DESTROY India with Nuke

Socio-Political Commentary ...


Tensions have risen dramatically between the nuclear-armed neighbours

PAKISTAN’S Defence Minister has threatened to “destroy” India – after India said on Thursday it had carried out “surgical strikes” on suspected militants preparing to infiltrate from Pakistan-ruled Kashmir.
The strikes, which were a response to shots fired across the de facto border through the disputed Himalayan territory, could lead to a military escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours – risking a ceasefire agreed in 2003.
Indian Border Security Force (BSF) perso
Both Pakistan and India claim Kashmir in full, but rule separate parts
Tensions have been heightened since an attack on an Indian military base in Kashmir earlier this month, which left 18 soldiers dead.
Both countries claim Kashmir in full, but rule separate parts – and have fought three wars over Kashmir since gaining independence from Britain in 1947.
Responding to India’s latest strikes, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.
“Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India.
“We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase.
“If a such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India.”
An Indian army soldier patrols along highway on the outskirts of Srinagar
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.”
Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said: “Pakistan nuclear weapons are entangled in a history of tension, and while they are not a threat to the United States directly, we work with Pakistan to ensure stability.”
China, a traditional Pakistani ally, has also called for dialogue between the two nations.

Voters DON'T TRUST MEDIA Fact-Checking

Image result for Voters Don’t Trust Media Fact-Checking
Socio-Political Commentry ...
Friday, September 30, 2016
Most voters believe news organizations play favorites when it comes to fact-checking candidates’ statements, but this skepticism is much stronger among voters who support Donald Trump than those who back his rival Hillary Clinton.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust media fact-checking of candidates’ comments. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters who support Trump in the presidential race believe news organizations skew the facts, while most Clinton backers (59%) trust media fact-checking. Among the supporters of Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, sizable majorities also don’t trust media fact-checking.

These findings are no surprise given that voters think it's far more likely reporters will try to help Clinton than Trump this election season
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).  Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on September 28-29, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. Seemethodology.
Most Republicans (79%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (69%) believe the media skew the facts to help candidates they support, but only 40% of Democrats agree.

The majority of voters in most demographic categories believe the media play favorites when they fact-check candidates' comments.

Blacks are more trusting of media fact-checking than whites and other minority voters are.
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of conservatives and 58% of moderates think the media skew the facts to help their favorites, but liberals by a 51% to 39% margin trust media fact-checking.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe both Clinton and Trump are liars. Following the release in June of the final congressional committee report on the 2012 incident in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed, 49% of voters said Clinton lied to the victims’ families about the nature of the attack
Our latest daily White House Watch finds Clinton and Trump remain in a near tie, but support for Johnson appears to be fading.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.


U.N Tweet Calling on Americans Abroad to 'END Trump'


Socio-Political Commentary ...


The United Nations News Centre — the official U.N. news service — tweeted, then quickly pulled, a post that called for "8 million Americans abroad" to "stop Trump."
The tweet, published at 9:14 p.m. ET on Thursday, urged American expats to share a voter registration tool on the website of the activist organization Avaaz that states, "U.S. Citizens abroad could defeat Trump ... if they voted."

The Web page, titled "The October surprise that will end Trump," allows users to sign up for help registering to vote in the Nov. 8 presidential election and encourages them enlist their friends as well.

"At a time when Trump is trying to divide us, we could help defeat him if we all share this page with EVERYONE. Let’s reach every US voter abroad," it reads.
The tweet was deleted within 20 minutes, without explanation.
Ari Gaitanis, chief of the U.N. News Services Section, which oversees the twitter account, said it was a mistake.

"That tweet did not originate from the UN News Centre and this was the reason for it being taken down," he told POLITICO. "We're looking into its provenance."


