[ABC] Almost three months after the FBI declined to recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email account while serving as secretary of state, Donald Trump on Thursday suggested that the Democratic candidate for president "probably" received "immunity" in the case.
Trump provided no specific evidence for his assertion, and ABC News has found no information to corroborate it.
Trump leveled the claim at a campaign rally in New Hampshire while referring to testimony given Wednesday by FBI Director James Comey to the House Judiciary Committee about the bureau's investigation of Clinton.
After first decrying the immunity deals given to some of Clinton’s associates, the Republican nominee turned to Clinton herself.
"They probably gave her immunity, too," Trump said. "Do you think Hillary got-- yeah she got the immunity. She had something."
#3
"Suggests?" She has basically received a pardon because she and her minions have built a legal firewall around her via the 5th and immunity agreements. FBI dismissed an airtight case. Damned crooked lawyers and politicians.
[DAWN] ISOLATION is a word bandied about all too easily when it comes to discussing Pakistain’s place in the international community. In this century alone, seemingly every other year there has been alarmist rhetoric, by external rivals and internal political neophytes that Pakistain is on the verge of global isolation. Indeed, isolation and its more draconian cousin, containment, are issues that no country with a modicum of international trade linkages and an interest in being part of the modern world should ever take lightly. No country should want to be in the situation that, for example, North Korea is in, notwithstanding the ties that country has had to Pakistain over the years.
Such good, nuclear friends they are.
Yet, hyperbole and overwrought commentary aside, there are clearly problems that Pakistain has to contend with on the external front.
The call by Sri Lanka to postpone the Saarc summit may have been a mere formality given the earlier withdrawals, but the very fact that the Sri Lankan government felt it necessary to state that the "prevailing environment in the region is not conducive" to holding the summit is telling. Moreover, the condemnation by Sri Lanka of "terrorism in all its forms and manifestations" should not go unnoticed. A change of government in Sri Lanka in January 2015 installed an India-leaning administration in that country, but Pakistain-Sri Lanka ties are decades old and military and diplomatic cooperation have historically been reliable. With Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and, of course, India already having declined to attend the November summit in Islamabad, five of seven countries in Pakistain’s immediate neighbourhood are unwilling to attend a symbolic conference in the nation’s capital. Surely, that must call for some serious debate -- a debate that goes beyond passionate denunciations of Indian machinations.
Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Khurshid Shah has already made a sensible call for a joint session of parliament to discuss tensions with India and such a session can easily be expanded to discussing the overall regional security and diplomatic environment. Admittedly, joint sessions have not yielded substantive policy inputs in recent years, but they have become a symbol of democratic counsel, and command the attention of policymakers and sections of the public. If opposition politicians can resist grandstanding and unnecessary political attacks and the government can demonstrate a genuine interest in parliamentary debate, a joint session could help at least frame a debate about Pakistain’s foreign policy and national security policies more effectively.
Lots of ifs and conditionals there, not one of which will be answered in the affirmative as events proceed.
By any rational measure, Pakistain is far from isolated internationally. Yet, it is undeniable that countries with which Pakistain has had long-standing relationships -- relationships that are worth protecting and nurturing -- are increasingly uneasy with this country’s perceived policies.
Not to mention its actual actions.
To the extent that Pakistain has legitimate interests to protect, it must do so robustly and without fear of outside opinion. Surely, however, more effective diplomacy is called for.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/02/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] FRUSTRATED by Pakistain’s refusal to bow to Indian diktat, encouraged by its strategic partnership with the US, alarmed by the renewed revolt in India-held Jammu and Kashmire and humiliated by the killing of 18 Indian soldiers in Uri, Narendra Modi is on the path of war against Pakistain. He has vowed to "isolate" Pakistain, support Baloch separatists, dam Pakistain’s rivers and conduct "surgical strikes" against Pakistain. Pakistain must assess these threats objectively. Its response should be characterised by resolve, responsibility and reciprocity.
New Delhi’s confrontational course reflects the ideological nostrums of the BJP-RSS cohort and the presumption that America will endorse Indian intimidation of Pakistain. The US no doubt would welcome a degree of Indian pressure on Pakistain to promote its own objectives, especially Pak action against the Haqqani ’network’ operating in Afghanistan. To please India, it is also asking Pakistain to suppress pro-Kashmiri groups (LeT and JeM).
