Boom: Actor Isaiah Washington Dunks All Over Susan Rice on Impeachment

Posted at 4:30 pm on January 31, 2020 by Nick Arama

RedState logo.png

One of my personal favorites (as in love to call out for their nonsense favorites) from the Obama administration is former national security adviser Susan Rice.

She earned my eternal ire when she went on the Sunday shows on September 16, 2012, after the attack on the mission in Benghazi and spun the fiction about it being all about an “internet video.”

I distinctly still recall how she threw the Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf under the bus on “Face the Nation.” He had just said the attack was obviously preplanned by al-Qaeda and they had some folks in custody. Then Rice came next on the show and laid out the talking point that they didn’t know and it was about an internet video. It was ridiculous and shameful, to help protect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

She really should have taken her ball and gone home, never showing her face again after that.

Obama Administration and “Lock her up”Clinton rolled out this lying scum to tell the narrative of why and who was responsible for the killing of Ambassador Stevens and three other brave men on that fateful day of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi Libya. We know the truth, others know the truth. But Hillary Clinton says, “what difference does it make.”

In Context: Hillary Clinton’s ‘What difference does it make’ comment

By Tom Kertscher on Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.

Then-Secretary of State and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., greeted each other prior to a Senate committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013 in this Reuters photo.
Then-Secretary of State and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., greeted each other prior to a Senate committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013 in this Reuters photo.

If the buildup doesn’t disappoint, you can expect plenty of news out of the U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8, 2013.

The panel will review how President Barack Obama’s administration — including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — handled the Sept. 11, 2012 bombing at the U.S. consulate in Benghzai, Libya.

The attack killed four Americans — and set off administration critics such as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

A few days before the hearing, it was disclosed that a top U.S. diplomat had said “everyone” at the consulate thought “from the beginning” that the attack was an act of terror.

And even before that, Johnson had reminded citizens at least twice of what Clinton told him about the attack during a Senate committee hearing in January 2013.

“Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton said. “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

So that was the punch-line quote. But what was the context?

With Benghazi back in the news and renewed attention being paid to Clinton’s comment, we thought this would be a good time for In Context, an occasional feature that gives context to statements that get widespread notice.

Based on a C-SPAN video of their six-minute exchange, here is a transcript of what Johnson and Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013:

Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I’d like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.

Ad Choices

Sponsored Content

You could start your day with savings

By Progressive

Clinton: Thank you.

Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time — and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time — were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?

Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.

Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on — I believe it was August 12th — specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?

Clinton: No, sir.

Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to — or have you ever spoken to — the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends —

Johnson: Approximately?

Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.

Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?

Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli — which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?

Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured — getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not — I think this is accurate, sir — I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the —

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown —

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.


The Benghazi Timeline, Clinton Edition

By Eugene Kiely

Posted on June 30, 2016 | Corrected on August 14, 2018

We still get questions about whether the Obama administration misled the public when it initially claimed that the Benghazi attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video on the internet.

We refer readers to our article “Benghazi Timeline,” which was originally published Oct. 26, 2012, but it has been updated numerous times as an independent report and multiple congressional reports have been issued — most recently on June 28 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

We stand by what we wrote in that article: that the administration was quick to blame the video, which did trigger protests in Egypt and elsewhere, and slow to acknowledge the incident was a terrorist attack. Republicans say this was done by administration officials to help get Obama reelected, while Democrats — including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — have blamed the initial response on the “fog of war.” We leave that up to you to decide.

It is Clinton who is now running for president, and the focus has been on her statements in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attacks — rather than on Obama, who won his reelection. As part of the House Benghazi committee report, Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo issued an addendum with their views. In it, they blame Clinton for being among those who misled the public “rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election.”

In the minority report released June 27, the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi said that “it remains unclear to this day precisely what motivated all of the individuals in Benghazi on the night of the attacks.” The report quoted former CIA Director David Petraeus as saying, “I’m still not absolutely certain what absolutely took place … and to be candid with you, I am not sure that the amount of scrutiny spent on this has been in the least bit worth it.”

