ELECTION 2016

USA TODAY: TRUMP 'UNFIT FOR PRESIDENCY'

Hillary endorsements by conservative newspapers spark threats, cancellations

Published: 6 hours ago

(WASHINGTON TIMES) 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.

Read the full story ›

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/usa-today-trump-unfit-for-presidency/#TCsV7T4ckwuVcVk6.99

My comments: USA Today and other godless, Socialist, Secular Humanist CABAL news organizations are declaring their support for Hillary. Of Course they would, they are of the same RELIGION. They will also be the same people who will receive the Antichrist as their "god" and worship him and receive his "mark."

WND EXCLUSIVE

STUNNER! 'LESSER OF TWO EVILS' ACTUALLY IS GREATER GOOD

Award-winning author: 'Let's pick the better candidate'

Paul Bremmer

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are very flawed candidates and flawed human beings, which means Americans of good conscience should refuse to vote for either one of them, right? After all, choosing the lesser of two evils is still “choosing evil.” Right?

Wrong, says award-winning journalist David Kupelian, who goes so far as to call such thinking “deluded.”

During a recent appearance on theDove TV, Kupelian mocked those who proclaim, “I don’t like either one of these people; I’m not going to vote.”

“That is – pardon me – immature, infantile thinking,” Kupelian told host Perry Atkinson on the program “Focus Today.”

Kupelian, WND’s managing editor and the best-selling author of  “The Snapping of the American Mind,” was discussing a recent viral commentary he wrote, titled “Trump, Clinton and ‘the lesser of 2 evils’ foolishness.”

During wartime, Kupelian said during the TV broadcast (watch it below), conscientious leaders are daily forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. For example, he said, when the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, killing over 200,000 people, President Harry Truman was choosing the lesser of two evils. 

The greater evil would have been to invade Japan, which would have caused much more death on both sides – an estimated 400,000 to 800,000 American fatalities and up to 10 million Japanese deaths.

Likewise, the U.S. allied with Stalin during World War II, even though he was one of history’s worst mass murderers. But at the time, partnering with Stalin represented the lesser of two evils, since it helped America defeat Hitler’s cancerous spread.

So, squeamish Americans need to show a little moral courage and vote for the “lesser of two evils” this November, according to Kupelian, who says it’s pointless to waste a vote on a third-party spoiler candidate.

Of Trump and Clinton, Kupelian said, “We’re going to have one of these two people, and one is clearly better than the other, and we need to face that and stop being babies.”

Kupelian implored people to realize that choosing the “less evil” candidate is exactly the same as choosing the candidate with more goodness in him or her. The author said it would be one thing if Trump and Clinton were equally evil, but that, he said, is very far from the truth.

“To look at the current election between Trump and Clinton and to conclude they’re both equally evil, now it’s not so much an issue of the lesser of two evils argument, it’s more a matter of delusion,” Kupelian argued.

He said there’s no way a rational person can regard Trump and Clinton as equal options. Clinton promises to continue the disastrous policies of Barack Obama that are crippling America both domestically and around the world, while Trump promises to move the country in a new direction by putting America first again.

“Somebody who makes the case that these are equally evil, I say, respectfully, there’s something seriously wrong with their perception,” Kupelian stated.He warned evangelical Christians not to sit out this election as in 2012, when 42 percent of them didn’t vote. Evangelicals represent a large natural Republican constituency, and Kupelian urged them to realize a President Hillary Clinton would be antithetical to their values.

“Somehow their emotions have gotten in the way,” said Kupelian, “because this is a common sense thing. We have two candidates, you pick the better candidate, you vote for him, otherwise you’re saddled with the worse candidate, and you are condemning your children and your friends’ children to grow up in a country – you’re bequeathing to them a different country than the one your parents gave you. It’s not fair.”

Society has gone mad – and it’s not an accident. Find out why in David Kupelian’s “The Snapping of the American Mind,” available in the WND Superstore.

Kupelian said he received a strange email from a reader recently. The reader claimed to be pro-Trump but was rooting for a Clinton victory because Hillary’s ascendance to the presidency would hasten the Second Coming of Christ.

