Democrats Calling 47 GOP Senators Traitors is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

ayers-wright_obama

Democrats are in high dudgeon over an open letter 47 United States Senators sent to the Iranian regime on Monday which warned that any deal brokered by the president could be revoked by Congress.

Soon after the letter was made public, an incensed Obama suggested that the senators were in league with mad mullahs of Tehran:

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition.”

Here is what the letter stated, and you tell me if they are making common cause with our enemies:

“The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

It would seem the Republicans in Congress are in agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel and the leaders of the Arab world who fear that the Obama administration is brokering a terrible deal with the mad mullahs – a deal of appeasement and capitulation. A deal that allows Iran to go nuclear.

This is not what any sane person would call “making common cause with hard-liners.”

But taking their cue from the man at the top, Vice President Joe Biden,  WH Spox Josh Earnest, The New York Daily News, former WH speechwriter Jon Lovett, and others have hysterically accused the 47 republican senators of high treason. The hashtag #47Traitors is currently trending on Twitter.

This is a disgusting twisting of the facts but all part of a well coordinated campaign – as laid out by Ace of Spades on Twitter:

There is someone who appears to be making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” And it’s not the Republicans.

It is the president himself who has sent secret love letters to the ayatollahs.

Obama has made it manifestly clear that he doesn’t like our longtime ally, Israel –  as Ralph Peters so succinctly put it – “if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a single tear.”   It is feared that Obama administration has already accepted that Iran will get the bomb and create a new hegemony in the Middle East – and is just hoping that the first blast happens on someone else’s watch.

But in Obama’s America where black is white, up is down, right is wrong – it is those who stand up for America and the free world – who are the “traitors.”

Hyperventilating Democrats are trying to claim that the GOP letter may have violated the Logan Act – which “has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years” according to Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro. If Republicans violated the Logan Act, so did the Democrats – who have a disgusting history of colluding against Republican presidents with our nation’s enemies:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

And let’s not forget post-presidential meddlings of Jimmy Carter:

In November 1990, two months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush’s proposed military solution.
Right up to Bush’s Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action.
During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country’s nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration’s efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a “treasonous prick” for his behavior.

These Democrats did not contact foreign leaders in an effort to undermine an enemy’s nefarious goals (like the Republicans did.) They met with foreign enemies to undermine the Republican president and by extension – our national interests.

If Obama’s nuke deal was in the nation’s best interest, he would abide by the Constitution of the United States which clearly states in Section 2: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”  But Obama refuses to do that. Instead, he goes over their heads, while disturbing details about the deal are leaked out.

MORE:

Speaking of “making common cause with hardliners”

Via Gateway Pundit:FLASHBACK: Obama Sent Ambassador to Tehran to Assure Mullahs He Was Friend of Regime (Video)

Michael Ledeen wrote about Obama’s secret meetings with Tehran on August 29, 2014.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was AmbassadorWilliam G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (Ret) weighed in on Hannity, last night, bringing up “the Naval hero of Chappaquiddick’s outreach to the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s anti-Communist policies.

SEE ALSO: 

Roots HQ: The Left’s Unprecedented and Shocking Outrage Machine

 

 

Gowdy: We Learned The Day Before the NYTs Article Broke That Hillary Didn’t Have an Official Email Acct (Video)

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Congressman Trey Gowdy both appeared on The Kelly File Monday night to talk about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

Megyn Kelly asked Napolitano to weigh in on Obama’s take on the controversy.

“I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails that had to do with official business need to be disclosed,” Obama told CBS News’ Bill Plante over the weekend.

“Apparently the president has the same misunderstanding of federal law that his former secretary of state does,” Napolitano quipped.

He went on to explain the federal statute that says documents and records by high-ranking officials belong to the government. “A former official can ask the government for personal documents back, but Clinton did the opposite,” Napolitano said.

“She retained and concealed 100 percent of the documents with which she dealt while she was secretary of state in 48 months. She decided what was governmental and kept what she didn’t want to reveal,” he continued.