Clinton Endorsements by CONSERVATIVE Newspapers Spark Threats, Cancellations

 Over the past month, traditionally conservative newspaper editorial boards across the country have rejected Donald Trump and instead lined up behind Hillary Clinton — and some are facing vicious backlashes.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, which hadn’t endorsed a Democrat in almost a century, and The Arizona Republic, which had backed only Republican presidential candidates in its 126-year history, said they had lost subscribers and received angry letters from readers since coming out in favor of Mrs. Clinton.
The Republic said it even received a death threat as a result of its endorsement, laid out in a scathing editorial this week that painted the Republican presidential hopeful as unqualified and not a true conservative.
At the Enquirer, editors said they understood that breaking with a 100-year tradition could lead to an uproar.
“In making the decision to endorse Clinton, caring about that legacy and respecting that legacy was an important part of the conversation, and just knowing that a certain percentage of our readers would be upset by that,” Peter Bhatia, Enquirer editor, told The Washington Times on Thursday.
Since the endorsement last week, Mr. Bhatia said, the paper has received angry letters and subscription cancellations “in the triple digits.”
“The only thing I don’t particularly care for is some of the language people have used,” he said. “The anger, the vitriol, whatever you want to call it.”
The backlash, presumably from ardent Trump supporters, shouldn’t be surprising, analysts say. Mr. Trump has made anti-media sentiment a centerpiece of his campaign, and the billionaire businessman will be able to brush off Clinton endorsements by saying they are more proof that the establishment, which includes top news outlets, is against him.
Trump will try to rebut the editorial [endorsements] with this criticism” of the media and its perceived liberal bias, said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University and formerly a top reporter and editor at Iowa’s Des Moines Register.
Mr. Bhatia said the Enquirer was well aware that its Clinton endorsement could backfire in the form of strengtheningMr. Trump’s support.
“I’ve certainly thought about that,” he said. “But at the end of the day, we felt we had an obligation to our community to make a statement about the presidential race.”
At least a dozen major American newspapers have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, but none has backed Mr. Trump. Libertarian Gary Johnson has scored at least four major endorsements, including that of the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the New Hampshire Union Leader.
In addition to The Arizona Republic and the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Dallas Morning News and USA Today broke decades of precedent in their presidential endorsement decisions.
In its 34-year history, USA Today had never endorsed any presidential candidate, and it still technically didn’t in Thursday’s stinging editorial calling Mr. Trump “unfit for the presidency.” It urged readers to vote, whether for Mrs. Clinton or a third party, or in down-ballot races — “just not for Donald Trump.”
The Morning News, which hadn’t endorsed a Democrat since World War II, was more explicit, urging readers this month to back Mrs. Clinton. “Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe,” the Morning News editorial board wrote. “Trump’s values are hostile to conservatism.”
Since the Sept. 7 editorial — which former President Bill Clinton has touted on the campaign trail as evidence that support for his wife is growing in conservative circles — the paper is reporting a drop in subscriptions.
In Arizona, Republic editors said they have a deep “philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals” but that Mr. Trump doesn’t meet their criteria. “This year is different,” the paper wrote in its endorsement this week. “The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified. That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.”
Since the editorial was published Tuesday, the paper’s editors said, they have lost subscribers and received at least one death threat, though that hasn’t caused them to rethink their decision.
“We know we’re doing the right thing,” Phil Boas, director of the paper’s editorial page, told The New York Times.
While endorsements clearly are having an impact on newspaper subscriptions, there are questions about how much they affect the presidential race itself. Analysts say endorsements, in a broad context, do little to change the trajectory of a race, though they may play a role in pulling some voters away from long-shot third-party candidates.
“Where I think newspaper editorials might also have an impact is on those thinking of voting Libertarian or Green,” Mr. Yepsen said. “A lot of thoughtful voters are thinking about those options now, and a newspaper editorial might encourage them to stick with one of the candidates who actually has a chance of winning rather than casting a protest vote.”

'His Majesty': DEFEATS Army of Gender Neutral Activists at U. Michigan


Socio-Political Commentary ...

