Silencing America as It Prepares for War

by John Pilger

Returning to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I have covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to kill him. It was a baptism in the American way, along with the salivating violence of the Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s rigged convention.  The great counter revolution had begun.

The first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared link the suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”, she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places.

“We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom. Now don’t you forget it.”  So said a National Parks Service guide as I filmed last week at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He was addressing a school party of young teenagers in bright orange T-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted the truth about Vietnam into an unchallenged lie.

The millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and dispossessed by the American invasion have no historical place in young minds, not to mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own lives. A friend of mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam, was often asked, “Which side did you fight on?”

A few years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of Freedom” at the venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington. The lines of ordinary people, mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s grotto of revisionism, were dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved “a million lives”; Iraq was “liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented precision”. The theme was unerringly heroic: only Americans pay the price of freedom.

The 2016 election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

The breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind, wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it “never happened …Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t matter … “. Pinter expressed a mock admiration for what he called “a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.

In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”.

Read More: 

UCSF Presentation Reveals Glyphosate Contamination in People Across America

Glyphosate, the most used herbicide in the World, has been found in the urine of 93% of the American public during a unique testing project that started in 2015.

Glyphosate, labeled a ‘probable human carcinogen’ by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC in 2015, has now been revealed to be ubiquitous in the first ever comprehensive and validated LC/MS/MS testing project to be carried out across America.

The European Union is currently in the process of putting restrictions on the use of glyphosate due to health concerns, with Member States so far unable to agree on the re-approval of the chemical beyond June 2016.

Glyphosate-containing herbicides are sold under trademarks such as Monsanto’s ‘Roundup’.

Summary of Testing

• Urine and Water Testing Results

93% of the urine tested by the University of California San Francisco lab tested positive for glyphosate residues. No glyphosate was found in the tap water samples. These results are only from a small percentage of the total samples collected – more data will be released later in 2016.

The results of this bio-survey come from the first in-lab validated LC/MS/MS testing method used for glyphosate testing of the general public in America.

• Is Glyphosate Safe at Real-Life Exposure Levels?:

Glyphosate has never been studied by regulators or the chemical industry at levels that the human population in the U.S. is being exposed to (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). This is a huge hole in the global risk assessment of glyphosate, as there is evidence suggesting that low levels of the chemical may hack hormones even more than at mid and high levels, according to independent science – a higher dose does not necessarily make a more toxic, hormone disruptive effect.

• Unique Testing Project

The Detox Project is a unique platform for the testing of toxic chemicals in our bodies and in our food. The aim of the project is to cut out all conflicts of interest in chemical bio-surveys by allowing the public to pay directly for chemical testing that they are interested in.

Urine and Water Testing Results

In a unique public testing project carried out by a laboratory at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), glyphosate was discovered in 93% of urine samples during the early phase of the testing in 2015.

The urine and water testing was organized by The Detox Project and commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association.

The unique project, which has already provided more urine samples for testing than any other glyphosate bio-monitoring urine study ever in America, was supported by members of the public, who themselves paid for their urine and water samples to be analyzed for glyphosate residues by the UCSF lab.

The data released in a presentation by the UCSF lab only covers the first 131 people tested. Further data from this public bio-monitoring study, which is now completed, will be released later in 2016.

The Detox Project will be working alongside a new larger lab later this year to enable the public to once again test their urine for glyphosate residues.

The UCSF full presentation of these initial results can be found here.

The Results

Glyphosate was found in 93% of the 131 urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB.

The regions with the highest levels were the West and the Midwest with an average of 3.053 PPB and 3.050 PPB respectively.

Glyphosate residues were not observed in any tap water samples during the early phase of the project, most likely due to phosphorus removal during water treatment.

The results from the UCSF urine testing in America showed a much higher frequency and average glyphosate level than those observed in urine samples in the European Union in 2013. The average level in Europe was around 1 PPB with a frequency of detection of 43.9%.

Read More: 

Did $6.5m Property Deal Lead to Disenfranchisement of 126k Registered Brooklyn Democrats?