Now that the last of the Benghazi reports have been issued, we look at some key public and private statements made by Clinton and others in her department following the attacks, which resulted in the loss of four Americans — including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

Sept. 11, 2012: Two Responses

In her first public statement, the secretary of state referred to the video, but made no mention of terrorists or a terrorist attack. An hour later, she sent an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that made no reference to the video, and blamed “an al Qaeda-like group.” (The State Department’s Operations Center earlier that night sent an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts — a fact that was not made public until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24, 2012.)

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)

Clarification, July 1, 2016: We updated this article to clarify Clinton’s first public statement on the Benghazi attacks. We originally wrote, “In her first public statement, the secretary of state referred to the attack as being in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” As the entry for that date makes clear, she said, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Sept. 12, 2012: ‘Nothing to Do with the Film’

Clinton issued a statement, which made no mention of the anti-Muslim video, and she delivered a speech, which did. Neither referred to a terrorist attack.

Privately, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff wrote an email that said “we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos,’” and Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister that the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.

Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She calls the incident a “violent attack.”

Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.

Sept. 12: Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, sends an email prior to Obama’s Rose Garden address to Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for strategic communications at the White House, and others that says, “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’”

Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee.

Sept. 13, 2012: Libyan Ambassador Apologizes for ‘Terrorist Attack’

Clinton referred to the video in separate remarks while welcoming leaders of Libya and Morocco, while CNN quoted an unnamed State Department official who described the assault as a “clearly planned military-type attack.”

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Clinton: Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.

Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland is asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declines to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”

Nuland: Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions.

That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating. As the Secretary said this morning, while we as Americans, of course, respect free speech, respect free expression, there’s never an excuse for it to become violent.

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemns what she calls the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered. She says, “Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”

Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

Sept. 14, 2012: Speaking at Andrews Air Force Base

On the same day that White House Press Secretary Carney denied reports that the assault on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a preplanned attack, Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base to accept remains of those killed. She did not call the assault a terrorist attack, although she quoted the president of the Palestinian Authority who called it an “an act of ugly terror.”

Sept. 14: A State Department public information official writes in an email: “[I]t is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists.” (The email was released Oct. 31, 2015, by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and was contained in the Benghazi committee report issued June 28, 2016. The name of the person who sent the email and the person or persons who received the email were redacted. However, the person who wrote the email is identified in the committee report as a “public information officer from the Embassy in Tripoli,” and the email says it reflects “our view at Embassy Tripoli.” It also says, “I have discussed this with [name redacted] and he shares PAS’s view.” PAS stands for Public Affairs Section.)

Sept. 14: Clinton speaks at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarks that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.

Clinton did mention the anti-Muslim video. “This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country,” she said. “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

Sept. 16-17, 2012: The Talking Points

Sept. 16: Susan Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.

Rice’s talking points were written by the CIA, but were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest.

Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments.

Sept. 18, 2012: Planned for Months?

On the same day that Obama said the Benghazi attackers used the video “as an excuse,” Clinton was asked whether the attack was planned.

Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with reporters and is asked if the Libyan president is “wrong” that “this attack was planned for months.” Clinton says, “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not say if the Libyan president is right or wrong.

Sept. 21, 2012: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Clinton referred to the Benghazi attacks as a “terrorist attack” on Sept. 21, 2012 — two days after Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, did so at a congressional hearing.

Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

Oct. 15, 2012: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blames the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton says. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

Correction, Aug. 14, 2018: Clinton mentioned the anti-Muslim video when she spoke at Andrews Air Force Base on Sept. 14, 2012. As a reader correctly pointed out, we mistakenly said that she did not. We’ve corrected our error and thank the reader for bringing this to our attention.


Tom Homan hits back at AOC for bashing ICE at Sanders rally: Her statements are ‘dangerous’ and ‘idiotic’

Talia Kaplan

By Talia Kaplan | Fox News

AOC bashes ICE at Sanders rally

Former Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Tom Homan said Sunday that U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made “dangerous” and “idiotic” statements regarding ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at a campaign rally for 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in Iowa.

