TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
The Incredible Narcissism
of liar-Hillary and Comey
by Daniel Greenfield
.
Did Iran Really Threaten to Expose
Those They Paid Bribes to For Nuke Deal?
by rickwells.us
{ rickwells.us } ~ The old saying goes, “there is no honor among thieves,” and the participants in the Iran nuclear agreement... crafting and force feeding to the world are proving the adage applies to scoundrels of every variety, including traitors, racketeers and extortionists. We would all love to see the despicable sellouts involved in shoving the Iran nuclear agreement revealed as the traitors we all believe them to be, but some of the details in this viral tweet that is being picked up by many independent news sources doesn’t seem to add up the way it’s being portrayed. The cookie-cutter articles littering the internet with the same text time after time state an unsourced quotation from a supposed Iranian official, a tweet that references a senior adviser of “H. J. Ansari Zarif.” Only one Zarif works in a prominent position in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and that is Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, their equivalent of our Secretary of State. There is a spokesman named Hossein Jaberi Ansari, but no such remarks can be found on his twitter account or in recent articles. Raman Ghavami, a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, appears to have attributed the statement to Ansari but failed to include a comma between the names of Ansari and Zarif, leading to the copied and pasted confusion....
Secretary of State Pompeo -vs- Chris Wallace
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sits down for an interview with the Deep State toll booth operator Chris Wallace... Customary cost of admission, five shillings. Secretary Pompeo briefly discussed the ISIS terror attack in France yesterday and expands upon the upcoming summit with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un. Secretary Pompeo appears to have a more thorough understanding on the Trump Doctrine of using economics to achieve national security objectives than former Secretary Rex Tillerson. The duplicitous toll booth operator won’t raise the barricade until Pompeo discusses the view of former CIA Director John Brennan. Pompeo exits the narrative and beats Wallace over the head with MAGA common sense: “Brennan’s remarks are silly“, moving on….
Expected Upsurge in Gaza Violence
by Richard Kemp
{ gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ I predict a riot — and much worse. The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is orchestrating a 'demonstration' at the beginning of this week... of up to 200,000 people on the Gaza border with Israel, and is intent on turning it into an orgy of death and bloodshed. If that happens, the UN and EU, human rights groups and many Western media organizations will have helped bring it about. Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is planning the bloody culmination of six weeks of violence along the border that has so far led to the deaths of around 50 of their own people and wounding of hundreds more. Now they intend to pile the bodies higher still, exploiting what they see as a perfect storm. It is the seventieth anniversary of the creation of the modern State of Israel — a date that Palestinians revile as 'Nakba' or 'Catastrophe' Day. It coincides with the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem, a move abhorrent to those who consider the existence of the Jewish State illegitimate. And it is the beginning of the Islamic festival of Ramadan, a time when violence throughout the Muslim world often spirals. Hamas claim that the purpose of their 'demonstrations' is to break through the Israeli border en masse, march through the country and reclaim the homes that they say their people were thrown out of when Israel was formed — exercising the strongly disputed 'right of return'. But they know they cannot achieve that in the face of the formidable Israel Defence Force... https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12297/gaza-violence.
The never-ending war on terror
by Katherine Zimmerman
{ foreignaffairs.com } ~ Earlier this month, the United States announced that it was launching operations to liberate the final strongholds of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria... in what seemed to signal “mission accomplished” in the fight against global terrorism. Having finally wound down major combat operations in Iraq in late April, Washington was able to shift the focus of its offensive operations there to its fight against the terrorist group’s last strongholds in Syria and in its “geographic caliphate,” which includes parts of Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Yemen. As President Donald Trump recently said, “We’re going to be coming home relatively soon. We finished, at least, almost all our work with respect to ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq, and we have done a job that nobody else has been able to do.” It may appear as if a global victory over the Islamic State is near, but it is not. What U.S. policymakers never seem to learn is that when it comes to global terrorism, the mission is not yet accomplished. The Islamic State or some successor could one day return to Iraq and Syria to restore its physical caliphate. While the United States was fighting the Islamic State, other groups clearly benefited. Take, for example, the strengthening since 2011 of al Qaeda and like-minded factions such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, among others, in northwestern Syria. Al Qaeda is seeking to reinfiltrate the ranks of Iraqi Sunni insurgents from its base in Syria... https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-05-11/never-ending-war-terror.