As a veteran journalist, Kupelian knows there are plenty of Americans who think like that. They believe they will soon be in heaven if only they allow certain foreboding events to unfold on Earth now. But he says this is exactly the wrong way for Christians to think and behave.

“It’s fundamentally a selfish way of looking at things,” Kupelian admonished. “If you see a little old lady who falls down in the street and cars are coming, you’re going to help her up and help her get across the street, even if the end of the world comes the next day. The farmer’s going to be out in the field harvesting even if that afternoon it’s the end of the world, because we’re not meant to know when that is, for one thing, and we’re also meant to do right and live unto God and love our neighbor.”

Kupelian said Christians must not expect a perfect candidate to come along, because all human beings are flawed. Therefore, all Americans are responsible in some part for the brokenness of their country.

“We cannot be so self-righteous to ignore the fact that we are partly responsible,” he said. “Even if we are ‘righteous Christians’ now and not lost in gross sin or however you want to call it, we were not always that way. There was a time for most of us where we did wrong, we acted immorally, we took drugs, we got impatient with our children … We have been part of the brokenness of our world.”

Therefore, Christians are in no position to grumble that Donald Trump built casinos or dissed Ted Cruz’s wife and father.

“Knock it off!” Kupelian exclaimed. “I’m not defending the worst things that Donald Trump has ever done, but the fact is, we have the candidates we have because we are a very broken country.” Nevertheless, Kupelian believes Trump could well become a truly great president.

Examples of America’s “brokenness,” the author said, include rampant abortion, sexual anarchy and the redefining of gender and marriage.

“We are ignoring the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments. I say ‘we’ – I mean as a society, our laws, our culture, everything reflects it. And yet, still 75 percent of us Americans self-identify as Christians! So there is something wrong. 

We have not just an un-Christian but an increasingly anti-Christian culture and laws and government and values and all the rest. [Christians] have to take some responsibility on some level.”

Americans don’t need to beat themselves up, Kupelian assured, but they do need to recognize they live in an imperfect country. 

Therefore, they must have the humility to vote for the good rather than holding out for the perfect.

“Let’s pick the better candidate,” Kupelian said. “There is goodness in Donald Trump. I don’t know if there is or not in Hillary; I’m not going to condemn her. 

I don’t know where she’s going when she leaves this world, but right now, just taking her at her word, at what she says she’ll do, she will destroy the country.”

Society has gone mad – and it’s not an accident. Find out why in David Kupelian’s “The Snapping of the American Mind,” available in the WND Superstore.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/stunner-lesser-of-two-evils-actually-is-greater-good/#7rq1JuYJvJjS7vjy.99

My comments: David Kupelian speaks Wisdom. There is Hope with Trump. There is No Hope with Hillary. She is a godless, Socialist, Secular Humanist--Against God and His Word. 

WND RADIO

MIKE LEE: OBAMA ABOUT TO BECOME BIG BROTHER MONSTER

Warns Americans could see phones, computers hacked by feds

Greg Corombos

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is drafting legislation to block a new Obama administration rule that would allow the government to hack into the devices of any American on the permission of a single judge – without the need for any evidence of wrongdoing.

At issue is Rule 41 (b)(6)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which spells out the protocol the federal government must follow to obtain information from American citizens. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, says the proposed language is a major departure from the current policy.

“Right now, as it stands without this change, the government has a requirement that it must apply for a single warrant and that it has to be in the same judicial district where this search will take place,” Lee told WND and Radio America.

“But under the amended version of Rule 41 (b)(6)(B), if that takes effect, this deliberate and focused process would be scrapped, and it would be scrapped in favor of a nationwide warrant to search millions of devices anywhere across the country,” Lee said.

The senator said, under the proposed rule change, the Obama administration just needs one judge in the U.S. to hack your phone or computer.

“The impact of Rule 41 (b)(6)(B) would be to allow a single judge to issue a nationwide warrant empowering the federal government to hack into any computer that people in the government believe may be part of a botnet,” Lee said.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah:

A botnet is a group of private computers infected with malicious software. Once infected, that network of devices is used without the knowledge of those computers’ owners to send spam and engage in other nefarious activities.