“She’s disgusting,” Homan said on “Fox & Friends Weekend” on Sunday morning, reacting to Ocasio-Cortez’s comments the night before.

On Saturday, with Sanders, I-Vt., tied up in Washington at President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, Ocasio-Cortez addressed his supporters in Ames, Iowa, calling for the abolition of ICE and CBP.


The New York Democrat also urged Sanders’ supporters to start “tipping people off” if they see federal immigration authorities taking action against illegal immigrants in their communities.

“Organizing is about tipping people off if you start to see that ICE and CBP are in communities to try and keep people safe,” Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in Iowa on Saturday.Video

“I’m to not here to reform some of these systems when we talk about immigration. I’m here because Sen. Sanders has actually committed to breaking up ICE and CBP. That’s why I’m here.”

“I’m disgusted,” Homan said reacting to her statements. “She says you want to tip off the community to keep the community safe, that’s what ICE is doing.”

Homan then brought up statistics from 2018, pointing out that most of the illegal immigrants ICE agents arrested last year had criminal histories, which include homicide, rape or assault.

According to the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report for fiscal year 2018, 138,117 aliens with criminal histories, which include convicted criminal and pending criminal charges, were arrested.

“ICE Is keeping the community safe,” Homan said. “She [Ocasio-Cortez] stands up on stage — first of all, it’s an incredibly stupid statement she made, which doesn’t surprise me, because she’s about as far from smart as anybody could possibly be, but what she said is dangerous.”

“These men and women put their lives on the line every day to arrest criminals off the streets, especially in New York,” he continued.

“My last year as ICE director, we took 5,000 criminals off the streets of New York. These ICE agents [have done] more to protect the residents of New York than she ever has done or ever will do.”

He then went on to say her comments on Saturday night were “dangerous” and “idiotic,” adding that he “can’t believe she can stand up on stage and make a statement like that and not have any repercussions from the House Ethics Committee.”


“I mean, they’re trying to remove the president of the United States, a sitting president, at the same time she’s saying ICE shouldn’t remove criminal aliens,” Homan said. “They are saying the president is obstructing them. There’s nobody been obstructing more than Congress. They’ve been obstructing this president from Day One.”

He went on to say, “Standing on stage and telling people to give a heads up that the good guys are going to be arresting the bad guys, ICE is in your neighborhood, go run and hide. That’s obstruction. That’s a crime and she’s standing on stage doing that. She’s disgusting. Something needs to be done about it.”

When asked why he thinks ICE had become a targets for Democrats Homan answered, “Because they’re enforcing the law.”Video

President Trump, who in my opinion is the greatest president I ever worked for, he believes law enforcement should enforce the law. He believes you don’t reward law breakers, you reward them with a set of handcuffs. That’s the way it’s supposed to be,” Homan said.

“So they’re vilifying the men and women of ICE for simply doing their jobs, to run toward danger when everybody else is running away from danger.”

He went on to say, “AOC wouldn’t have the backbone to do the job they do. She doesn’t like what they do? Then change the law, but stop vilifying the men and women of ICE.”

“I buried ICE agents, I buried border patrol agents,” he continued. “Maybe she ought to see what it’s like to try to console a wife or a child of a fallen officer?”


Homan added, “It’s disgusting what she said.”

Fox News’ Nick Givas contributed to this report.


Hillary Clinton said in an interview over the weekend that Mark Zuckerberg’s embrace of misinformation on his Facebook platform was “authoritarian.”

Clinton also told The Atlantic that there’s a good reason to believe Zuckerberg’s Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”

The magazine reported interviewing Clinton at an event Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival hosted by its owner.

Clinton was quoted as being horrified and alarmed by what she views as Zuckerberg’s unwillingness to battle the spread of disinformation and propaganda on Facebook.


Hillary Clinton called Mark Zuckerman "authoritarian” in views on misinformation.