Jimmy Carter says Trump should be bound to deals signed
by other presidents without Senate approval
.
.
The Incredible Narcissism
of liar-Hillary and Comey
by Daniel Greenfield
{ sultanknish.blogspot.com } ~ liar-Hillary Clinton is 5’4. Former FBI boss James Comey is 6’8. But they have one important thing in common.
Both liar-Clinton and Comey put themselves first.
liar-Hillary launched her spiteful book tour without any regard for what it would do to her party. No amount of frustration from her fellow Democrats would dissuade her from cashing in and lashing out at her enemies. And no amount of frustration from fellow FBI agents, including Comey’s own Bureau confidants, could dissuade him from cashing in and lashing out at Trump across a thousand talk shows.
liar-Hillary Clinton’s book tour damaged Dem prospects. Comey’s book tour harms the investigation. Its entire existence violates FBI rules. Much as liar-Clinton’s book hurt her likely Dem successors.
But both bitter book tours are the work of selfish, spiteful and egotistical people who don’t care how much damage they do to the allies who trusted them as long as they make money and settle scores.
It’s only fitting that Comey is using the same excuse that liar-Hillary did for his leaks of classified information. “It wasn’t classified when I sent it.” It’s also inevitable that Comey, like liar-Clinton, takes refuge in the same sort of legalistic technicalities to justify his wrongdoing. Did he leak the documents? No, he gave them to someone else to pass on to the media. Is that leaking? No, because he was already a “private citizen.”
Meanwhile Comey goes on claiming ignorance of the origins of the Fusion GPS dossier.
"When did you learn that the DNC and liar-Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele’s work?" FOX News's Bret Baier asked Comey.
Like liar-nObama, Comey claimed to have only found out about the dossier's true origins from the media. After being pressed by Baier, he finally declared, "I wanted to know what I knew."
The technical term for that is, “Plausible deniability”.
Or the most honorable and principled plausible deniability that $10 million can buy.
Comey, like liar-Clinton, always sounds like he’s answering questions at a deposition, even when he’s at a media interview, and his replies are littered with lawyerese like, “Not to my recollection” and “my understanding”.
Spot which ‘understanding’ answers in a television interview came from Comey and liar-Clinton.
"Well, my understanding of what happened is that the State Department had e-mails that they gave to the committee that was formed."
"Okay, my understanding was the activity was begun, that, that Steele was hired to look into was first funded by Republicans."
Yes, they both speak the same way.
“My understanding” means that I’m going to put forward something that is misleading while limiting my liability for doing so because I can claim that I ‘misunderstood’ its actual meaning. “Not to my recollection” means that I’m going to lie, but if you catch me, I’ll claim that I forgot about it. Oops.
Or as Comey put it, when asked if he’d told Obama about the origins of the liar-Clinton-Steele dossier.
“No, not to my recollection.”
Comey’s recollections have been known to change over time. As have liar-Hillary Clinton’s.
Mr. Comey, like Mrs. liar-Clinton, doesn’t know anything, whether he’s testifying in the Senate or to CNN. But when a public official answers, “Not to my recollection” and “my understanding” in TV interviews, he or she is reflexively answering questions in a way that avoids legal liability even when there isn’t any.
Comey and liar-Clinton both suffer from the same brand of legalistic paranoia of career cover-uppers. It’s why Comey circulated the liar-Clinton draft among people like Strzok and got him to do the dirty work. It’s why Comey passed on a memo to his pal, who was also a lawyer, to be leaked to the media. Expect that fake attorney-client relationship’s confidentiality to be honored, unlike that of Trump and his actual lawyer. But much like that of liar-Hillary Clinton and her non-protected relationship with Cheryl Mills.
