Huma Abedin is getting more and more ink devoted to her by the MSM --- BUT --- That’s NOT what Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Campaign wants
“Vanity Fair” Magazine gives “HUMA” the mainstage treatment --- AND --- “Media Matters,” a key part of Team Clinton, does a very fast pushback
Breitbart News says --- William D. Cohan and “Vanity Fair” Magazine bring out FACTS about Huma Abedin's radical Islamist connection for the first time in a Mainstream Media article --- AND --- The Clintons and "Media Matters" had to react because these FACTS had previously been reported-on only in the conservative-leaning media
That is only the beginning of a very long and penetrating article about Huma Abedin: who she is; where she came from; who she’s married to; and what she seems to mean to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign.
TEAM CLINTON’S BIG PUSH ---- AGAINST THE “VF” ARTICLE ABOUT “HUMA”
Perhaps as big a story as the underlying Vanity Fair article about Ms. Abedin was the catlike reaction by the Clinton team, almost as if they were waiting for it (which they probably were, since VF had asked the Clinton Campaign to make Huma Abedin "available" for comment).
According to a piece that appeared earlier
today on the Breitbart News blog, “…. The left-wing attack machine [Media Matters] wasted
no time in posting an article with false information and smears in order to protect the
Clinton campaign [from the Vanity Fair article]…. Hillary Clinton has stated publicly
that she helped ‘start and support’ Media Matters, and that organization has consistently come to [Hillary’s] aid with a consistent
campaign of misinformation, half-truths and smears of her critics that can then
get repeated by [others in] the
mainstream media…. The Vanity Fair article must have sent
shockwaves through the Clinton camp. It’s rare to read mainstream press
criticism of Huma Abedin…. Instead, [Abedin
always gets good press and the] mainstream adoration for Huma by the media is
often … over the top....” (See “The Truth about Huma Abedin
that Media Matters Doesn’t Want America to See” by Lee Stranihan, 1/18/16, Breitbart News [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/18/the-truth-about-huma-abedin-that-media-matters-doesnt-want-america-to-see/]).
HERE’S SOME OF WHAT GOT “MEDIA MATTERS” AND THE REST OF THE CLINTON TEAM SO MAD
According to Lee Stranihan and Breitbart News --- “To his credit, Cohan’s Vanity
Fair piece on the secretive Abedin confirms a number of facts that have been
reported by conservative media for a couple of years but have been twisted and
convoluted by the mainstream media…. For
example, the Vanity Fair article flatly lays out the information that Huma
Abedin was an assistant editor at a publication called the Journal of Muslim
Minority Affairs from 1996 until 2008…. ‘It
turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business.
Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan,
45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford
Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees.
Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal…’ [from the VF
article by William D. Cohan]....”
HERE’S WHAT BREITBART & COMPANY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT AND WHAT MEDIA MATTERS IS TRYING TO DO
“…. Not one statement [above] is actually
controversial because they can all be confirmed by simple research that refers
to primary sources. In other words, you don’t need to reference conservative
media in any way to determine the truth about the Abedin family and their
connections to Abdullah Omar Nasseef…. As
the masthead of this 1996 issue of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs
shows, Huma Abedin was an assistant editor at Journal. Down the masthead you
can see the name of Abdullah Omar Nasseef….
Because of the smear tactics used by Media Matters and repeated by the
mainstream media, this point cannot be stressed enough: this is a primary source showing Abedin was an
Assistant Editor of the Journal. It’s not a right-wing theory, a conservative
fever dream, Islamaphobia nonsense or anti-Muslim fear-mongering. It’s a fact,
a cold hard fact shown on the Journal’s masthead at the site where the Journal
itself publishes…. Because it’s such
it’s an easily verified fact, it should not be a significant breakthrough that
the mainstream publication Vanity Fair published the truth about Huma Abedin’s
clear and indisputable connection to the Journal and Naseef….” And this: “…. Because
[this information about Huma Abedin is such] an easily verified fact, it should
not be a significant breakthrough that the mainstream publication Vanity Fair
published the truth about Huma Abedin’s clear and indisputable connection to
the Journal and Naseef…. [However, that Cohan and Vanity Fair brought
the facts about Abedin to light for the first time in a mainstream media
article] is a breakthrough; [and that is] precisely why Media
Matters for America immediately went to work trying to obscure the facts,
telling its readers— which include many journalists— that claiming Huma Abedin
has connections to alleged terror funders is a ‘spider-web of guilt by association.’…”
Whats up with NH ?