Hillary Clinton called Mark Zuckerman “authoritarian” in views on misinformation. (Reuters)

The former secretary of state pointed to a slowed-down video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that went viral, according to the magazine. The video made it appear Pelosi was slurring her words and was designed to make it appear she was cognitively impaired.

“Google took it off YouTube … so I contacted Facebook,” Clinton told the Atlantic. “I said, ‘Why are you guys keeping this up? This is blatantly false. Your competitors have taken it down.’ And their response was, ‘We think our users can make up their own minds.’”

The Atlantic then reported asking Clinton whether she saw as Trumpian Zuckerberg’s reasoning that Facebook users can decide for themselves what to believe.

Clinton said in response, “It’s Trumpian. It’s authoritarian.”


A Facebook spokesman told Fox News on Sunday it had no comment on Clinton’s remarks. The spokesman pointed to an October speech at Georgetown University in which Zuckerberg spoke about the importance of protecting free expression.

In her interview with the Atlantic, Clinton said allusions to Zuckerberg as a world leader were fitting.

“I feel like you’re negotiating with a foreign power sometimes,” she said of her conversations with Facebook top executives. “He’s immensely powerful,” she told me. “This is a global company that has huge influence in ways that we’re only beginning to understand.”

About 2020, Clinton was quoted as saying Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”

That unnerves her, the magazine reported.


Zuckerberg has been “somehow persuaded,” she told the magazine, “that it’s to his and Facebook’s advantage not to cross Trump. That’s what I believe. And it just gives me a pit in my stomach.”


Super Bowl Weekend is at hand. Super Tuesday and Super Wednesday are at hand. The impeachment process has gone up in flames. The Democrat orchestrated hoax has fallen on deaf ears. Mueller report down in flames, Kavanaugh take-out down in flames and now the Impeachment of the Greatest President of the past two hundred years has gone up in flames.

Three great places to be starting Sunday, the Super Bowl, the House Chamber on Tuesday and the Senate on Wednesday.

The Super Bowl pits Kansas City against San Francisco on Sunday in the great city of Miami. Tuesday, President Trump enters the lions den, but this time he is embraced by Christians and on Wednesday, the Senate votes to not “CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.”



Trump Middle East plan: Palestinians reject ‘conspiracy’

  • 29 January 2020

Related Topics

Media captionWhy Trump’s Middle East plan is so divisive

Palestinians have dismissed US President Donald Trump’s new Middle East peace plan as a “conspiracy”.

It envisages a Palestinian state and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Mr Trump said Jerusalem would remain Israel’s “undivided” capital, but the Palestinian capital would “include areas of East Jerusalem”.

Reacting to Tuesday’s announcement, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Jerusalem was “not for sale”.

“All our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain,” he added.

Media captionPalestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says the “conspiracy deal won’t pass”

Palestinians took to the streets on Wednesday as part of a “day of rage” called by political factions.

The Palestinian health ministry said three people were injured by live fire in clashes between protesters and Israeli security forces near Ramallah in the northern West Bank. They are in a stable condition.

Several people were also injured by rubber-coated bullets during a protest in the village of Abu Dis, in the eastern suburbs of Jerusalem, and one person was hit by a rubber bullet near Arroub camp in the southern West Bank, according to the Palestinian Wafa news agency.ADVERTISEMENT

Ads by Teads

Meanwhile, Israeli Tourism Minister Yariv Levin said a cabinet vote on whether to apply Israeli sovereignty to most Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the strategic Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea had been delayed for several days for technical and procedural reasons.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said the vote would take place on Sunday.

More than 600,000 Jews live in about 140 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

The Jordan Valley is a fertile strip of land running along the border with Jordan that makes up almost 30% of the West Bank. Palestinians say the valley would form an integral part of the land that they want for a future state.

Media captionWhy the ancient city of Jerusalem is so important

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Trump administration had simply “copied and pasted” the steps that Mr Netanyahu wanted to see implemented.