Kelly announced that Hillary will be addressing the email scandal within the next 48 hours. The forum has yet to be disclosed, but it is a safe bet that it will be hermetically sealed event with only friendly reporters allowed in with pre-approved questions.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi came on next to talk about the State Department’s unimpressive reaction to HillaryGate.

“They’re not going to go back and look for responsive documents to subpoenas, to litigation inquiries, to FOIA requests, Kelly noted, after showing a clip of State Dept. Deputy Press Sec. Marie Harf telling a reporter that they have no plans to find documents that have been requested retroactively. “If you asked prior to the date Hillary’s 55,000 pages were turned over – a week ago, or two weeks ago – you’re out of luck.”

“Well, the State Department is not going to get to be the final arbiter of that,” Gowdy drawled. “I have lost confidence for a myriad of reasons – not the least of which  – they missed every single opportunity over the past six months to tell us that not only did she not have an official email account. They didn’t even have her records.  You would think that that would come up in all the conversations that we had with the State Department. Which is precisely why they are not the neutral, third-party arbiter that I would recommend.”

Gowdy then went on to describe the run-around he got from State, Hillary, and her lawyer, last summer when it was first disclosed that some of her emails were on her personal account. Gowdy was stonewalled for months as he kept pressing for the rest of them. It wasn’t until the day before the NYTs story broke that he found out that  she did not have an official email account.

Gowdy wants a neutral arbiter – “a federal judge, archiver, or inspector general” to take charge of getting the info he seeks from her server.

UPDATE: 

Via Mediaite: Hillary Clinton to Hold Press Conference Today on Email Story:

Hillary Clinton will hold a press conference Tuesday afternoon to address the revelation of her exclusive use of a personal email account and private server to conduct State Department business while Secretary of State.

MSNBC’s Clinton beat reporter Alex Seitz-Wald confirmed the presser. The start time is unknown, but Mediaite will link to a livestream when it becomes available:

Hillary Clinton Turned Over 55,000 Paper Printouts – not Emails

hillary-clinton-cell-phone

This seems petty….

Rather than send the records electronically, she sent tens of thousands of hard copies – actual pieces of paper, to the State Department.

Why did Mrs. Clinton have her staff go through the trouble of printing out, boxing and shipping 50,000 or 55,000 pages instead of just sending a copy of the electronic record? One can only speculate, but there is an obvious advantage: Printed files are less informative and far harder to search than the electronic originals.

Because State has only printouts of emails, department personnel responding to a Freedom of Information Act request have to go through the whole haystack rather than type “needle” into a search engine. At best, that would mean long delays in FOIA compliance.

Likewise, printouts are not subject to electronic discovery in the event of investigation or lawsuit. The Times reports that department lawyers responding to a request from the House Select Committee on Benghazi took two months to find “roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.” And printouts do not include electronic “metadata,” which can provide crucial forensic evidence.

Is this normally how it’s done? I’ve seen (former) Chairman Issa presiding over Oversight hearings with boxes and boxes full of documents. I’ve been under the impression (watching various House hearings) that when the government releases documents, they come in hard copies because those records can be redacted. And the Obama administration is really big on redacting information.

Otherwise, why would the government release hard copies rather than electronic records?

The S. Rept. 104-272 – ELECTRONIC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995 stipulates that the agency should provide records in the format in which the records were maintained by the agency. But of course, Hillary maintained her emails on her private server and provided hard copies to the agency (State Dept.)

An agency shall, as requested by any person, provide 
        records in any form or format in which such records are 
        maintained by that agency.
          ``(C) An agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for 
        records in electronic form or format and provide records in the 
        form or format requested by any person, including in an 
        electronic form or format, even where such records are not 
        usually maintained but are available in such form or format.''

So there’s that. And so much more.