By Joan Brunwasser

The property sale info is public record. The relationship between Lowey and Clinton is public record. The fact that the purges were a bipartisan, purposeful action appears to be accepted by the BOE, which put both clerks on suspension. The “proof” that they were involved could be in Clinton’s email that the FBI is in possession of. There is definitely enough probable cause to investigate,


My guest today is Netra Halperin, executive producer of Peace Films. Welcome to OpEdNews, Netra.

Joan Brunwasser: You recently wrote a piece at OpEdNews called Hillary Clinton & Rep. Nita Lowey, the Probable Causes of Brooklyn Voter Purges. But you live in Hawaii. What’s your interest in what goes on all the way across the country, over in the Big Apple?

Netra Halperin: My interest is in the presidential election. Of course I have my favorite candidate, whom I want to win, but what is most important for me is that the election be fair. If we can’t even have fair elections, than all the hype about “freedom and justice for all” is just that–hype. It’s painful to see my country operate with such a level of hypocrisy.

JB: Fair enough! So, what’s got you bent out of shape regarding the presidential election? Are you talking generically about our presidential elections or specifically about the current one?

NH: I am disturbed by the election fraud happening NOW, in the 2016 Democratic Primary. There has been evidence of rampant election fraud in New York, Arizona, Kentucky, Nevada, Illinois, Maryland, Iowa, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wyoming. And there are already signs of attempts to disenfranchise “no party preference” voters in California.

JB: I’m assuming that “no party preference” voters refers to independents. You’re making a pretty strong claim, Netra. If you’re correct, you are justly incensed. Can you get this sad story rolling?

NH: The New York Board of Elections (BOE) has acknowledged that 126,000 voters were wrongly purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls (and up to 260,000 statewide). The day after the April 19thprimary, the NY Attorney General, NYC Comptroller and NY Governor all declared that they would be investigating the matter. Also, Chief Clerk Diane Haslett Rudiano and Deputy Clerk Betty Ann Cenzio were suspended–both of whom claimed that the purges were a “mistake.”

People need to understand that there is no possibility that these purges were accidental. According to the rules of the BOE, one employee is not able to purge voters on his/her own. The first employee can propose to purge certain voters’ names–because they have left the district or died. And then the second employee, from the other party, must confirm it. Thus, the Democratic and Republican clerks did this TOGETHER.

JB: This was a bipartisan purging of Democratic voters? I didn’t know that. Let’s speculate here about motive, for both the Democratic and Republican clerks.

NH: We postulated that the Brooklyn Democratic machine, between 2013-2014, wanted to prepare to massage voter rolls for the 2016 election to ensure a Clinton win. Brooklyn Democratic power brokers (including Canizio) hatched a plan with long-time Clinton ally, Congresswoman Lowey and her daughter, to gain the Republican, Haslett Rudiano’s cooperation in their plan. Lowey’s developer daughter, Dana Lowey Luttway took Rudiano’s rat-infested neighborhood blight brownstone off her hands at four times its value. In 2013, Rudiano had listed her brownstone at 118 West 76th St. for $1.5 million, however Lowey’s daughter purchased it for $6.6 million in 2014, –or a $4 million “incentive” to cooperate!

Read More: 

All the Presumptive Nominee’s Men

For a guy who yells about Washington and Wall Street money in politics, Donald Trump sure has a lot on insiders on his team.

By Michael Winship

Donald Trump’s new campaign chairman and chief strategist Paul Manafort is a longtime political veteran and lobbyist whose clients have included an assortment of dictators and a Lebanese-born arms dealer. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Right after Barack Obama’s election in 2008, I flew off to Australia and New Zealand to attend a conference and take some vacation time. When I got to Sydney, I picked up one of the local newspapers and read that the president-elect had chosen Rahm Emanuel, poster boy for corporate Democrats and the status quo, to be his chief of staff.

Uh-oh, I thought. If Obama was choosing him to guide his administration, we probably could say goodbye to any dreams of a New Deal-style, aggressive agenda to cure the ills of our country. Emanuel was less the type to Keep Hope Alive and more the guy who holds hope at arm’s length with a blackjack threatening in the other hand.