ReplyDeleteHillary has crashed.
Are you beating a dead horse?
UPDATE: THE “OTHER ELEPHANT WHOSE NOSE IS UNDER HILLARY’S TENT” EDITION
ReplyDelete90’s CLINTON SEX SCANDALS HURTING HILLARY AMONG YOUNG WOMEN
“A BIG BALL OF UGLY….” --- A QUOTE ABOUT THE BILL & HILLARY CLINTON SEXUAL SCANDALS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
Amy Chozick has written another article in the NYT that will make Hillary and her peeps very unhappy. This snippet by Ms. Chozick will give you the idea: “…. Mrs. Clinton had hoped to galvanize women late last month in her critique of Mr. Trump. Instead, two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, her campaign has found itself trying to shore up support among women as discussions about past Clinton scandals have moved from conservative critics to broader public consciousness….” (See “’90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women” by Amy Chozick, 1/20/16, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0]).
As a media/internet side-note, this feature about HRC was a lead story on my search engine this morning (See [http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%9990s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-strength-with-women/ar-BBosZLK?ocid=spartandhp]).
UPDATE: THE "EPIPHENOMENON SHOWING THE HRC VOLS ARE GETTING UP-TIGHT" EDITION
ReplyDeleteTHE "RealGM4Hillary" IMPERSONATOR SIGHT ON TWITTER, RUN BY THE "CHURCH LADY" (REMEMBER HER ?) HAS JUST SHUT ME OUT OF ALL HER TWITTER SITES AFTER MONTHS OF TAKING MY PUSH-BACK TWEETS IN STRIDE
As you might remember, "Church Lady" was banned from this blog well back in 2015 for posting her HRC Super Vol propaganda here.
She reacted by opening her own impersonator Galewyn Massey Twitter site, which actually provided a good opportunity for me to do a lot of counter-punching.
Out of nowhere, over the last two nights, I have been blocked from commenting on all her pro-HRC sites.
This is a real sign that the HRC Super Vols are locking themselves into their bunkers; and I think that's coming from the top down.
I'll keep y'all posted as to what happens going forward.
Looks like Lena Dunham is feeling the Bern
ReplyDeleteUPDATE: THE “JOIN IN THE HILLARY CLINTON PARANOID DELUSION CAMPAIGN” EDITION
ReplyDeleteYESTERDAY, HILLARY CLINTON & THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN WENT OFF THE DEEP END PUBLICALLY WHINING ABOUT HER E-MAIL SCANDAL --- SHE AND HE SPOKESPERSON SAID THAT THE GOP AND SOME TOP OBAMA INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS WERE CONSPIRING AGAINST HER
PUSHBACK ON CLINTON CAMPAIGN’S COMMENTS COMES FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MIGHT BE CAUSING CURRENT STATE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO BACK AWAY FROM HILLARY AND HER CAMPAIGN’S EFFORTS
Here’s what it’s all about: “Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign Wednesday accused the intelligence community’s top oversight official of conspiring with Republicans in the Senate to leak sensitive information about her personal e-mail server. That's a risky move, considering that it has produced no hard evidence of a conspiracy and the accused parties are denying it…. The public dispute between the former Secretary of State and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reached new heights following Tuesday’s report by Fox News on a letter sent by inspector general I. Charles McCullough to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker. In the letter, McCullough stated that he had received sworn declarations from two separate intelligence agencies that cover “several dozen e- mails” on Clinton's private server. These e-mails were determined by these agencies to contain information that should have been treated as secret, top secret, and “SAP,” an abbreviation that refers to “special access programs,” which are among the most sensitive in the government…. Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told me in an interview Wednesday that the campaign believes that McCullough and the Republican senators worked behind the scenes to orchestrate a series of events that would lead to the disclosure of those declarations….” ( See “Pressure Mounts on Clinton as She Lashes Out at Intelligence Community Over Email Probe” by Bloomberg News Staff, 1/20/16, Newsmax [newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-email-scandal-intelligence/2016/01/20/id/710223]).
In another interesting aspect of this brouhaha, “[The Clinton Campaign’s] calculation seems clear: By framing the controversy over the private e-mail server as a good-faith dispute between two government bureaucracies, she can divert attention from her own culpability in placing so much sensitive information in her own house. But that strategy depends on the State Department standing by her…. That may be changing, at least in public. Whereas in August, department officials said they were confident their own review of the e-mails revealed no information marked classified at the time it was sent, their public line is now less definitive…. ‘Our FOIA review process is still ongoing. Once that process is complete, if it is determined that information should be classified as Top Secret we will do so,’ [according to State Department spokesman John Kirby in a statement]….”