Lee said the desire to crack down on botnets is understandable, but not at the expense of constitutional rights. In April, the Supreme Court quietly approved the proposed rule change, but Lee said there’s a reason why the U.S. has three branches of government.

“Regardless of whether the Supreme Court is likely to strike down this or that law, what do we think about it?” he asked. “Is this consistent with our own standards of what we think the federal government ought to be authorized to do? We ought to undertake an examination of each of these policy decisions with our own view of the Fourth Amendment in mind.”

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Lee believes the Constitution is very clear on this proposed rule change.

“Yes, this offends my own view of privacy as protected by the Fourth Amendment,” Lee said.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

In fact, he believes this effort to skirt the Fourth Amendment ought to remind Americans of why the amendment exists in the first place.

“When there’s blanket permission, it starts to look like the kind of thing that happened under the reign of King George III (prior to the American Revolution) on both sides of the Atlantic. The government would use what they call general warrants, a warrant basically saying, ‘Go get the bad guys. You can search anything you want,'” Lee explained.

Lee expects a strong bipartisan effort in Congress to push back against the Obama administration. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is taking a major role in this effort, as is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Even the ACLU is opposed to the rule change.

But the clock is ticking for Lee and his allies.

“The House and Senate must pass resolutions of disapproval prior to Dec. 1 to prevent this from going into effect,” he said. “We’ve got Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and Democrats and Republicans in the House who support that. Now, not every Democrat and not every Republican shares that view, but many of us do. That’s why we’re getting the word out now.”

They must not only get the resolutions passed but also be ready for an Obama veto. Overriding that veto would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Lee has not begun any sort of formal head count, calling it “unnecessary” and “counter-productive” when the effort to educate the public is just beginning. He said public pressure on members of Congress could be the difference between winning and losing.

“We need everyone who hears about this proposed rule change to Rule 41 (b)(6)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to reach out to their senators and their congressmen and tell them how they feel about this,” said Lee.

Concerned individuals may contact their senators and House representatives. 

A more urgent deadline looms on Sept. 30. That’s when the U.S. is scheduled to cede control of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.

“Normally, as a constitutional conservative, I’d be elated to have the government relinquishing control of something. The only problem here is in this case we’re not relinquishing it to the American people. We’d be relinquishing it, potentially, to despotic governments throughout the world, governments run by people who might have very different ideas about the Internet and censorship,” Lee said.

He said the lack of specifics on what comes next with ICANN is the most unnerving part.

“We need to wait and make sure that ICANN remains under government control until we know who’s going to be running it and how it’s going to be organized, what kinds of things foreign governments would and would not be able to do to censor and impose artificial restrictions on the Internet,” Lee explained.

He says Internet domain control falling into the wrong hands would not only chill the free flow of information but also endanger other key liberties.

“You could also end up seeing a lot of intellectual property rights diminished or even eliminated by the wholesale assignment of a domain name belonging to one person or one company over to another,” Lee said.

With just three days left top fight this issue, Lee and his allies are hoping to jam a provision into must-pass legislation.

“We need something attached to the spending bill that needs to be passed between now and Friday to contain some type of limitation, some type of language limiting the Obama administration’s ability to relinquish control of ICANN,” he said.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/mike-lee-obama-about-to-become-big-brother-monster/#ffICy3bioL4H5SV4.99

My comments: Obama will continue his Dastardly Deeds until he leaves office, if he leaves.

WILD WILD WEB

HOURS LEFT BEFORE OBAMA'S INTERNET GIVEAWAY 'IRREVERSIBLE'

Time expiring for opponents of one world strategy for Net

Bob Unruh

Sen. Ted Cruz has posted online a countdown clock that reveals there’s just hours left before the U.S. gives away the Internet in a move critics have warned is “irreversible.”

It was the late Phyllis Schlafly who, earlier this year, characterized President Obama’s plan to give away U.S. oversight of the Internet’s domain name system as “like telling the fox to guard the chicken coop,” trusting the likes of Cuba, Venezuela and China to ensure the continued freedom of the Web.