You will know our presidents and presidential candidates by the company they keep. Just as Obama had Rahm and a gaggle of Wall Street Democrats advising him how to step away from the fiscal crisis without putting any of the guilty banksters in jail, so, too, have all our chief executives and nominees had their coteries. Andrew Jackson had his kitchen cabinet, FDR his Brain Trust, JFK and LBJ their best and brightest, Nixon his Palace Guard – even Warren Harding had his poker pals, although that den of thieves reportedly led him to complain to the famous newspaper editor William Allen White, “I can take care of my enemies all right. But my damn friends, my goddamned friends, White, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor nights!”

And now, here comes Donald Trump, presumptive Republican presidential nominee and thug-in-a-nice-suit. If for some reason you aren’t already appalled by the specter of a con artist occupying the Oval Office, a man who would lie about what he had for breakfast, look to those with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Start with political dirty trickster and sleaze merchant Roger Stone, the man first introduced to Trump by Joe McCarthy acolyte Roy Cohn. Stone has had a 30-year, on-again, off-again relationship with the candidate and was publicly fired from Trump’s campaign staff last summer but still seems to be an unofficial advisor and mouthpiece.

Then there’s the abrasive campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, best known for that March incident with now-former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, who said he roughly grabbed her when she tried to ask Trump a question. A charge of simple battery was dismissed.

But Stone and Lewandowski are small potatoes compared to some of the new hires Trump has brought aboard since he clinched the nomination and expressed the desire to appear more presidential.

If for some reason you aren’t already appalled by the specter of a con artist occupying the Oval Office, a man who would lie about what he had for breakfast, look to those with whom he has chosen to surround himself.
Read More: 

Prognosis for Beth Israel: New E. 13th mini-hospital

By Lincoln Anderson

nswering mounting questions about the future of Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital, on Wednesday, Mount Sinai Health System announced a $500 million investment to create a new “Mount Sinai Downtown” health network — the centerpiece of which will be a new, much smaller hospital on E. 13th St.

The new Downtown network, a press release said, will “usher in a sweeping transformation of care delivery from river to river below 34th St.”

As has been rumored and reported over the past year, the current Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital — which occupies the full block of prime Gramercy real estate between E. 16th and E. 17th Sts. and First Ave. and Nathan D. Perlman Place — will eventually be sold, a P.R. spokesperson confirmed.

In turn, the key feature of the new plan is a vastly scaled-down Mount Sinai Downtown Beth Israel Hospital to be built on the site of the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai — specifically, on the site of its residents building, at 321 E. 13th St. The press release said the new hospital would be built at E. 14th St. and Second Ave. However, the spokesperson confirmed that the plan is for it to be built at the residents building site.

The Eye and Ear Infirmary extends from E. 14th St. to E. 13th St. along Second Ave., with its north building located on E. 14th St. and its south building on E. 13th St.

An Eye and Ear employee who spoke to The Villager last week, however, said staff there had been previously told that the infirmary’s south building was being eyed for a smaller-sized hospital — but that plan apparently was up in the air. Mount Sinai recently told staff living in the infirmary’s 14-story residents building on E. 13th St. that they would have to vacate by the end of August.

In addition, a number of Beth Israel nurses had told The Villager two weeks ago that they were being told all the rebuilding plans were now totally off the table and that the plan was simply to close the hospital — and soon. Beth Israel’s Gilman Hall residence, at E. 17th St. and First Ave., which is currently being emptied, was reportedly being considered as a site for the new hospital, as well, at least until recently. This Tuesday, Crain’s reported that Gilman Hall has now been put on the market for $80 million.

All proceeds from property sales are to be funneled back into the nonprofit Mount Sinai Health System.

All the employees who spoke to the newspaper in the past two weeks had accurately predicted that a major announcement on the hospital and infirmary was imminent.

Read More: 


Reported by the NYTimes:

National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

Last night the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health issued the first in a series of reports that contains partial findings from their long-awaited, $25 million study of the cancer risk from cell phone radiation. This report summarizes the study of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation on rats. The report on mice will be issued at a later date.
According to the report:
“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR [radiofrequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health.”Overall, thirty of 540 (5.5%), or one in 18 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer.  In addition,16 pre-cancerous hyperplasias were diagnosed. Thus, 46 of 540, or one in 12 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion as compared to none of the 90 unexposed male rats. The two types of cancer examined in the exposed rats were glioma and schwannoma. Both types have been found in human studies of cell phone use.

