Surprise! @ClintonFdn to keep Harvey Weinstein donations…NOT.

While Hillary Clinton managed for several days to dodge questions from the media about the return of Harvey Weinstein donations, on Sunday, a spokesman for the Clinton Foundation announced that $250,000 of donations from the movie mogul will not be returned.

The spokesman alleges that somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 in Harvey Weinstein donations has already been spent by the Clinton Foundation on the “organization’s programs and used for charitable purposes.”

Fox News by Lukas Mikelionis

The move to keep the money was expected following tweets from the foundation’s spokesman Craig Minassian.

“Suggesting @ClintonFdn return funds from our 330,000+ donors ignores the fact that donations have been used to help people across the world,” Minassian wrote on Twitter.

The calls to return Weinstein’s money were prompted after multiple actresses have come forward and accused the Hollywood executive of sexual assault and rape, forcing numerous politicians and organization to grapple with the dilemma.

Dozens Democratic Party politicians – including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Sen. Al Franken, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker – have pledged to donate their Weinstein’s contributions to charities focused on women’s rights[…]

Continue Reading

About the return of Harvey Weinstein donations by Progressives bureaucrats…

The DNC says that it will return $30,000 of $300,000 in political donations from Harvey Weinstein to three women’s organizations, i.e., “EMILY’s List, which supports women candidates that support abortion rights, Emerge America, which recruits and trains Democratic women for office, and Higher Heights, which supports black women running for office.”

In other words, the DNC is returning nothing.

The Daily Caller by Jack Crowe

…The decision was made “because what we need is more women in power, not men like [President] Trump who continue to show us that they lack respect for more than half of America,” DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa explained in a Friday statement to CBS.

“The allegations in the New York Times report are deeply troubling. The Democratic party condemns all forms of sexual harassment and assault,” Hinojosa added….

Read full article

To funnel Harvey Weinstein donations, even a mere 10% to organizations that donate to and work hand in hand with Progressive bureaucrats is a new low even for the left. That 10% will find its way back into DNC coffers.


TRENDING: Harvey Weinstein’s $250,000

In the meantime, twitter is blowing up over the Clinton Foundation.

Cross-posted on Grumpy Opinions.

Donald Trump: The Resistance Strikes 2

By: Mike McDaniel    Gentle readers: I know this didn’t happen mere hours ago, but I’m not a news outlet, so I normally wait a day or two to try to gather more complete information before commenting on such things. I’m sure you understand…

Some may be making the mistake of thinking “The Resistance” is just another vacuous Democrat slogan like “Hope and Change” or “Better Together,” or even “Malaise.   “Surely,” they think, “this will fade quietly away, just like all the rest when they outlive their usefulness.” Unfortunately, that’s not the way things are trending. Legal Insurrection reports on the latest progressive media broadside:

To read the rest, go here…

The World Gets Curiouser and Curiouser: Trump and Comey, Rich and Wikileaks

The “destroy Trump” media’s latest revelations re Trump and Comey and the mostly-ignored Rich-Wikileaks’ nexus cast a harsh light on Comey and the FBI.

(A post by Wolf Howling)

Revelations of the last 24 hours are coming ‘fast and furious’ one might say.  Something is playing out between Trump, Comey and the NYT that could potentially involve illegal actions by President Trump or former FBI Director Comey.   They most certainly involve a complete failure in journalistic ethics by the NYT.

Also in the news today, there is reason to suspect that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been the source of Wikileaks’ revelations during the 2016 Presidential election.  The circumstances of his death, in light of some of the oddities of the FBI investigation into “Russian meddling” are sufficient to give any fair person pause that Rich’s murder might not have been a “failed robbery.”

The curious case of Comey, Trump and the NYT

The NYT ran a blockbuster story today, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him To End The Flynn Investigation.”  In it, the author claims that Comey recorded in a memo that Trump said:

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. . . . He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

The NYT claims that the President’s statement amounted to an order to shut down the investigation.  I think that arguable (Ann Althouse’s analysis concurs, and see Prof. Turley on Morning Joe), but regardless, the NYT was on a roll:

The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

That is an incredibly serious allegation of the type for which the progs have been making daily virgin sacrifices since November.  It is also an allegation that the NYT has made without any verification, as the reporter who wrote the article admits that he has never seen the Comey memo, nor does it appear that he made any attempt to verify the document with Comey.  I don’t think I have ever heard of a paper running such a story.  Just for sheer violation of traditional standards of journalism, this makes Rolling Stone look like a paragon of virtue.  The NYT had better hope that this is an accurate report or this could be the beginning of their end.