The transfer of oversight to an obscure non-profit called the Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, set for Saturday, “could be the most dangerous use yet of Obama’s now-famous pen,” the conservative icon said at the time.

On Thursday, after months of Congress failing to halt Obama’s move, four states took action on their own.

The lawsuit by Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Department of Commerce and others seeks a halt to the plan.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Galveston, Texas, the lawsuit argues the U.S. funded the foundations of the Internet and for decades has been managing it appropriately, including through contracts such as the NTIA’s agreement with ICANN to perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

But that contract is expiring Friday, and Obama’s plan is to give up that authority to ICANN.

The lawsuit isn’t the only opposition that has arisen in the fourth quarter.

A coalition of 77 national security, cybersecurity and industry leaders wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just days ago asking for intervention.

David Limbaugh’s book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States — get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter said.

“Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. In light of the looming deadline, we feel compelled to urge you to impress upon President Obama that the contract between NTIA and ICANN cannot be safely terminated at this point.”

The signers included former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney Jr., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), former Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, former Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency Vice Adm. Robert Monroe (Ret.) and former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy, among others.

They warned: “In the absence of U.S. government involvement in IANA, it seems possible that, over time, foreign powers – including potentially or actually hostile ones – will be able to influence the IANA process. Even coercing the delay in approving IP addresses could impact military capabilities. From a broader view, given the well-documented ambition of these actors to restrict freedom of expression and/or entrepreneurial activity on the Internet, such a transfer of authority to ICANN could have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for untold numbers of people worldwide.”

Just a few days earlier, GOP senators, including Chuck Grassley, Ted Crux, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr and Ron Johnson, released a statement opposing the giveaway.

“It is profoundly disappointing that the Obama administration has decided to press on with its plan to relinquish United States oversight of crucial Internet functions, even though Congress has not given its approval. For years, there has been a bipartisan understanding that the ICANN transition is premature and that critical questions remain unanswered about the influence of authoritarian regimes in Internet governance, the protection of free speech, the effect on national security, and impacts on consumers, just to name a few,” they said.

“Without adequate answers to these questions, it would be irresponsible to allow the transition to occur in 15 days simply because of an artificial deadline set by the Obama administration.

“In fact, Democrats at both the state and national level have echoed many of these concerns. For example, former President Bill Clinton has warned that ‘[a] lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower[ing] their people.’

“The issue of Internet freedom should unite us Americans – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. Partisanship and political gamesmanship have no place when it comes to the Internet, basic principles of freedom, and the right of individuals in our great nation and across the globe to speak online free from censorship.”

In the lawsuit, the states warn that .gov addresses are at risk.

“The NTIA currently has the authority to authorize changes performed by ICANN. Should NTIA fail to renew the contract and relinquish its approval authority, ICANN could take unilateral actions adversely affecting the .gov address. The sole control that the U.S. government would have to safeguard .gov and .mil is through an exchange of letters, which are non-binding and lack the certainty of a legal contract that would guarantee U.S. control and ownership in the future.”

ICANN could, for example, the letter noted, “eventually delete the .gov top-level domain name or transfer it to some other entity, cutting off communications between the states and their citizens and forcing the states to use ordinary top-level domain names (such as .com) to try to community with their citizens.”

ICANN also “could charge additional fees,” the states noted.

Congress already has acted twice to prevent the move, adopting “appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds ‘to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration … with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.'”

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., has been especially critical of the transfer.

His interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America:“Is this move going to strengthen America, or is this move going to weaken it? I think it’s very clear that if we do what President Obama wants to do, it’ll weaken America’s stance again,” said Yoho, who is a strong supporter of the DOTCOM Act.

That bill passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly last year but didn’t get action in the Senate.

“The U.S. has been in control of the domain names of the Internet since its inception. If we relinquish this control, it goes possibly to the U.N. Then you have countries like Russia, China and Iran and any other country that wants to play, and [they get to] determine how to regulate those domain names within their countries,” Yoho explained.