But Washington is not likely, at this time, to declare Pakistain a "state sponsor of terrorism". The resolution moved in the Congress by two politicians is unlikely to be adopted much less endorsed by the current US administration. Declaring Pakistain a terrorism sponsor would hurt Pakistain, but would also lead to termination of all Pak-US cooperation, with dire consequences for peace in Afghanistan and South Asia. In any case, America is not the world. Isolating Pakistain will be a challenging, ultimately fruitless endeavour for India.
China is a neighbour of both Pakistain and India and Pakistain’s strategic partner. In a conflict, China’s posture would be more relevant than America’s. Beijing has advised both Pakistain and India to open dialogue and exercise restraint. But it’s obvious which one needs to be restrained at present. Indian aggression against Pakistain will evoke a strong Chinese response.
The third major power, Russia, which has considerable regional influence, is no longer India’s all-weather ally, given Modi’s rush to jump into America’s strategic lap. Significantly, even as India’s anti-Pakistain rhetoric has been ramped up after Uri, the first joint Pakistain-Russian military exercises have gone ahead -- that too in Gilgit-Baltistan, to which India lays claim.
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have bowed to Indian pressure and joined its decision not to attend the Saarc summit (which Pakistain should have itself cancelled in response to Modi’s threats). Their powerlessness illustrates how Pakistain’s national independence would be compromised were it to succumb to Indian hegemony. It validates the wisdom of our founding fathers in creating Pakistain and of our leaders in securing an effective conventional and nuclear capability to neutralise India’s ability to coerce Pakistain.
Afghanistan’s current alignment with India is strategically more significant. Partly, it is the result of Pakistain’s over-promise and under-delivery of a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban; partly, it is a reflection of the US attempt to use India to displace the influence of Pakistain and China in Afghanistan. But India’s presence in Afghanistan, like that of the US, is vulnerable to the hostility of Afghan myrmidons. And, if Afghan territory continues to be utilised, especially by India, for terrorism and subversion against Pakistain, the latter has options for direct action to counter this. Pakistain has considerable space, now and in future, to reverse Kabul ...the capital of Afghanistan. Home to continuous fighting from 1992 to 1996 between the forces of would-be strongman and Pak ISI/Jamaat-e-Islami sock puppet Gulbuddin Hekmayar and the Northern Alliance, a period which won Hek the title Most Evil Man in the World and didn't do much for the reputations of the Northern Alliance guys either.... ’s hostility through incentives and disincentives.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/02/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[LI] We wrote recently how BDS is a settler-colonial ideology, in that it invades, conquers, and subjugates other movements to advance anti-Israel actIvism.
There are few instances where this is more apparent than Dream Defenders, one of the key groups in the Black Lives Matter movement.
Dream Defenders was initially formed to protest "Stand Your Ground" laws in Florida, in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
Yet, following the pattern of many organizations who organize under the ideology of "intersectionality", Dream Defenders has transformed itself from an organization fighting for a change in the criminal laws of the state of Florida, into one which is identified with the bizarre attempt to link Black Lives Matter to the Palestinian cause. The struggle to protect young black men in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. from allegedly unlawful police violence apparently also involves "liberating" Palestine, i.e. the destruction of the state of Israel and bizarre crushes on terrorist organizations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
How? Why? What is the connection? Everything's connected, say advocates of intersectionality.
#1
These frikkiin' group. It's now just one of many Soros groups. They provided the blue print for BLM, but could not properly capitalize on the Trayvon Skittles fiasco. However they did establish the practice of sending members to Israel to train in anti police tactics with Paleo activists.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/02/2016 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
North Korea
[DAWN] FRUSTRATED by Pakistain’s refusal to bow to Indian diktat, encouraged by its strategic partnership with the US, alarmed by the renewed revolt in India-held Jammu and 
[LI] We wrote recently how BDS is a settler-colonial ideology, in that it invades, conquers, and subjugates other movements to advance anti-Israel actIvism.