According to the NYT, Comey regularly documented his conversations and meetings with Donald Trump, including a memo about a private meeting that occurred on Feb. 14, the day after Trump fired Michael Flynn from his government post.   The NYT claims that Comey “shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates.”  That leads to the first question, with whom exactly did Comey share the alleged memos?

Surprisingly, it appears that Comey did not share the memo or the allegation in the memo with his second in command at the FBI and its now acting head, Andrew McCabe.  McCabe appeared before Congress just last week and was subject by Senators to questions that would most certainly have elicited this information if McCabe knew it.

Equally surprisingly, no one in Congress has come forward to claim that Comey shared his memos or concerns with them.  Sen. Richard Burr, with whom Comey had a good working relationship, has stated categorically that at no time did Comey tell him about this alleged illegal act by President Trump, adding:

“I actually believe the director might have told us that there’d been a request like that and it was never mentioned by him,” . . . So somebody’s going to have to do more than have anonymous sources on this one for me to believe that there’s something there.”

What makes this truly bizarre, assuming all the allegations are true, if Comey believed that he witnessed an attempt by the President to obstruct justice but then sat on the information for his own job protection, then Comey has himself committed a criminal act:

. . .  Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States.  Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey.  (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)  He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.

The next questions are why did the other people who were aware of this memo have copies of it?  Perhaps it would be believable for a third party, for some sensible but not obvious reason, to have a copy, but that raises a separate issue.  If they did have a copy of the memo, why could they not provide a copy to the NYT?  Rather, they could only quote very select parts?  That makes no sense.  This is starting to smell like three day old fish left out in the sun.

Now let’s diverge from the article for a moment.  Trump fired Comey on Tuesday, May 9.  Three days later, Trump, seemingly out of the blue, tweets:

James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

That tweet, which seemed quite odd at the time, makes perfect sense today in light of the NYT article.  Now things are exponentially curiouser.  This has become a high stakes Game of Thrones.  Was Trump tipped off last week that Comey was going to claim something like this?  It certainly seems it.

Moreover, Comey is surely going to be subpoened to testify under oath.  I would be surprised if it does not happen within the next two weeks.  If Comey did write the alleged memo and if Comey is telling the truth, it will mortally wound Trump and subject Comey to criminal sanctions.  If Comey was not entirely honest in the memo and Trump made clear that he was not attempting to obstruct justice, then Comey is still in a real bind.  He has to gamble one way or another on the possibility that Trump actually taped their conversation.  If he testifies under oath to something manifestly disproven by an unaltered recording, he could face many years in federal prison.  So in that scenario, how does Comey roll dice?

All I can say is you might want to stock up on popcorn.

The Curious Murder of Seth Rich

Seth Rich was a young DNC staffer.  Almost a year ago, he was murdered outside of his apartment in DC.  The murder was caught on security camera, though the tape has been described as “grainy,” showing two assailants shooting Rich.  This from Newsweek:

At 4:19 a.m., police patrolling nearby responded to the sound of gunfire in Bloomingdale and found Rich lying mortally wounded at a dark intersection a block and a half from a red-brick row house he shared with friends. He had multiple gunshot wounds in his back. About an hour and 40 minutes later, he died at a local hospital. Police have declined to say whether he was able to describe his assailants.

The cops suspected Rich was a victim of an attempted robbery, one of many that plague the neighborhood. Strangely, however, they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken. . . .

Julian Assange hurled a thunderbolt into the affair a few weeks later. [Assange] announced he was offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in the Rich case. He hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization’s recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails.