In the group exposed to the lowest intensity of cell phone radiation (1.5 watts/kilogram or W/kg), 12 of 180, or one in 15 male rats developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion.

This latter finding has policy implications for the FCC’s current cell phone regulations which allow cell phones to emit up to 1.6 W/kg at the head or near the body (partial body Specific Absorption Rate or SAR).

The NTP study is likely a “game-changer” as it proves that non-ionizing, radiofrequency radiation can cause cancer without heating tissue.
The results of the study reinforce the need for more stringent regulation of radiofrequency radiation and better disclosure of the health risks associated with wireless technologies — two demands made by the International EMF Scientist Appeal — a petition signed by 220 scientists who have published research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Along with other recently published studies on the biologic and health effects of cell phone radiation, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization should now have sufficient data to reclassify radiofrequency radiation from “possibly carcingogenic” to “probably carcinogenic in humans.”

Read More: 



Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email

By The Editorial Board (NYT)

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.

So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.

Across the years of the Clintons’ ascendancy, the public has seen that Mrs. Clinton can be fiercely protective of her role and prerogatives — at times grudging in admitting error and, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, blaming a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for allegations against her and her husband that began early in his tenure and continued on through the impeachment scandal. (The right wing was definitely on his case, but hardly alone in its doubts about Mr. Clinton’s personal conduct.)

This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Donald Trump, her Republican rival, will be merciless in swinging the inspector general’s report like a cudgel. Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton now faces a measurably greater challenge in proving that she is the well-qualified politician her supporters know her to be, based on her varied career as a senator, secretary of state and first lady deeply involved in public life. This is a challenge to be faced not with a contrived campaign makeover, but with a far greater investment of candor before the public.

When Republicans first questioned the propriety of using her own home-based server over a year ago, Mrs. Clinton sought to finesse the matter as partisan flak. Under pressure, she eventually apologized for a “mistake,” while insisting she had done nothing wrong and would cooperate fully with investigators. But she did not honor that promise, according to the report, which noted that she declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, Steve Linick, or his staff.

When State Department staff members questioned her use of a nongovernmental email address in 2010, the report said, they were instructed by superiors “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.” The sharply critical report found that, contrary to her earlier insistence that the practice was “allowed,” Mrs. Clinton had not sought permission to use the server, and that permission would have been denied under the department’s evolving policy to better protect Internet communications.

What follows next is certain to be a grueling campaign slog through details and allegations that voters will be hard pressed to track and, indeed, may soon tire of. Even now, it seems a stretch to say that Mrs. Clinton’s email mishaps should disqualify her for the White House, particularly considering the alternative of Mr. Trump with his manifold evasions — not least his refusal to release tax returns that could shed light on his claims to great wealth, his charitable contributions and other deductions and possible conflicts of interest.

But the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy. Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency.

Read More: 

The problem is especially acute at NYU, where scores of students sleep in Bobst Library (and even contract faculty have had to bed down in their offices). That’s quite a scandal, in light of all the billions that NYU’s Board routinely spends on its ballooning real estate portfolio.


Students With Nowhere to Stay: Homelessness on College Campuses

By Eleanor J. Bader, Truthout

When the College Cost Reduction and Access Act took effect in 2009, neither lawmakers nor school administrators had any idea how many college students would check the box on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) — the document that determines eligibility for Pell grants, subsidized loans and work-study awards that help students pay for college or vocational training — to indicate that they were homeless.

At last tabulation, the number was 58,000, a small percentage of the 20.2 million students presently enrolled in both undergraduate and graduate study. Nonetheless, school counselors and advocates believe the number is starkly inaccurate and represents a mere fraction of university students who actually lack a permanent home.

Shirley Fan-Chan, director of U-ACCESS at the University of Massachusetts Boston, provides on-campus support to students who are experiencing food insecurity and homelessness. “Most students think of homelessness as being on the street, sleeping in doorways, and for the most part, college students don’t do this,” she told Truthout. “They hide out. They may stay in one place for a few days or a week, then move somewhere else, bouncing from friend to friend with no fixed place to stay. But they think to themselves, ‘Well, this is college. As long as I have a roof over my head, I’m okay.'”