“It’s about annexation, it’s about apartheid,” he said. “Moving to the de jure annexation of settlements is something that was given the green light yesterday.”

Mr Trump’s blueprint for solving one of the world’s longest-running conflicts was drafted under the stewardship of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

What did Mr Abbas say?

Speaking on Tuesday, he said it was “impossible for any Palestinian, Arab, Muslim or Christian child to accept” a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital.

Media captionPresident Trump: “No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes”

“We say a thousand times, no, no, no,” he said. “We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct.”

The militant Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, also rejected the deal which it said aimed “to liquidate the Palestinian national project”.

And Mr Netanyahu?

The Israeli prime minister described Mr Trump’s plan as the “deal of the century”.

Media captionNetanyahu: Trump’s peace plan is “the deal of the century”

Israel “will not miss this opportunity”, Mr Netanyahu said.

“May God bless us all with security, prosperity and peace!” he added.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Mr Netanyahu said that over time the Palestinians would “see they’ll never get a better deal”.

How about international reaction?

A spokesman for United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said its positions had been defined by relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

“The United Nations remains committed to supporting Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict on the basis of United Nations resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements and realising the vision of two states – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 lines,” he added.

Palestinian protesters wave the national flag and a portrait of president Mahmud Abbas during a demonstration in the West Bank city of Ramallah on January 28, 2020
Image captionPalestinian protesters carried pictures of Mahmoud Abbas through the streets of Ramallah on Tuesday

Saudi Arabia and Egypt welcomed President Trump’s efforts and called on Israel and the Palestinians to resume negotiations.

Jordan said the only path to peace was to establish an independent Palestinian state, based on pre-1967 boundaries, while Turkey’s foreign ministry dismissed Mr Trump’s proposals as an “annexation plan” aimed, it said, at killing a two-state solution and stealing Palestinian land for money.

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab urged the Palestinians to give the plans “genuine and fair consideration and explore whether they might prove a first step on the road back to negotiations”.

What are Trump’s key proposals?

  • The US will recognise Israeli sovereignty over swathes of the West Bank, including Jewish settlements and much of the Jordan river valley
  • The move will “more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem”, where Mr Trump says the US will open an embassy. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) said the plan would give Palestinians control over 15% of what it called “historic Palestine”
  • Jerusalem “will remain Israel’s undivided capital”. The Palestinians insist East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state
  • “No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes” – suggesting that existing Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank will remain
  • Israel will work with Jordan to ensure the status quo governing the key holy site in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims is preserved. Jordan runs the religious trust that administers the site
  • Territory allocated to Palestinians in Mr Trump’s map “will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years”. During that time, Palestinians can study the deal, negotiate with Israel, and “achieve the criteria for statehood”
Map showing Donald Trump's plan for a State of Palestine

Mr Trump also indicated that the West Bank would not be cut in half under the plan.

“We will also work to create a contiguous territory within the future Palestinian state, for when the conditions for statehood are met, including the firm rejection of terrorism,” he said.

Grey line

Israeli and Palestinian media react

By BBC Monitoring

Palestinian media unequivocally condemned the plan. “No Palestinian will either accept it or agree to engage with it,” said Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadidah.

The Hamas-run Filastin online said: “There is no full half of the deal of century because the entire bottle is empty.”

Israeli opinion diverged along political lines with right-leaning media applauding the “historic move”. The pro-Netanyahu paper Yisrael Hayom said: “It would be a sin if we didn’t support it and immediately apply Israeli sovereignty to Israeli settlements.”

Other outlets had greater sympathy for the Palestinian cause and noted that however well Mr Netanyahu’s annexation plans played to his supporters in Israel’s upcoming general election, he would soon stand trial on charges of corruption.

“Netanyahu’s drama is inconceivable: on the day he gets a green light to realise his wet dream, to annex as he wishes… a harsh indictment is filed,” said one commentator in the liberal newspaper Haaretz. “He will not escape his fate.”

Grey line

What’s the background?