He warned of authoritarian leaders controlling what their people can access.

“I think you’re going to see a decrease in access to the Internet, a decrease of freedom over the Internet to an extent we have never experienced before,” he said.

Judith Bergman of the Gatestone Institute said the move could “spell the end of the current era of free speech on the Internet, as well as free enterprise.”

Authoritarian governments around the world already have bolstered Bergman’s case. China issued a statement saying, “It is necessary to ensure that United Nations plays a facilitating role in setting up international public policies pertaining to the Internet.”

The Russians weighed in, arguing, “We consider it necessary to consecutively increase the role of governments in the Internet governance, with strengthening the activity of the International Telecommunications Union [the UNs telecommunications arm] in this field … in the development of ethical aspects of Internet use.”

Last month, a coalition told leaders of both parties in Congress that it already has ordered the NTIA “not to let lapse the government contract.”

But the Obama administration is doing exactly that.

“It is, by its own admission, doing so as part of a drawn-out process resulting in the decision to let the IANA contract lapse – precisely what Congress forbade NTIA to do,” coalition members said.

“If NTIA allows the contract to lapse, it will have violated federal law,” the letter said. “The decision to abandon an 18-year contractual relationship governing the Internet has obviously consumed significant NTIA resources, both to fund outside experts and to pay for time spent on the issue and on NTIA employees making a decision about whether the extend the contract.”

“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hours-left-before-obamas-internet-giveaway-irreversible/#GJVHjIDKiVPJBvp1.99

My comments: Obama's Internet Giveaway is an Expression of his HATRED of America. The Internet is the Last Bastion of Free Speech which will Certainly Evaporate in his Giveaway. Giving the Internet to International Control is giving it to the Antichrist who will be revealed Soon.

From left to right, former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, WND senior writer Jerome Corsi and Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell at Judicial Watch forum Sept. 29, 2016.

WND VIDEO

CLINTON-SCANDAL EXPERTS REVEAL LATEST ON COUPLES' 'CRIMES'

'One of the grossest miscarriages of justice' ever

Paul Bremmer 

WASHINGTON – Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” and WND’s Jerome Corsi, the author of “Partners in Crime,” joined in a televised panel Thursday with a former U.S. attorney and the lead investigator of Judicial Watch – the non-profit that exposed Hillary Clinton’s private email server – to provide the latest on two major Clinton scandals.

Corsi explained how Bill and Hillary Clinton each become worth more than $100 million dollars through a career of public service while former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova passionately laid out a case for removing FBI Director James Comey from his position for not referring charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information

WND’s Jerome Corsi at Judicial Watch forum Sept. 29, 2016

DiGenova called it “one of the grossest miscarriages of justice” he’s ever seen in his long career of federal service.

“All of this people … in the military who have lost their clearances, lost their jobs, been prosecuted – that poor submarine guy who took a photograph, which he never sent to his family – the guy was prosecuted and has a year in the big. How can Comey go to sleep at night knowing about that kid?” he asked.

Order your copy of No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi’s newest blockbuster, “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” only at the WND Superstore!

DiGenova said he found Comey’s continued presence in the directorship “an insult to everybody in federal law enforcement.”

“And I think he should go, and I think he has violated his oath, and I think that Congress should at least do something to manifest their outrage at this clearly political decision that he made,” diGenova said.

He said Comey’s declaration to Congress that he is offended by the suggestion that the bureau’s decision not to refer prosecution was politically motivated “shows he knows how awful his performance was as a federal law enforcement official.”

“All you have to do is talk to people like James Kallstrom in New York, the great (former) assistant director, who called this a farce, because that’s what it is,” diGenova said.

“This investigation was a farce, and Comey knows it.”

Schweizer, Corsi and diGenova were joined by Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. The panel was moderated by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Personal profit

Corsi told the panel the evidence shows the Clintons used their charity, the Clinton Foundation, for personal profit.

In his illuminating new book ”Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House For Personal Profit,” he accuses the Clintons of inurement – illegally using a nonprofit organization to enrich themselves.