And if that roof happens to be in a tent, subway car or vehicle, so be it. As Fan-Chan notes, students typically do their damnedest to make do, showering in the gym and visiting the emergency food pantries that are increasingly popping up on US campuses.

Causes of Student Homelessness

Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has been studying college affordability and its connection to retention since 2008. Her initial research involved analyzing the impact of the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars.

“My team went out to get the lay of the land from students, and asked them how it was going paying for college,” she said. “We expected to hear them tell us that they were having trouble affording their books or buying a laptop but what we heard about was food insecurity; one student told us that she was living in a shelter. This stunned us and we had to ask whether this was happening on a larger scale.”

Read More: 


By Marc Santora

Mount Sinai Beth Israel, an 825-bed hospital that has served downtown Manhattan for more than 125 years, will close and be replaced by a much smaller building, hospital officials said on Wednesday.

Mount Sinai Health System, which runs Beth Israel and six other hospital campuses in the New York City area, said that it would be four years before the hospital closed and that its primary specialties, behavioral and outpatient surgery services, would be expanded over that time.

The move adds Beth Israel to a list of 19 other hospitals in the city that have either closed or overhauled how they operate since 2000, a reduction in services that has hit Lower Manhattan especially hard. The decision also reflects broader trends at a time when hospitals across the country are struggling financially.

Read More: 

Beth Israel Hospital Will Close Over the Next Four Years, Officials Say

By Noah Hurowitz

GRAMERCY — Mount Sinai Beth Israel hospital will close in stages over the next four years, shifting services to a network of facilities across Manhattan that will provide fewer than a quarter of the inpatient beds currently available at the hospital, according to a statement.

After weeks of rumors about its closure, Mount Sinai Health System announcedon Wednesday it plans to launch a new “Mount Sinai Downtown Network,” a system of smaller hospitals, ambulatory care and outpatient surgical facilities across Manhattan below 34th Street.

The hospital group released a statement touting a $500 million investment to bring the system to life, but avoided mentioning closure when referring to Beth Israel’s future, instead calling it a “transformation.”

Read More: 

Hillary Clinton Doubles Down on Email Scandal, Saying ‘It Was Allowed’


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doubled down on defending her email practices as Secretary of State, arguing that the use of a personal account was “allowed,” and rules have since been “clarified.”

“This report makes clear that personal email use was the practice for other secretaries of state,” Clinton told ABC News in an interview in Las Vegas, Nevada. “It was allowed. And the rules have been clarified since I left.”

Yesterday, a report released by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General said that Clinton shouldn’t have used a private email server to conduct official business and would have not been allowed to do so had she asked. It also found that she should have turned over emails after her tenure and violated department policy.

She has faced the issue for more than a year as she battles to become the Democratic nominee.

Clinton explained why she did not cooperate with State Department investigators, despite repeatedly saying she would talk to anyone, anytime about her emails.

“I have talked about this for many, many months,” she said. “I testified for 11 hours before theBenghazi committee. I have answered numerous questions. We have posted information on our website and the information that we had is out there. It’s been clearly public and my email use was widely known throughout the department, throughout the government, and I have provided all of my work related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public.”

Clinton has not been charged with a crime and her spokesman, Brian Fallon, said the former secretary’s email use was in line with former secretaries of state. He also said that political opponents were using the report in a misleading way.

“I’ve said many times, if I could go back, I would do it differently,” she told ABC News. “I know people have concerns about this.”

Read More: 

Imperious Brush-off of Email Rules

Exclusive: The State Department’s Inspector General issued a blunt report criticizing Hillary Clinton’s imperious refusal to follow email rules as Secretary of State, adding to Clinton’s credibility problem, notes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

State Department functionaries faced a hopeless task as they tried to spin their own Inspector General’s matter-of-fact critique of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s imperial attitude toward basic security measures everyone else is required by law to follow.