Hard to keep up with Hillary’s email and foreign donations scandals, today:

Ace of Spades HQ: Seven Wealthy Men Keeping Their Money at the Scandal-Plagued HSBC Have Donated/Bribed $81 Million to Hillary Clinton’s Bribery Storefront

Weasel Zippers: Mystery Location Of Clinton Email Server Seen As Matter Of National Security

Sharyl Attkisson, The Daily Signal: High-Ranking Federal Officials’ History of Using Personal Email for Government Business

(Like I’ve been saying – this is a Regime-wide practice.)

Ace of Spades: Bad Ass: Hillary Clinton Answers Spontaneous, Impropmtu Questions from “Real Women” Note: Even AP Says These “Real Women” “Appeared to be Reading Their Questions From a TelePrompter”

Via National Review:

What’s the solution for Hillary Clinton’s email troubles? “Disclose everything,” says Charles Krauthammer. “This whole thing is about non-disclosure,” said Krauthammer on Monday’s Special Report. “It’s about hiding e-mails. It’s about having your own server, so you have your own lawyers protecting it. It’s about having this money flow in from the outside world while she is secretary of state, and, now, knowing that she might be the president — which obviously is a kind of corruption.

Trey Gowdy: “There Are Gaps of Months and Months and Months In Hillary’s Emails (Video)

According to Rep. Trey Gowdy, the SC Republican who is leading the House investigation on Benghazi, there are “huge gaps” in the emails the State Department have provided to his select committee.

After playing a clip of Obama talking up his “most transparent administration ever,” on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sunday morning, Bob Schieffer asked Gowdy the $64,000 question:

“By using this private account on a private server, she could not only keep those emails out of the reach of the government…but she could delete the emails without anybody knowing it,” Schieffer  noted. “So she could have sent you some emails – but are there any gaps in the emails you’ve received thus far from her?”

“Uh yes sir,” Gowdy replied, brightening. “There are gaps of months and months and months – and if you think of that iconic picture of her on a c-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on, and she has a handheld devise in her hand – we have no emails from that day. In fact, we have no emails from that trip. So it strains credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy, and there’s not a single document that has been passed over to congress. So – there are huge gaps, and in respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what’s a public record and what’s not. We need someone (and frankly I’ve lost confidence in the State Department to make that determination.) They’re the ones who allowed this arrangement – they’re the ones who did nothing about this arrangement until they got a request from our committee.”

Obama, of course, only found out about Hillary’s unorthodox email practices when he read about it in the newspaper. But he has full confidence that she has provided all of her emails to the committee. Because in case you haven’t heard – his is the most transparent administration in American history.

 

 

Jeanine Pirro: Hillary Clinton a ‘Veteran of Scandal’ (Video)

In her opening statement, Saturday night, Jeanine Pirro assailed Hillary Clinton and the Obama State department for their hypocritical stance on email transparency.

Her voice dripping with sarcasm, she said, “so Hillary Clinton used her private email for work.  Everybody does it. Who cares! And why is this even important?”

Answering her own question, she said, ” because this is a woman with a past. A history of evading, obfuscating, hiding, here, making sure we only see sanitized contents of e-mails. And no one knows the game better than she. No one spins or does the Washington two-step better than she does. She’s a veteran, a veteran of scandal.”

She pointed out that Clinton “forced out that former US Air Force General, an Ambassador to Kenya, in 2012 in part for using personal e-mails for official business. Your henchwoman, Cheryl Mills told him he violated your state department policies while you didn’t even have a government account. But the rules don’t apply to you, do they?…While she pontificates to her subordinates about following the e-mail law, she does not practice what she preaches. Hillary, have you been studying Claire Underwood in House of Cards?” she asked before playing a clip of Underwood saying “you don’t have to mean it, you just have to say it.”

Pirro continued, “Clinton and her staff decided what e-mails to turn over to the State Department. Who knows what was included and what was not included? We don’t even know how many there were to begin with. So, by sifting through them, she has decided what we should see and not see. So, the State Department doesn’t have all them, they can only produce the ones that she has handed over. Hillary, that’s why you’re supposed to use a government account. You don’t get to hide what you don’t want us to see. That’s just not how it works.”