Todd Starnes

When future generations read about the “Great Gender Pronoun Wars” of the early twenty-first century, they will most certainly learn of Grant Strobl – a noble and mighty king.
“His Majesty” is an unlikely title for a 21-year-old political science major from Grosse Pointe, Michigan. 
“It was definitely activism by accident,” he told me.
In less than 24-hours, the brave conservative single-handedly defeated an army of gender neutral activists at the University of Michigan.
Think David versus a gender confused Goliath.
The University of Michigan recently announced a new initiative to allow students to select their preferred gender pronouns through an online service.
It was designed as a way to help professors tell the difference between the guys and the gals and the zi’s and the zir’s.
“Asking about and correctly using someone’s designated pronoun is one of the most basic ways to show your respect for their identity and to cultivate an environment that respects all gender identities,” wrote Provost Martha Pollack in an email to students and faculty.
It’s all part of the university’s effort to foster an “environment of inclusiveness.”
The university actually created a “pronoun committee” to ensure that faculty members “play a vital role in ensuring all of our community feels valued, respected and included.”
It was in that spirit of inclusivity that Grant decided to have a bit of fun. He logged into the university’s computer system, clicked on the “Gender Identity Tab” and promptly declared his new designated pronoun.
“You could put anything you wanted into the system,” Grant told me. “So I did.”
And so it was in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Sixteen that Grant Strobl came to be known as “His Majesty” – Noble Ruler of the Wolverines.
Yes, good readers – Grant Strobl changed his designated pronoun to “His Majesty.”
“’His Majesty’ is not a pronoun, but neither is zir or zi,” His Majesty told me. “None of them are recognized in the English language. Everything is completely arbitrary now. You can identify as anything you want.”
Want to be a shrubbery? What about a sloth? Well, you can be anything you want to be at the University of Michigan.
“I thought it was definitely fitting to point out how absurd this new policy is by choosing ‘His Majesty,’” His Majesty said. “It’s a recognized honorific and it is definitely absurd for anybody to be called ‘His Majesty’ in America.”
His Majesty, who is also the founding chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom chapter at the University of Michigan, has already generated a bit of outrage.
“Plenty of students have been saying that I’m not supportive of LGBT rights or LGBT students on campus,” he said. “They say I’m disrespectful.”
But His Majesty said that’s just not true. He doesn’t even expect his subjects to bow or curtsy.
“As a Christian, I believe that all lives are valuable,” he told me. “I love all people. And I have no problem with people choosing a designated pronoun.”
But the university’s young ruler is concerned that professors might be punished if they refuse to identify a student by their preferred gender pronoun.
“Once we go down that road, it’s very dangerous for our society and our democracy,” he said.
Quite frankly, I’m taken aback by the lack of tolerance from the university’s LGBT community. If His Majesty wants to identify himself as royalty – who are they to object?
“If they want me to be tolerant of their pronouns, they have to be tolerant to my new title,” His Majesty said. “Many of the students on campus who call for diversity – they only want diversity for ideas they agree with.”
I hope His Majesty King Grant has a long and prosperous reign at the University of Michigan. Let’s pray he can fight off the invading horde of leftwing intolerants.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Hillary’s BAD Judgment: Exploits PORN STAR Surrogate

Socio-Political Commentary ...