The investigation by police has gone nowhere.  And while the claim that Rich was the source of the wikileaks trove of DNC documents, that was never proven, at least until certain facts revealed today make it far more likely.  This from Hot Air:

Ten months ago, a staffer for the Democratic National Committee was found shot to death in Washington DC, and police had few leads to pursue. The family of Seth Rich hired a private investigator to look into his murder, and according to the local Fox affiliate, found a connection between Rich and Wikileaks, a connection that some had hypothesized all along. The DC police and FBI insist that it was a botched robbery, but they have shown no evidence of that motive — and the investigator alleges a cover-up has been put in place. . . .

The Fox News report implies that Seth Rich may have been the one who leaked information about the DNC to WikiLeaks that showed, among other things, that the DNC favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary. While it’s not clear, the report does note that WikiLeaks posted that information just 12 days after Rich was killed. . . .

The report states federal law enforcement investigators found 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between DNC leaders from January 3015 to May 2016 were sent by Rich to Gavin MacFayden, an American reporter and WikiLeaks director based in London who is now deceased. That information was found in a FBI forensic report on Rich’s computer done within days of his murder. . . .

That alone is a revelation, but what makes it even more curious is this — the only sources that we have for the claim that Russia “hacked” the DNC and provided documents to Wikileaks comes from the DNC and a third party closely associated with the DNC who conducted an examination of the servers.  The FBI has never conducted an independent examination of the DNC servers.  Let that sink in for a moment.  The FBI is supposedly conducting an investigation into Russian meddling in the election and yet has never taken the most basic step of examining the computers involved. That is a dereliction on a scale that would never be allowed in any other case — and should not be allowed in this one.

Could it be that the DNC scapegoated Russia in order to attack Trump, or worse, to cover up involvement in the murder of Seth Rich?  Moreover, we have never heard from the FBI of an analysis matching up the documents found on Rich’s computer with those made public by Wikileaks.  That seems rather important to know.  It would also be important to know what additional materials Rich had promised Wikileaks before his death, and whether his emails indicate that he was concerned for his safety or whether he had any cause to believe that his superiors at the DNC suspected that he might be the source of leaks to Wikileaks.

I would be amazed to find someone in the Clinton world or the DNC was involved in a hit on Seth Rich.  That said, there are enough curious aspects to all of this that it deserves a lot more attention than it has gotten to date.

As Alice noted as she looked through the looking glass, things are just getting “curiouser and curiouser.”

Answering the question: Why in the world do [insert name of group] support Democrats?

If you want to know why identity groups support Democrats even when doing so is counter to their interests, there’s one reason, and one reason alone….

Practically since the day I started blogging, at which time I revealed myself to be a politically conservative Jew, I’ve regularly been asked the same question: “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?” It’s an excellent question because the facts on the ground are that, for the last 20 years, while the Democrat party’s politicians have paid lip service to supporting Israel and their affinity for the Jewish people, the reality is that Democrats are hostile to the Jewish state and invariably throw their emotional weight behind those who hate Jews and Israel.

When Democrat convention-goers in 2012 loudly and vehemently objected to identifying Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, people asked me, “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?”

When Obama referred to the deliberately targeted Jews shot in the kosher market in Paris as victims of a “random” act, people asked me, “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?”

When the Democrats insisted on swelling the American Muslim population by bringing in hordes of people who, even if not actively violent, are actively antisemitic, Jews were in the front row saying “bring them in.” It was then that people asked me, “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?”

When Obama used his 2009 Cairo speech to erase 3,000 years of Jewish history in Israel and, instead, tie the Jewish state’s creation solely to the Holocaust, people asked me, “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?”

When the Democrats almost elected Keith Ellison, a former member of the violently antisemitic Nation of Islam to be their party chair, people asked me, “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?”

When Obama, practically as his last act as president, told his UN ambassador to stand down when the UN voted to deny the Jews’ ancient ties to Israel, people asked me, “Why in the world do Jews support Democrats?”

But it’s not just all things Jewish that elicit that question.

When Asians are routinely discriminated against at school due to affirmative action, despite the fact that Asians are a non-white minority, people ask me, “Why in the world do Asians support Democrats?”

When high-achieving blacks who are invariably assumed to have gained their achievements, not through merit, but by being pushed forward thanks to affirmative action, people ask me, “Why in the world do middle-class blacks support Democrats?”