Polls show Hillary will lose Iowa & NH to the socialist who couldn't afford to move to Park Slope in the 70's.
ReplyDeleteAfter 2 weeks of loses everything will change for Hillary. For better or worse.
UPDATE: THE “THIS IS DEVASTATING FOR HILLARY” EDITION
ReplyDeleteTIME MAGAZINE TELLS THE BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON SEX STORY AGAIN --- AND IT IS TOLD PRETTY WELL
THE AUTHOR, A DEMOCRAT AND PRIOR CLINTON VOTER, SAYS THAT SHE “WON’T VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO HELPED ‘DESTROY’ THE CREDIBILITY OF WOMEN… PREYED UPON SEXUALLY BY A POWERFUL MAN”
Caitlin Flanagan, an “Atlantic Magazine” contributing editor writing for “Time” Magazine, starts off with this: “…. 'As Democrats, as women, we must ask ourselves: Do we stand with all women who report sexual assault?'….” She finishes by repeating her original question, but adding something quite devastating: ”…. As Democrats, as women, we must ask ourselves: Do we stand with the women who report sexual assault—all women: big-haired, ‘slutty,’ trailer-park, all of them—or do we stand, once again, with the Clinton machine and its Arkansas droit du seigneur?... When I was young, my father told me what his father told him: If I got in the voting booth and so much as reached for the Republican lever, the hand of God would come into that voting booth and strike me dead…. I’m not taking any chances…. But I won’t vote for a candidate who helped ‘destroy’ the credibility of women who came forward to report that they had been preyed upon sexually by a powerful man. This year, for the first time in my voting life, I’m staying home.” (See “Why This Democrat Won’t Vote for Hillary Clinton” by Caitlin Flanagan, 1/21/16, Time/ Politics/Ideas [http://time.com/4177436/hillary-clinton-juanita-broaddrick/]).
In between, Ms. Flanagan and Time describe several of the Bill Clinton sex abuse stories along with the ways that Clinton’s accusers were torn down and discredited. Flanagan also described Lena Dunham’s recent [in private] moment of truth about Bill and Hillary [also mentioning Dunham’s quick retreat once it became public].
With Hillary her survival will depend on 3 things.
ReplyDeleteNevada, Nevada, Nevada.
Hillary is finished in Iowa and NH.The Nevada caucus is next & Hillary carried Nevada in 2008.
But then, Hillary carried N.H. in 2008 and now shes losing by 27 points.
Seems like any way you look at it Hillary loses.
Losing to a nutty socialist who owns one pair of underwear has gotta hurt !!
ReplyDelete“UPDATE,” OR IS IT “BACKFILL TO 2008” ???: THE “HILLARY CLINTON STUCK IN THE BILL MURRAY ROLE IN ‘GROUNDHOG DAY’ ” EDITION
ReplyDeleteTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEES THE PARALLELS BETWEEN HRC AND HER CAMPAIGNS OF 2008 & 2016
“ WASHINGTON — Recall this 2008 storyline: Hillary Clinton enters the presidential campaign as the Democratic front-runner, runs into an inspirational candidate who generates big crowds and enthusiasm. And she winds up in a dogfight in Iowa…. Sound familiar? With 10 days left before Iowa's lead-off caucuses, Clinton finds herself in a heated contest against insurgent rival Bernie Sanders reminiscent of her 2008 face-off with then-Sen. Barack Obama. The Vermont senator has soared to a nip-and-tuck race in Iowa and holds an advantage in New Hampshire, putting Clinton back on the brink in her second presidential bid…. Clinton lost Iowa in 2008, a setback that she never fully recovered from against Obama, who went on to win the White House. This time she hopes a larger field organization in Iowa and an escalation of her critiques of Sanders' record and message might undercut his momentum….” (See “Clinton faces challenge in Iowa caucus reminiscent of 2008” by Ken Thomas & Lisa Lerner, 1/21/16, Associated Press [http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-faces-challenge-in-iowa-caucus-reminiscent-of-2008/ar-BBozUHc?ocid=spartandhp]).
One thing is for sure, this isn’t the kind of article about her campaign that Hillary and her peeps want going out, carried by a national news service on the second weekend before the Iowa Caucuses. What is worse, the article talks about many things other than Iowa --- none of it is that good for Hillary & Company.
