Will Bill Clinton’s Past Doom Hillary’s Future?

Gawker has obtained flight logbooks for disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane, the “Lolita Express.” They disclose what appears to be a close relationship between Epstein and Bill Clinton:

Bill Clinton took repeated trips on the “Lolita Express”—the private passenger jet owned by billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—with an actress in softcore porn movies whose name appears in Epstein’s address book under an entry for “massages,” according to flight logbooks obtained by Gawker and published today for the first time. The logs also show that Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a “potential co-conspirator” in his crimes. …

Clinton shared Epstein’s plane with Kellen and Maxwell on at least 11 flights in 2002 and 2003—before any of the allegations against them became public—according to the pilots’ logbooks, which have surfaced in civil litigation surrounding Epstein’s crimes. In January 2002, for instance, Clinton, his aide Doug Band, and Clinton’s Secret Service detail are listed on a flight from Japan to Hong Kong with Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and two women described only as “Janice” and “Jessica.” One month later, records show, Clinton hopped a ride from Miami to Westchester on a flight that also included Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman described only as “one female.”

In 2002, as New York has reported, Clinton recruited Epstein to make his plane available for a week-long anti-poverty and anti-AIDS tour of Africa with Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, billionaire creep Ron Burkle, Clinton confidant Gayle Smith (who now serves on Barack Obama’s National Security Council), and others. The logs from that trip show that Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman named Chauntae Davis joined the entourage for five days.

Chauntae Davis has this remarkable connection, which presumably is either a coincidence or an inside joke:

That last name—Chauntae Davies—shows up elsewhere in papers unearthed by the various investigations into Epstein’s sex ring: his little black book. Davies is one of 27 women listed in the book under an entry for “Massage- California,” one of six lists of massage girls Epstein kept in various locales, with a total of 160 names around the globe, many of them underage victims.

Today, Davies is an actress with credits including HBO’s Enlightened. In 2002, she was 23. According to her IMDB profile, in addition to her apparent massage work for Epstein, she landed a role that year as a “lingerie model” in Exposed, a movie produced by a softcore porn company called MRG Entertainment. … Exposed, appropriately enough, was directed by a pseudonymous auteur who went by the name of Clinton J. Williams.)

Will the Clintons be able to dodge questions about Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein? Time will tell, but what has come out so far seems irresistible, not just to tabloids but to the average voter. Bill will plead innocent, and the Clinton camp can take comfort from the fact that the most public of Epstein’s 30 or so underage girlfriends has said that she met Clinton several times, but never slept with him. But that leaves a lot of shoes that potentially could drop, not to mention a close and extraordinarily sleazy–to put the most favorable construction on it–association. Nor will many voters be willing to presume innocence in Clinton’s case.

An association with Epstein would be damaging to any candidate, but especially so for Hillary Clinton, who has always been overshadowed by her husband. The idea of restoring America to the relatively-golden era of the 1990s, however remote that prospect may be, is a big part of Hillary’s appeal. Independent of Bill, Hillary’s accomplishments are marginal. Her own campaign autobiography barely mentions her undistinguished tenure in the Senate. (She ran for a safe seat while she was First Lady, which it is hard to imagine anyone but a Clinton doing.) As for her time as Secretary of State, no one remembers anything about it except for the failed Russian “reset” and Benghazi.

That leaves her time as First Lady, which is her real claim to fame. But until now, no one has ever thought that being First Lady was a qualification for the presidency. You’ll notice that the Republicans aren’t touting Laura Bush as a candidate. The bottom line is that if Bill is tarnished, Hillary is tarnished too. Given his history, it may not take a lot more news about the Epstein connection to make voters queasy about putting Bill Clinton back in the White House.

Chewing Their CUDS

Of all the serial derangements of the left, the one that is most out of proportion is the fanaticism about the Citizens United decision.  I call it “Citizens United Derangement Syndrome,” or CUDS.  This week as you know we saw the nearly unprecedented disruption of the Supreme Court by a handful of losers protesting Citizens United.  I’m betting not a one of them has actually read the opinion, or indeed any of the body of law that has grown up around the subject over the last several decades.

Orin Kerr of George Washington University Law School, one of Eugene Volokh’s merry pranksters on the Volokh Conspiracy (now housed at the Washington Post) offers up some legally accurate helpful protest slogans for the CUDS-chewers.  These are my favorites:

“What do we want? Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. When do we want it? Now!”

“No prohibition on corporate independent expenditures, no peace!”

“Hey, hey, AMK, how many disclosure requirements did you leave still today?”

Heh.  The CUDS-chewers are even bigger losers than the climatistas.

The Ultimate Climatista Farce

If the Olympics ever make Shark-Jumping an official sport, the climatistas will dominate the medals.

It seems the desperate climatistas are really getting serious now: they’re going to hold a “Live Earth” rock concert!  Whoa—the planet is surely saved now!  Well, okay, so this is reported in Rolling Stone, which means it has less than a 50/50 chance of being accurate. But let’s give them the doubt of the benefit.