Today, at American Thinker, there’s an article asking why in the world the children of conservative parents — in this case, Jared and Ivanka Kushner and the Murdoch sons — support Democrats.

Obamacare has been a disaster for the health care industry, and it was a disaster that anyone with even a basic understanding of markets and economics could have predicted. Doctors, however, supported it in droves, so one has to ask “Why in the world do doctors support Democrats?”

In Silicon Valley, it’s not just the super wealthy executives who support the Democrats. It’s also the mid-level and low-level drones who do, despite the fact that their bosses aggressively push for policies that hurt them economically, not the least of which is their fervent desire to bring in cheap Indian labor for programming jobs. “Why in the world do both the “working” and the “monied” classes in Silicon Valley support Democrats?”

In big cities throughout America, at the end of eight years of Obama and the Democrat party, young people can’t afford housing and can’t find jobs. Many of them live in their parents’ basements, with minimal hopes for the future. “Why in the world do these dead-ended young people support Democrats?”

In addition to those people who support Democrats despite the party’s values and policies being antithetical to these same supporters’ well-being, there are also whole industries that are entirely Democrat. Here are just a few, although I’m sure you can think of more:

  • Media figures, whether producers, writers, investigators, or editors.
  • Public school teachers.
  • Corporate management.
  • Government employees other than teachers.

I’ve listed a pretty diverse group of people: Jews, blacks, Asians, teachers, corporate management and corporate drones, unemployed students, scions of conservative parents, etc. Don’t let this superficial diversity confuse you. There is, in fact, a common denominator tying all of these disparate groups together.

That common denominator is the American system of colleges and universities. It’s at these institutions that Asians, Jews, middle-class blacks, America’s white-collar workers, and the children of conservative movers and shakers get their values.

Colleges and universities are where they learn to love “social justice,” economic redistribution (especially through the climate change vehicle), affirmative action, victim politics, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and, most importantly, the Democrat party as a whole. And that’s where these same groups achieve their endless, ignorant, baseless disdain for our Constitution, our traditional America values and allies, the free market, and Republicans.

This post doesn’t have room for examples, but you can get a sense by checking Campus ReformThe College Fix, or Turning Point USA to learn about classroom insanity. And then you can look to the front page of any paper, conservative or Leftist, to see how the campuses are shutting down free speech to drive out any speakers who might destroy their ideological hegemony.

No wonder that one of the Democrat party’s perpetual goals is to make college free for everyone. College is their propaganda factory, their happy hunting grounds, their breeding place, their drone department. That’s how they get whole classes people to go against their economic and security self-interests and infuse in them the kind of visceral hatred for Republicans that most recently manifested itself in Colbert’s inane and obscene rant against President Trump. This hatred has been taught since the 1960s and, sub rosa, since the 1930s and onward, when communists deliberately targeted academia.

If I could get Republican politicians and leadership to listen, I would tell them that, if they really want to win future elections, the single thing that they should do is to stop sending American taxpayer money to colleges and universities. Stop guaranteeing student loans that flood campuses with money, money that the campuses use, not to improve education, but to ramp up even more their professional Leftist grievance system. And most importantly, stop funding any studies in any liberal arts department.

Moreover, to the extent the federal government has an interest in funding the sciences, stop tying those funds to women and minorities. Tie them to proven results — which means that all universities that are dedicated to proving that their computer models, despite never being accurate, are in fact accurate, should immediately be cut off from the federal teat.

Assuming that a miracle happened and we stopped forcing all Americans to fund propaganda institutions for just one of the two parties in our two-party system, I have a suggestion for what we can do with the money we save: Return it to taxpayers.

My second suggestion is to fund trade schools, although I’m afraid that, if that’s where the money goes, the Leftists will follow. Rule of thumb: Leftists always follow the money.

If you care about America, lobby your Congress critter to severely cut the flow of money to America’s colleges and universities. Let those damn institutions compete in the market place for a change. It might change some thinking all the way to the faculty and administrative level.

And here’s the perfect video to close out this post:

Photo credit: Democratic Donkey Caricature, by DonkeyHotey. Creative Commons license.