Every decision that Comey made was done to protect his own career. He allowed liar-nObama and liar-Hillary allies to run their version of Watergate against Trump as long as his own fingerprints weren’t on it. Comey wanted to benefit from an election rigging without ever being accountable for it. Letting McCabe get his hands dirty would allow him to claim that he didn’t know anything about what was going on.
When McCabe’s antics threatened that state of affairs, Comey authored the Weiner letter. He didn’t believe the letter would stop liar-Hillary from winning, but it would protect him in case she lost.
And it did. For a little while.
But Comey couldn’t keep balancing the impossible demands of Democrats to bring down Trump, with Trump’s demands to be informed of what was going on. And so Comey tried to weasel out of it by leaking materials to the media and making it clear that there would be a price to pay for firing him.
Comey wasn’t loyal to a higher duty. His higher duty was always to his career. Just like liar-Hillary.
“A Higher Loyalty” is a shameless effort by Comey to spin his self-serving actions as honorable. But a principled and honorable man would have wanted to know where the Steele dossier came from.
"I wanted to know what I knew,” is the answer of a cynically dishonorable man. The sort of man who would kick off his comeback by posing with the Statue of Liberty after violating all that she stands for.
Honor and loyalty to Comey are just more forms of plausible deniability. Duty and principle are another version of, “My understanding” and “Not to my recollection”. To paraphrase, Walter Sobchak, "Say what you want about the Democrats, but at least it's an ethos." McCabe, Strzok and the rest of the gang believed in something. James Comey only ever believed in covering the bureau of his behind.
That’s why he collided with liar-Hillary Clinton. He couldn’t commit all the way to helping her, because they were two of a kind. liar-Hillary would sell out anyone. And so would Comey. Just ask McCabe.
What happens when an unstoppable careerist hits an immovable bureaucrat?
Comey wouldn’t put liar-Hillary ahead of his career. And liar-Hillary won’t put the Democrats ahead of her grievances. That’s why her people are taking potshots at Comey even though he’s helping the Dems.
Neither Comey nor liar-Clinton have any higher loyalties. Their books are written in praise of themselves.
Egomaniacs and narcissists have no sense of proportion. Their own happiness is the greater good that the world revolves around. It takes an egomaniac to produce “A Higher Loyalty” or “What Happened”.
Both books are fueled by a grandiose conviction in the moral heroism of their authors. But that delusion is constantly being undermined by their self-serving lawyerly defenses of their actions.
And by the final fact that neither Comey nor liar-Clinton can conceive of a good greater than themselves.
Stripped of their pretensions, “What Happened” and “A Higher Loyalty” lay out a quest by two Washington D.C. insiders for their careers and everyone they blame for losing their jobs. Comey and liar-Clinton want us to believe that their Russian conspiracy theories somehow ennoble and justify them.
They don’t.
The Russian conspiracy theory has always been a self-serving effort by the liar-Clintons and their government allies to justify a ruthless campaign against their political opponents. Its tautological politics dress up the self-serving abuses of the conspiracy theory’s inventors and promoters as patriotism. They justify any assault and abuse to defend against a threat invented by liar-Clinton and promoted by Comey.
When Comey replies that he didn’t want to know that the Steele dossier originated with the liar-Clinton campaign, it’s not the answer of an honorable man, but of a coward who didn’t want to know whose dirty work he was doing. An honorable man isn’t someone who can tweet someone else’s quotes about integrity, it’s a man who is accountable for his own deeds.
Honor isn’t found in how harshly you treat your political opponents, but how sternly your view yourself.
liar-Clinton and Comey take responsibility for nothing and assign responsibility for everything. Even when they talk about accepting responsibility, they mean they’re about to blame it on someone else.