If they were to practice what they preach and power the event by solar panels, windmills, and unicorn flop sweat, they’d have to call it “Live Earth, Dead Air.”  Did I say “practice what they preach”? When you stop laughing, take in that the event was announced by Al Gore (enough said) at the World Economic Forum currently under way in Davos, where a reported 1,700 private jets flew in the attendees to discuss . . . climate change. And joining Gore at the announcement was Mr. Happy himself, Pharrell Williams, who generates his own personal carbon footprint the size of several African nations in this jet (not to mention his yachts and fleet of luxury cars):

Pharrel Williams Private Plane copy

There’s an interesting tidbit at the bottom of the story.  It says that 8 million people watched the 2007 Live Earth concert live-streamed on the Internet.  This was the most energy intensive way possible to have watched the event—much more than on regular TV.  Anyone who watches streaming video is connected to an energy use chain (when you factor in all the servers and wireless signal power needs for smartphones and tablets) that is the equivalent of running a refrigerator for the same amount of time.

I didn’t see Neil Young in the lineup, which is too bad, since he offers us this new tune, “Who’s Gonna Stand Up?”  (Again, don’t watch this with a mouthful of coffee and near a keyboard.  Power Line is not responsible for damages.)

Don’t Let It Bring You Down, indeed.

I think we need Dana Carvey to come out of retirement to reprise “Every Neil Young song you’ve ever heard.”  (Scroll ahead to the 3:20 mark on this video and you’ll see what I mean, though the whole thing is pretty funny.)

Churchill’s Death, 50 Years On

This weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the passing of Winston Churchill. The most moving account of the scene comes from the Hungarian-born historian John Lukacs, who traveled from the U.S. to London to attend. It was originally published in The American Spectator years ago (but seemingly unavailable online) and then subsequently included in his fine book, Churchill: Visionary, Statesman, Historian.

The Los Angeles Times, of all publications, noted this anniversary last week at some length, calling him “the greatest Briton,” but mostly dwelling on today’s Churchill-related tourist attractions.

A more substantive reflection comes from historian Andrew Roberts, writing last week in The Telegraph that Churchill’s death was “the day the empire died.”

Yet it did seem a historically significant moment, coming at a time when the Labour government was considering withdrawing all troops from east of Suez and so closing down the last remnants on the British Empire. “Now Britain is no longer a great power,” said Charles de Gaulle when he heard the news.

Many commentators in the British press agreed with him, and saw in the ceremony at St Paul’s the end of the era of British greatness. With the uninspiring Harold Wilson in Downing Street – about as un-Churchillian a figure imaginable – wrestling with recurrent economic problems that were soon to force the government into a humiliating devaluation of sterling, it was natural to fit Churchill’s death into an overall narrative of decline and malaise.

“The day of giants is gone for ever,” the historian Sir Arthur Bryant wrote in the Illustrated London News. Churchill’s own detective agreed, saying: “If the king dies you can say ‘Long live the king’, but now Sir Winston’s gone, who is there? There’s no one of his stature left.” A L Rowse, the Oxford don, was equally pessimistic, writing: “The sun is going down on the British Empire.”

The whole article is very much worth reading. A recollection wouldn’t be complete, however, without a highlight reel. This seven-minute clip culminates with the cranes of the docks bowing to the barge carrying Churchill’s body up the Thames—an extraordinary gesture, Lukacs thought, from a unionized industry that generally opposed Churchill.

Who killed Alberto Nisman? part 2

The news related to the death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman this past Sunday is arriving in torrent. Nisman was killed under suspicious circumstances on the eve of the explosive testimony he was to give regarding his government’s complicity with Iran to suppress the investigation of the 1994 Jewish community center bombing; the suspicious circumstances include the staging of his death as an apparent suicide.

The New York Times reports that Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, against whom Nisman was to testify, has modified her position on the cause of Nisman’s death:

Confronted with a deepening scandal, the president of Argentina abruptly reversed herself on Thursday, saying that the death of the lead prosecutor investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center was not a suicide as she and other government officials had suggested.

Instead, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner suggested that the prosecutor’s death was part of what she hinted was a sinister plot to defame and destroy her.

The president’s change of position added a major new twist to the suspicious death of the prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, whose body was found in his luxury apartment in Buenos Aires late Sunday with a fatal gunshot wound to the head.

* * * * *

After Mrs. Kirchner’s suggestion that his death appeared to be a suicide, her new explanation on Thursday was contained in a letter posted on her website, saying that Mr. Nisman had been manipulated by others to smear her.

“They used him while he was alive and then they needed him dead,” Mrs. Kirchner wrote in the letter, which she subtitled, in part, “The suicide (that I am convinced) was not suicide.”

The president offered no clear explanation or evidence as to who might have been responsible.