Jeffrey Lord
A Porn Star? A Clinton surrogate? Really? Really?
It is understandable why Donald Trump didn’t want to respond to Hillary Clinton’s “Miss Piggy” business the night of the debate, although, I confess, I wish he had. Chelsea Clinton was there and she and daughter Ivanka Trump are friends. He just didn’t want to go there on Hillary bullying Juanita Broaddrick over the latter’s quite graphic allegations of being raped by Bill Clinton, allegations that also include a charge that Hillary personally tried to bully Broaddrick.
Be that as it may, Hillary Clinton had no trouble doing the reverse to Trump — with Ivanka sitting there. But now the debate is over. So. Let’s discuss Hillary, the porn star and her judgment.
After mentioning in the debate that Donald Trump had referred to Alicia Machado, the former Miss Universe, as “Miss Piggy” because she had gained weight in an alleged violation of her Miss Universe contract, Hillary took to Twitter to make Machado a victim.
Donald Trump called her “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.
Her name is Alicia Machado. #DebateNight
So between the debate mention and the Hillary tweet, Ms. Machado is suddenly thrust into the spotlight as some sort of victim because she allegedly violated her contract by gaining weight. To the great joy of the Clinton campaign, which is using her in an online fundraising commercial, as seen here.
Conservative media dug in. And wow.
Here is the Daily Mail on Hillary’s surrogate.
Miss Universe ‘fat-shamed’ by Donald Trump was accused of threatening to kill a judge and being an accomplice to a MURDER bid in her native Venezuela 
The former Miss Universe at the center of a bitter exchange in Monday’s presidential debate was accused of aiding a would-be murderer and threatening to kill a judge, it has emerged.
Alicia Machado was named by Hillary Clinton as having been shamed for her weight in 1996 by Donald Trump, when she was Miss Universe and he bought the beauty contest, by being called ‘Miss Piggy’ when she gained weight.…
In January 1998, the Associated Press revealed that Machado had been accused in court documents in Cadacras of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a shooting.
She was ordered to testify in court, with her lawyer telling a local newspaper that she was in fact filming a soap opera at the time.
The murder, it was alleged, was the culmination of a bitter feud.
Machado’s boyfriend, Juan Rodriguez Reggeti, was accused of shooting his brother-in-law, Francisco Sbert Moukso — at the funeral of the dead man’s wife, Maria Rodriguez, who was the alleged murderer’s sister.
Sbert’s attorney alleged that Reggeti believed the dead man had driven his sister to suicide and took revenge, the Associated Press said.
Rodriguez was eight months pregnant when she jumped to her death off a fifth-floor balcony.
The attorney also alleged that witnesses saw Machado drive her boyfriend away from the scene of the crime, and that her boyfriend had snatched the dead woman’s 11-month-old son as well.
But her lawyer, Ricardo Koesling, was quoted in a local newspaper calling the claims ‘a huge stupidity’ and saying: ‘She wasn’t even present at the site of the incident.’
Machado was not indicted when the judge in the case said there was insufficient evidence that she was at the scene of the alleged crime.
Appearing on CNN with Anderson Cooper (full disclosure, I am a CNN commentator), Machado acknowledged in response to a question that yes, accusations were true that she was “accused of driving a getaway car from a murder scene.” Cooper went to correctly note “you were never charged with this. The judge in the case also said you threatened to kill him after he indicted your boyfriend for the attempted murder. I just want to give you a chance to address these reports that the Trump surrogates are talking about.”
Machado responded as follows:
“He can say whatever he wants to say. I don’t care. You know, I have my past. Of course. Everybody has a past. And I’m not a saint girl. But that is not the point now. That moment in Venezuela was wrong. Was another speculation about my life because I am a really famous person in my country because I’m an actress there. And in Mexico too. And he can use whatever he wants to use. The point is that happened twenty years ago.”
Now, since that CNN interview, of a sudden, the Clinton campaign finds their surrogate being ruthlessly revealed in conservative media this way (NOTE: PORNOGRAPHIC WARNING):
Oh Dear, Clinton’s Latest Campaign Surrogate is a: Murder Accomplice, Hard Core Porn Star and Drug Lord Concubine…
Among other things the story says that the father of her child is allegedly “Gerardo Alvarez-Vasquez, the Mexican drug lord, of the paramilitary drug-cartel Los Negros.”
As if that weren’t bad enough, follow the links provided and you will find the most graphic of pornographic videos featuring Machado. And I do mean graphic.
Now. Whatever else can be said here, Machado’s highly colorful past that she dismisses is considerably more to the point than a scolding boss (Trump) disturbed that an employee whose beauty is the core business of her contractual obligation was putting on pounds in violation of that contract. Why?
Because the fact that this woman is being made the center of the Clinton campaign’s latest Trump attack is decidedly yet another signal that when it comes to good judgment Hillary Clinton is genuinely clueless. Remember those leaked Colin Powell emails? In which, among other things, he says of Hillary that “She keeps tripping into these ‘character’ minefields” and “everything HRC touches, she kind of screws up with hubris”?
Now we have Hillary Clinton — personally in a presidential debate and then on Twitter — shining the spotlight on a porn star! A porn star who freely admits to CNN that yes, indeed, the accusations circulating about her are true! With the videos surfacing of this Clinton spokesperson nothing if not more than graphic. And the Clinton response? They chose to put the porn star in a fundraising commercial! Which is to say, Hillary Clinton personally — say again personally — is taking a woman whose past is decidedly troubled and…yes indeed…exploiting her for every last drop of political capital she thinks she can get to slam Donald Trump.
So here it is. The classic debate mistake that professional debate watchers were looking for the other night. The 2016 equivalent of Michael Dukakis screwing up a question of a hypothetical rape of his wife, or a Gerald Ford insistence that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union… or to go all the way back to 1960, Richard Nixon’s decision to go without television makeup in his debate with JFK. It is George H.W. Bush looking impatiently at his watch or Al Gore sighing.
What we now realize we have seen is Hillary Clinton thrusting a porn star who is accused of having links to a drug lord into the dead center of her campaign.
Talk about bad judgment? Wow.
No wonder Colin Powell said Clinton regularly “screws up with hubris.”
You can bet Donald Trump will not be ignoring this one.