“A Higher Loyalty” and “What Happened” share a common thesis. It’s someone else’s fault.
liar-Hillary blamed Comey. Now it’s Comey’s turn to shift the blame.
Both of them deserve each other. America doesn’t deserve them. Or deserve what they’ve done to it.
Both liar-Clinton and Comey put themselves first.
liar-Hillary launched her spiteful book tour without any regard for what it would do to her party. No amount of frustration from her fellow Democrats would dissuade her from cashing in and lashing out at her enemies. And no amount of frustration from fellow FBI agents, including Comey’s own Bureau confidants, could dissuade him from cashing in and lashing out at Trump across a thousand talk shows.
liar-Hillary Clinton’s book tour damaged Dem prospects. Comey’s book tour harms the investigation. Its entire existence violates FBI rules. Much as liar-Clinton’s book hurt her likely Dem successors.
But both bitter book tours are the work of selfish, spiteful and egotistical people who don’t care how much damage they do to the allies who trusted them as long as they make money and settle scores.
It’s only fitting that Comey is using the same excuse that liar-Hillary did for his leaks of classified information. “It wasn’t classified when I sent it.” It’s also inevitable that Comey, like liar-Clinton, takes refuge in the same sort of legalistic technicalities to justify his wrongdoing. Did he leak the documents? No, he gave them to someone else to pass on to the media. Is that leaking? No, because he was already a “private citizen.”
Meanwhile Comey goes on claiming ignorance of the origins of the Fusion GPS dossier.
"When did you learn that the DNC and liar-Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele’s work?" FOX News's Bret Baier asked Comey.
Like liar-nObama, Comey claimed to have only found out about the dossier's true origins from the media. After being pressed by Baier, he finally declared, "I wanted to know what I knew."
The technical term for that is, “Plausible deniability”.
Or the most honorable and principled plausible deniability that $10 million can buy.
Comey, like liar-Clinton, always sounds like he’s answering questions at a deposition, even when he’s at a media interview, and his replies are littered with lawyerese like, “Not to my recollection” and “my understanding”.
Spot which ‘understanding’ answers in a television interview came from Comey and liar-Clinton.
"Well, my understanding of what happened is that the State Department had e-mails that they gave to the committee that was formed."
"Okay, my understanding was the activity was begun, that, that Steele was hired to look into was first funded by Republicans."
Yes, they both speak the same way.
“My understanding” means that I’m going to put forward something that is misleading while limiting my liability for doing so because I can claim that I ‘misunderstood’ its actual meaning. “Not to my recollection” means that I’m going to lie, but if you catch me, I’ll claim that I forgot about it. Oops.
Or as Comey put it, when asked if he’d told Obama about the origins of the liar-Clinton-Steele dossier.
“No, not to my recollection.”
Comey’s recollections have been known to change over time. As have liar-Hillary Clinton’s.
Mr. Comey, like Mrs. liar-Clinton, doesn’t know anything, whether he’s testifying in the Senate or to CNN. But when a public official answers, “Not to my recollection” and “my understanding” in TV interviews, he or she is reflexively answering questions in a way that avoids legal liability even when there isn’t any.
Comey and liar-Clinton both suffer from the same brand of legalistic paranoia of career cover-uppers. It’s why Comey circulated the liar-Clinton draft among people like Strzok and got him to do the dirty work. It’s why Comey passed on a memo to his pal, who was also a lawyer, to be leaked to the media. Expect that fake attorney-client relationship’s confidentiality to be honored, unlike that of Trump and his actual lawyer. But much like that of liar-Hillary Clinton and her non-protected relationship with Cheryl Mills.
Every decision that Comey made was done to protect his own career. He allowed liar-nObama and liar-Hillary allies to run their version of Watergate against Trump as long as his own fingerprints weren’t on it. Comey wanted to benefit from an election rigging without ever being accountable for it. Letting McCabe get his hands dirty would allow him to claim that he didn’t know anything about what was going on.