QUERY: THE "OMG, WHAT'S IN THAT LAST BATCH OF HILLARY CLINTON E-MAILS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE HELD BACK UNTIL WELL-AFTER IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND EVEN NEVADA" EDITION
ReplyDeleteTwo or three weeks ago, the State Department said that this last batch of E-mails would be a couple of weeks late. Now, they say that because of the snow emergency, it will be at least a month.....
It sounds like an "EMERGENCY," but not a snow emergency.....
UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE “TIP-OFF ON WHAT’S IN THE NEXT BATCH HILLARY’S E-MAILS” EDITION
ReplyDeleteSOME OF HILLARY CLINTON’S “MOST CONTENTIOUS” E-MAILS HAVE NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED
STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN SAYS THAT HE “…CAN’T COMMENT FURTHER ON ONGOING LITIGATION….”
According to an Associated Press release carried on MSN, “The State Department is asking a federal court for a one-month extension to publish the last of Hillary Clinton's emails during her time as secretary of state, citing a complex review of some messages across different agencies of the government…. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday the department wouldn't be able to meet its court-mandated goal of Jan. 29. About 9,400 of 55,000 pages are left…. [T]hose remaining ‘contain a large amount of material that required interagency review…. State Department staff have been working extremely hard to process these emails, and we are committed to getting them out,’ Toner said. ‘The court's goal for this month's production represented the largest number of pages to date. The remaining emails are also the most complex to process.’…” ( See “State Department wants more time to process Clinton emails” by AP Staff, 1/23/16, Associated Press/MSN [http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/state-department-wants-more-time-to-process-clinton-emails/ar-BBoACws?ocid=spartandhp]).
The AP/MSN article went on to say this: “…. Some of the most contentious emails haven't yet been published. They include two that an intelligence community auditor says are "top secret" and others he claims are even more sensitive, containing information from so-called special access programs. Such programs suggest the emails could reveal details about intelligence sources…. The State Department says no emails published so far contained material with "top secret" information or any material that was marked classified at the time. The issue has nagged at Clinton's presidential campaign, with the FBI said to be examining in some capacity…. Toner said the delay in publication isn't the result of "ongoing discussion about classification" that has been made public recently. He said he couldn't comment further on ongoing litigation….”
And the article concluded with this sly observation --- “An extension would push the complete publication of Clinton's emails past several of the earliest primary contests, including the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. If they come out instead on Feb. 29, it would be a day before the critical Super Tuesday primaries.”
UPDATE: THE “TOM DELAY SAYS: FBI WANTS NO MORE DELAY IN HILLARY CLINTON INDICTMENT” EDITION
ReplyDeleteSEVERAL NEWSPAPERS IN NYC AND WASHINGTON, D.C., ARE REPORTING THAT THE FBI IS GETTING VERY CLOSE TO HANDING THE HILLARY CLINTON CASE OVER TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR PROSECUTION OR TO PRESENT TO A GRAND JURY
The NY Daily News did a lengthy article about Tom Delay’s comments and Hillary Clinton’s legal problems related to her use of non-secure E-mail system.
Here’s how the Daily News opened its coverage: “The FBI is "ready to indict" Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information on a private email server during her time as Secretary of State, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said…. ‘I have friends that are in the FBI, and they tell me they're ready to indict, they're ready to recommend an indictment,’ DeLay said …. [And] if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public. So one way or another, either she's gonna be indicted, and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign. One way or another, she's gonna have to face these charges.’… Despite the Texas Republican's assertions, the FBI itself cannot present an indictment on its own — a federal grand jury would be needed to bring charges against Clinton….” (See “FBI 'ready to indict' Hillary Clinton over private email use, Tom DeLay says: 'She’s gonna have to face these charges' “ by Dan Good, 1/26/16, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-ready-indict-hillary-clinton-tom-delay-article-1.2509659]).
Similar articles appeared in the New York Post and the Washington Examiner ( See “FBI seeking indictment of Hillary in email scandal, Tom DeLay claims” by Jamie Schram, 1/28/16, NY Post/ News [http://nypost.com/2016/01/26/fbi-seeking-indictment-of-hillary-in-email-scandal-tom-delay-claims/]; “DeLay: FBI sources say they're 'ready to indict' Hillary” by Sarah Westwood, 1/25/16, Washington Examiner [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/delay-fbi-sources-say-theyre-ready-to-indict-hillary/article/2581404]).