See the Judicial Watch panel discussion:

“Inurement means instead of spending 95 cents on the dollar you get for the charity, you spend 5 cents, and the rest goes to yourself, your associates, your high style of life and five-star hotels, private jets, etc.,” he said.

Sitting two chairs away from Corsi on the panel was Schweizer. While ”Partners in Crime” and “Clinton Cash” cover some of the same ground, Corsi said his book complements Schweizer’s because the two make different allegations.

In “Clinton Cash,” Schweizer accuses the Clintons of “pay-to-play,” meaning people donated money to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable policy decisions by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state or senator.

“I’m convinced having looked at the evidence myself that Peter’s right,” Corsi declared. “I think the difficulty is that it’s a vulnerable argument because a Clinton veteran defender like Lanny Davis can come on television and say, ‘Peter doesn’t have a scintilla of proof that there was a nexus between the contribution to the foundation and the policy decision reached.’

“Well, Peter doesn’t have that proof in large part because the evidence has been destroyed or withheld.”

Corsi noted that, despite the troves of Hillary Clinton’s emails that have been released, many have still not been made public, while those that have been released are often heavily redacted.

So while Schweizer has troubled finding hard evidence to prove his case, Corsi has assembled proof of his inurement charge in ”Partners in Crime.” The proof is in the audited financial statements, the Forms 990, of the Clinton Foundation and its subsidiaries.

Order your copy of No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi’s newest blockbuster, “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” only at the WND Superstore!

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova at Judicial Watch forum Sept. 29, 2016

Fraudulent statements

Corsi said his friend Charles Ortel, a financial analyst, tipped him off about two years ago that the audited financial statements of the Clinton Foundation were fraudulent. Ortel found tens of millions of dollars were being diverted from the Clinton Foundation.

He also found an alarming lack of detail in the financial statements.

“The Clinton Foundation says, ‘We got a gross number of receipts this year in revenue through our charity operations,’ and [they give] the gross number of what they spent, but there’s no detail,” Corsi said. “It’s almost as if the financials were set up to perpetrate a scam.”

Corsi discovered the numbers often don’t add up when it comes to the Clinton Foundation’s subsidiaries. One example involves UNITAID, the global health initiative that provides funding to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The Clinton Health Access Initiative, a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, is one of the organizations that receives money from UNITAID to implement their programs.

“There’s no year we could find, when I was doing the research, where what UNITAID reports they gave to the Clinton Foundation is what the Clinton Foundation reports receiving,” Corsi told the Judicial Watch audience. “Some years it’s higher, some years it’s lower, but how can this record discrepancy exist?”

Corsi even suspects the Clintons have been laundering money. He pointed out Bill Clinton established two corporations, WJC LLC and WJC Investments, that are pass-through shell corporations.

“That’s what money launderers set up,” he noted. “It’s a red flag for money laundering, drug cartels, terrorists, and the Clinton Foundation doesn’t give detail as to what monies go into WJC.”

Corsi worries that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, the Clintons will enrich themselves even more. The price of a Bill Clinton speech may increase, and the cost of a favorable policy decision from President Hillary Clinton will rise, leading to more dollars pouring into the Clinton Foundation before being diverted to the Clintons’ pockets.

Even worse, Corsi fears the Clintons will set a bad example for other heads of state around the world, especially if they are never prosecuted for their inurement crimes.

“I think ultimately, we’re really going to have to raise the question: Should every two-bit dictator anywhere in the world who graduates from being head of state now go into creating their own foundation and play the ‘We’ll exploit misery for our own gain and profit’ game?” Corsi asked. “If that game is legitimated, what’s at stake here is the integrity of charitable giving.”

Order your copy of No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi’s newest blockbuster, “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit,” only at the WND Superstore!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/clinton-scandal-experts-reveal-latest-on-couples-crimes/#KTlD7tgZU0WeHxWP.99

My comments: America has Fallen So Far, that Hillary, a Criminal, is running for Public Office. It might as well be Al Capone. And the Criminal, godless, Socialist, Secular Humanist CABAL is supporting her. America is a CORRUPT Nation.