When McCabe’s antics threatened that state of affairs, Comey authored the Weiner letter. He didn’t believe the letter would stop liar-Hillary from winning, but it would protect him in case she lost.
And it did. For a little while.
But Comey couldn’t keep balancing the impossible demands of Democrats to bring down Trump, with Trump’s demands to be informed of what was going on. And so Comey tried to weasel out of it by leaking materials to the media and making it clear that there would be a price to pay for firing him.
Comey wasn’t loyal to a higher duty. His higher duty was always to his career. Just like liar-Hillary.
“A Higher Loyalty” is a shameless effort by Comey to spin his self-serving actions as honorable. But a principled and honorable man would have wanted to know where the Steele dossier came from.
"I wanted to know what I knew,” is the answer of a cynically dishonorable man. The sort of man who would kick off his comeback by posing with the Statue of Liberty after violating all that she stands for.
Honor and loyalty to Comey are just more forms of plausible deniability. Duty and principle are another version of, “My understanding” and “Not to my recollection”. To paraphrase, Walter Sobchak, "Say what you want about the Democrats, but at least it's an ethos." McCabe, Strzok and the rest of the gang believed in something. James Comey only ever believed in covering the bureau of his behind.
That’s why he collided with liar-Hillary Clinton. He couldn’t commit all the way to helping her, because they were two of a kind. liar-Hillary would sell out anyone. And so would Comey. Just ask McCabe.
What happens when an unstoppable careerist hits an immovable bureaucrat?
Comey wouldn’t put liar-Hillary ahead of his career. And liar-Hillary won’t put the Democrats ahead of her grievances. That’s why her people are taking potshots at Comey even though he’s helping the Dems.
Neither Comey nor liar-Clinton have any higher loyalties. Their books are written in praise of themselves.
Egomaniacs and narcissists have no sense of proportion. Their own happiness is the greater good that the world revolves around. It takes an egomaniac to produce “A Higher Loyalty” or “What Happened”.
Both books are fueled by a grandiose conviction in the moral heroism of their authors. But that delusion is constantly being undermined by their self-serving lawyerly defenses of their actions.
And by the final fact that neither Comey nor liar-Clinton can conceive of a good greater than themselves.
Stripped of their pretensions, “What Happened” and “A Higher Loyalty” lay out a quest by two Washington D.C. insiders for their careers and everyone they blame for losing their jobs. Comey and liar-Clinton want us to believe that their Russian conspiracy theories somehow ennoble and justify them.
They don’t.
The Russian conspiracy theory has always been a self-serving effort by the liar-Clintons and their government allies to justify a ruthless campaign against their political opponents. Its tautological politics dress up the self-serving abuses of the conspiracy theory’s inventors and promoters as patriotism. They justify any assault and abuse to defend against a threat invented by liar-Clinton and promoted by Comey.
When Comey replies that he didn’t want to know that the Steele dossier originated with the liar-Clinton campaign, it’s not the answer of an honorable man, but of a coward who didn’t want to know whose dirty work he was doing. An honorable man isn’t someone who can tweet someone else’s quotes about integrity, it’s a man who is accountable for his own deeds.
Honor isn’t found in how harshly you treat your political opponents, but how sternly your view yourself.
liar-Clinton and Comey take responsibility for nothing and assign responsibility for everything. Even when they talk about accepting responsibility, they mean they’re about to blame it on someone else.
“A Higher Loyalty” and “What Happened” share a common thesis. It’s someone else’s fault.
liar-Hillary blamed Comey. Now it’s Comey’s turn to shift the blame.
Both of them deserve each other. America doesn’t deserve them. Or deserve what they’ve done to it.
Comments
Bonnie
Carter was a nothing president
WHY WAS CARTER ONE OF THE WORST PRES WELL HE JUST PROVED THAT ALONG W/ALL THE O/THINGS HE DID . HORRORS YES READ HISTORY