It turns out that she deliberately chose to use a hacker-friendly, unprotected email server, and not so much for convenience – unless you define “convenience” as the ability to operate in total secrecy with no possibility of being held accountable for your policies or behavior. In one email to an aide, Clinton explained, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

When some staffers had the temerity to voice concerns over the vulnerability of a non-governmental email system, they were warned by their seniors “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.” The IG report establishes that Clinton’s claim that her use of an insecure email system for official business had been “allowed” is, well, disingenuous.

Pity the State Department spokespeople tasked with putting the best face on the IG’s stark criticism. Media representatives actually posed some direct questions to those applying the cosmetics, who showed themselves far more guilty than Socrates in “trying to make the worst case the better.” At several points, I sensed them wishing some hemlock came in their job jar.

Read More: 

Game Over: EmailGate Just Crippled the Clinton Express

This isn’t a right-wing conspiracy—the FBI will unravel it all

By John R. Schindler

Running for president this year, after her abortive 2008 effort against Barack Obama, has not worked out quite as planned for Hillary Clinton. This was supposed to be her year, at long last. After enduring a quarter-century on the national stage—including tough years by the side of her gifted but scandal-prone husband—2016 finally lined up as Ms. Clinton’s best shot at moving back into the White House, this time with her in the Oval Office.

That outcome is looking less likely by the day. First, Hillary can’t manage to finish off Senator Bernie Sanders, despite his far-left politics that until recently resided quietly on the fringe of the Democratic party. They are fringe no more, and Bernie’s sincerity and authenticity offer an appealing contrast to the often awkward and stilted Ms. Clinton. This summer’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where Mr. Sanders will show up with legions of adoring fans who display a passion altogether lacking in the ranks of Team Clinton, promises to be quite a show—maybe even a madhouse.

Then there’s the troubling matter of EmailGate, the long-running scandal that this column has covered ingreat detail. That Ms. Clinton and her senior staff misused email during her tenure as secretary of state has long been crystal-clear. Refusing to use government email for government work was a violation of policy, while Team Clinton’s routing of said emails through a private server, then putting classified information on it—including above top secret information from the Intelligence Community—looks like a violation of several federal laws.

Read More: 

Corruption Is Catching Up to the Clintons and Their Associates

It comes as no surprise that Hillary Clinton’s closest allies are involved in a litany of ethics violations

By Michael Sainato

Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign chair, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, is currently under investigation by the FBI and Department of Justice over questionable contributions to his 2013 campaign. According to a recent CNN report, the investigation—which has been going on for at least a year—calls into question Mr. McAuliffe’s service as a board member to the Clinton Global Initiative, a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation. A $120,000 donation from a Chinese businessman, Wang Wenliang, made through U.S.-based businesses, raised red flags with investigators—along with several other donations, like the $2 million he gave the Clinton Foundation.

Governor McAuliffe is just one of several close associates to the Clintons currently under investigation for corruption. Ms. Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is under immense pressure to resign thanks to her favoritism for Ms. Clinton throughout the Democratic primaries. Ms. Wasserman Schultz essentially tipped the scale against Senator Bernie Sanders, a violation of the impartiality her position at the DNC demands. Prominent Clinton supporter and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is also under review as part of an ongoing federal investigation into two businessmen with close ties to the mayor. The Podesta Group, implicated in the release of the Panama Papers, was founded by Tony Podesta and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta. Several other prominent donors to the Clinton Foundation have also been linked to the Panama Papers, and the Clinton Foundation itself has been frequently cited as a source of money laundering and exchanging political favors for large donations.

It comes as no surprise that Hillary Clinton’s closest associates are involved in a litany of ethics violations as corruption has been the modus operandi of Ms. Clinton’s campaign for the entire duration of the primaries. Hillary Clinton has publicly vocalized support for campaign finance reform, yet owes much of her success in the primaries to the current corrupt system, which enables her to fundraise unethically, bending and possibly breaking current campaign finance laws. The Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, was recently revealed by Politico to be laundering money to the Clinton campaign to circumvent campaign finance laws. Mr. Sanders’ campaign has also highlighted additional violations and ethical breaches made by the Hillary Victory Fund.

Read More: 

Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf

“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD

About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!

Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts


Need a bigger font size?

Sponsored Links

  • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.