Pirro concluded “you exposed us, the United States of America, to data breaches because you wanted to protect your own butt…why? Could it be that raising money for the Clinton Foundation — up to $25 million from the Saudis — while Secretary of State [note: the Saudi government did not give its $25 million in donations during Clinton’s time at the State Department] was something you didn’t want us to see? I wonder, Hillary, when you were Secretary of State for four years, how many Freedom of Information requests were denied because the State Department didn’t have any information and were just stamped ‘lack of information?’”

She had Ann Coulter on to discuss the email scandal.

Coulter has a theory. “I think Hillary is just really dumb,” she posited. “It is so stupid – it is such a self-inflicted wound — it reminds us of all the worst parts of the Clinton era.”

“I want to see her SAT scores,” she added.

What Did I Tell You?: Valerie Jarrett Offered Chance to Defend Hillary Clinton, Declines

War-Bonnet-Warren

Under the bus:

She talks up how important “transparency” is to the lying grifter Obama. When asked if she would fire someone conducting all of his business on private email, she declines to answer that “hypothetical.”

As I’ve been saying – the powers that be want to clear the decks for Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.

Flashback to Ed Klein last July in the NY Post: This means Warren: Obama backs challenger to Hillary: (Poo pooed at the time.)

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democratic Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.

“Stunning”: Media rips Hillary Clinton over email scandal

This Washington Free Beacon “supercut” highlights the media firestorm over Hillary Clinton’s shady email practices whilst Sec. of State.

Unlike most other Obama-era scandals – EVERYONE is talking about it.

I put “stunning” in sneer-quotes because this is not stunning at all. The liberal media do not want another Clinton in the White House, PERIOD –  with all those bad memories of constant scandals having to be ignored or defended…. All those mortifying stories they were forced to pretend were not a big deal… Her checkered distant and no-so distant past now already coming back to haunt her…. Hillary is damaged goods.

Defending Obama in the face of his lawlessness, duplicity and corruption is probably doing them all sorts of psychic pain. His Praetorian media have almost two more years to go of defending the indefensible, and it must be getting old. Those who still retain some semblance of a soul, are getting worn down.

The Democrat party today is run like a criminal organization, so you would think their media water-carriers would be comfortable with covering up scandals – and of course – many of them do quite willfully and cheerfully do embrace that – but more and more they make themselves look ridiculous in doing so.

In the beginning of the Obama era – the media could paint his critics as haters, racists, conspiracy-mongers, “RWNJs” etc – because he was still an unknown quantity (to most Americans.) It was a free-for-all for the left and they enjoyed every minute of it. But those Obama-worshiping days are (for the most part) over.  Now that the public has lived under King Putt’s divisive, scandal-ridden, disastrous, imperial reign for six years, the critics can no longer be scoffed at.

Hillary still has some loyalists in the media who are willing to carry her water. But the dominant voices want to moveon.org.

Backers of the fundamental transformation want a fresh face to take the driver’s seat in 2017.

War-Bonnet-Warren

Lizzie Warren is the Change They Believe In, now – and she is the present Regime’s choice.

Hillary is toast, whether she realizes it, or not.

UPDATE:

You can put Politico in the pro-Hillary camp.

Ace of Spades HQ: TMZ Dares to Ask Hillary a Question About EmailGate; Politico Brands This Uncouth Act of Journalism “Stalking”

Hot Air: Video: U.S. media outlet goes rogue, asks would-be president about her crooked recordkeeping

po

SEE ALSO:

WFB: MSNBC: Clinton’s Email Tweet is Nonsense, ‘Insulting To Americans’ Intelligence’

WFB: Experts: Clinton Bought ‘High-End Security’ but Forgot Last Step, Left Server Vulnerable

WFB: ABC: Clinton’s Email Disclosure ‘Going to Be on the Honor System’

The Washington Examiner: Why can’t Hillary Clinton take questions from the press