Media captionIs Palestinian-Israel peace plan out of reach?

The Palestinians broke off contacts with the Trump administration in December 2017, after Mr Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US embassy to the city from Tel Aviv.

Since then, the US has ended both bilateral aid for Palestinians and contributions for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

In November, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US had abandoned its four-decades-old position that Jewish settlements in the West Bank were inconsistent with international law.

What are the issues at stake?

Of all the conflicts in the Middle East, that between Israel and the Palestinians has been the most intractable. Although the two sides signed a peace accord in 1993, more than a quarter of a century on they are arguably as far apart as ever.

Jerusalem: Both Israel and the Palestinians hold competing claims to the city. Israel, which occupied the formerly Jordanian-held eastern part in 1967, regards the whole of Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinians insist on East Jerusalem – home to about 350,000 of their community – as their future capital

Palestinian statehood: The Palestinians want an independent state of their own, comprising the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Israeli prime ministers have publicly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel – but not what form it should take. Benjamin Netanyahu has said any Palestinian state should be demilitarised with the powers to govern itself but not to threaten Israel.

Recognition: Israel insists that any peace deal must include Palestinian recognition of it as the “nation-state of the Jewish people”, arguing that without this Palestinians will continue to press their own national claims to the land, causing the conflict to endure. The Palestinians say what Israel calls itself is its own business, but to recognise it as the Jewish state will discriminate against Israel’s Arab population of Palestinian origin, who are Muslims, Christians and Druze.

Borders: Both sides have fundamentally different ideas as to where the boundaries of a potential Palestinian state should be. The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967. Israel says those lines are militarily indefensible and were never intended to be permanent. It has not said where borders should be, other than making clear its own eastern border should be along the Jordan River.

Settlements: Since 1967, Israel has built about 140 settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 121 outposts – settlements built without the government’s authorisation. Settlements are considered illegal by most of the international community, though Israel disputes this. Palestinians say all settlements must be removed for a Palestinian state to be viable. Mr Netanyahu has vowed not only to never to uproot any settlements but to bring them under Israeli sovereignty.

Refugees: The UN says its agencies support about 5.5 million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East (the Palestinian Authority says there are up to 6 million), including the descendants of people who fled or were expelled by Jewish forces from what became Israel in the 1948-49 war. Palestinians insist on their right to return to their former homes, but Israel says they are not entitled to, noting that such a move would overwhelm it demographically and lead to its end as a Jewish state.



At one time the Christians were berated as fools – believers of a foreign God bent on secret rituals. Paganism still ruled the land of Caesar. Anti-Christian policies in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries until the year 313AD when the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius jointly promulgated the Edict of Milan which legalised the Christian religion. The persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was carried out by the state and also by local authorities on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, often at the whims of local communities. Starting in 250, empire-wide persecution took place by decree of the emperor Decius. The edict was in force for eighteen months, during which time some Christians were killed while others betrayed their faith to escape execution.

The Torches of Nero, by Henryk Siemiradzki. According to Tacitus, Nero used Christians as human torches.

But what goes around usually comes around. The Christians of yesterday are the Jews of today. They have been ostracized for millennia for their faith. At last count there were only 12 million who believed in Judaism. However, small their lot they continue to be blamed for the world’s problems. Let it be said that the Holy Bible is well documented. It records biblical history in minute detail, spelling out who occupied the Holy Land from time immemorial till 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and ran the remaining Jews out of the country.

Image result for ancient israel map

However, there were always Jews living there surreptitiously. And History records Judah and Israel as the map shows. Click here for more maps of ancient Israel. It is very important to mention that when the Ottoman Turks controlled the Levant (Palestine – in actuality Israel and Judah) there was never a cry by the Muslim population for statehood. It wasn’t until the Jews pressed for their right did the pseudo Palestinians demand blood.THE QUR’AN SAYS THAT ALLAH GAVE THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWS


“To Moses We [Allah] gave nine clear signs. Ask the Israelites how he [Moses] first appeared amongst them. Pharoah said to him: ‘Moses, I can see that you are bewitched.’ ‘You know full well,’ he [Moses] replied, ‘that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has revealed these visible signs. Pharoah, you are doomed.’”

“Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: ‘Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel].”

“We [Allah] have revealed the Qur’an with the truth, and with the truth it has come down. We have sent you [Muhammed] forth only to proclaim good news and to give warning.”

[Qur’an, “Night Journey,” chapter 17:100-104]

I trace the origin of today’s war against the west to the post World War I period, 1918-1921. This was a time when new sovereign nations were emerging in Europe and the winds of freedom and hope were sweeping across a Middle East that had been suppressed for centuries by the recently defunct Ottoman Turkish Empire.

In those heady years, many Arabs and Muslims reverently hoped that new and modern sovereign Arab nations would develop alongside a Jewish State existing in the ancestral homeland promised to the Jews by the almighty in a Torah that was, and is, considered to be divine by Muslims and Christians as well as by Jews.

In fact, like the Christian New Testament, the Koran, the holy book of Islam, recognizes Israel as a Jewish State in the following passages:

…. “the words of Moses to his people. He said: “Remember, my people, the favors, which Allah has bestowed upon you…. Enter, my people, the holy land which Allah has assigned for you.” (Sura V) …. “When the promise of the hereafter cometh to pass (at Judgment Day) we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.” (Sura XVII: 104)

CLICK HERE for more information on the 1919 peace agreement. 

When the British took over the land of Israel, suddenly the dream of a homeland for the Jews became a real possibility as opposed to a fervent hope.

By this time, there were between 85,000 to 100,000 Jews living in the Land of Israel, of a total population of 600,000. (See History of the Jews by Paul Johnson, p. 430.) Most of the Arabs living in the land had migrated there only in the previous thirty years attracted by the jobs created by the Jews who were building and farming. (Note that when Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there.

To capture the essence of the conflict the Jews don’t have use hyperbole to validate their point. The facts going back five thousand years are well documented and support the Israeli position. This does not sit well with the Arabs who in most case fail to accept history.

Bluntly stated the Jewsish Democrats who got succered in backing Obama for the past eight years, they no who they are, must be defeated in their reelection bids.

If these Jews were Catholic, there is no doubt they would be asking the Priest for absolution, for they COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN AGAINST ISRAEL AND GOD.



pencil-neck (plural pencil-necks)

  1. (informal) A person with a very thin neck.
  2. (idiomaticUSderogatory) An insubstantial person; a weakling.

pencil neck – Urban Dictionary

Someone who either: 1. Has a neck as thin as a pencil. Is used as an insult on anyone though. 2. Is a pussy. You know, lack’s bravery, courage and shit. › politics › 2019/03/29
Trump and GOP target ‘pencil-neck’ Adam Schiff as their post …

Mar 29, 2019 – Moments after taking the stage at a Michigan campaign rally Thursday night, Trump mocked the California lawmaker as “little pencilneck Adam … CLICK HERE FOR THE GUTS

Presidents are held to a higher standard; when it comes to representing the honorable position of Commander in Chief Americans expect them to represent the country in a formal manner. However, President Trump has gone outside the box. This is no fault of his own. From day one he has been attacked, lambasted, berated, insulted and called an idiot.

With an onslaught of criticisms and debasements it is only appropriate you fight back, fight back hard and fight back harder. For the Democrats to go the low road of impeachment is an act of weakness, a cowardly act, one that is based on the moral turpitude of the accuser. In this case all Democrats deserve to be called out, for they are the enemy.

The perpetrators of this impeachment hoax are Adam “Pencil Neck” Schiff, Nancy “Crazy” Pelosi and Jerry “Fat” Nadler. Of course, we as Americans, find it unacceptable for the President to leap to the low road. But in this instance, PAINTING LABELS ON THE OPPOSITION IS NECESSARY. They must be outed for what they are. Tags are the best way to do this and Americans are, in this special case, find it acceptable.