According to Kirchner, Nisman’s death was all about her. I take that as a sign that the evidence will take the cause of Nisman’s death in a direction away from suicide. The rest of the Times story notes that the suspicious circumstances continue to proliferate.

In a separate story, the Times provides a glimpse of what Nisman had on his mind at the time of his death:

Intercepted conversations between representatives of the Iranian and Argentine governments point to a long pattern of secret negotiations to reach a deal in which Argentina would receive oil in exchange for shielding Iranian officials from charges that they orchestrated the bombing of a Jewish community center in 1994.

The transcripts were made public by an Argentine judge on Tuesday night, as part of a 289-page criminal complaint written by Alberto Nisman, the special prosecutor investigating the attack. Mr. Nisman was found dead in his luxury apartment on Sunday, the night before he was to present his findings to Congress.

But the intercepted telephone conversations he described before his death outline an elaborate effort to reward Argentina for shipping food to Iran — and for seeking to derail the investigation into a terrorist attack in the Argentine capital that killed 85 people.

Argentine prosecutors suspect Iran of shielding guilty parties in the bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

The deal never materialized, the complaint says, in part because Argentine officials failed to persuade Interpol to lift the arrest warrants against Iranian officials wanted in Argentina in connection with the attack.

The phone conversations are believed to have been intercepted by Argentine intelligence officials. If proved accurate, the transcripts would show a concerted effort by representatives of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s government to shift suspicions away from Iran in order to gain access to Iranian markets and to ease Argentina’s energy troubles.

Suffice it to say that the Nisman case isn’t going away any time soon and we will do our best to keep up with it.

What Blinken said

We took a brief look at the comments made by Senator Robert Menendez at the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee hearing earlier this week here. The witnesses before the committee were Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Under Secretary David Cohen.

The committee hearing addressed the issued related to our negotiations with Iran over its illicit nuclear program. C-SPAN has posted the nearly three-hour hearing in its entirety here. I’m going to have to watch it.

In the meantime, Jeff Dunetz takes a slightly more expansive look at Menendez’s exchange with Blinken and posts this illuminating exchange:

Menendez: So let me ask you this, isn’t it true that even the deal that you are striving towards –is not to eliminate any Iranian breakout capability, but to constrain the time in which you’ll get the notice of such breakout capability. Is that a fair statement, yes or no?

Blinken: Yes, it is.

Menendez: Okay, so we’re not eliminating Iran’s ability to break out. We’re just getting alarm bells, and the question is how long are we going to get those alarm bells for? Now, isn’t it also true that the administration cannot lift sanctions, that it can only waive them under the present law, yes or no?

Blinken: That’s largely correct.

Menendez: So now the Iranians are going to make a deal in which this president may waive sanctions but the next president of the United States, whoever that may be, may decide you know what, this is not in our interests because it’s only going to give us a limited period of time and they’re going to go ahead and say sorry we’re not waiving the sanctions anymore. In that the Iranians are willing to make the hard decisions that they agreed to make that they have been unwilling to make for 18 months because I heard this movie’s been played before. Right? 20 years.

Last June we heard from the president just give me time. That was seven months ago. Right? Now we’re reliving it again. And so the bottom line is, that we are going to do all of this and ultimately be in a position in which if they don’t make a deal, we’re exactly where we are at, but with no immediate consequences to them.

Their breakout time is shorter than the time it will take to create new sanctions. And now you’re telling me…, based upon your responses, that you don’t want us to even — the Iranians have made it very clear that their parliament has to vote on this issue. Why is it possible that Tehran will treat its parliament better than the administration in the greatest democracy is willing to its congress? It’s — it just boggles my imagination. So, Mr. Chairman, I’ll look forward to looking at your legislation, and I have suggested to you in our previous conversations some ways in which I think it might be made even stronger.

Here is the video (including the exchange above at around 4:45).

The Obama administration intends to present the American people with a final agreement blessing and funding Iran’s nuclear program. Obama intends to shut Congress out from ratification of the agreement. The agreement will be presented to the American people as a fait accompli. It will, moreover, be a catastrophic agreement. Blinken’s testimony is deserving of the closest scrutiny as we arrive at the threshold.

Thoughts from the ammo line

Ammo Grrrll returns this week to ask: WHITHER THE EBOLA CZAR? She writes:

So for some time now, we have had a Czar to be in charge of Ebola. Oh, not an actual doctor, of course, just a spin doctor. A career bureaucrat and hanger-on. And we haven’t heard Word One about Ebola or the Czar since. Wouldn’t you love to know his salary? Wouldn’t you love to have it? Apparently, just appointing a Czar did the trick and the crisis is now over! Huzzah! I plan to appoint a Czar of Housekeeping and Cooking in hopes that those things will be taken care of as easily. Oh wait, I think that’s me.

So what has the head of the CDC been doing with his time, then? Could he not have outsourced to underlings the task of hounding people to get this year’s near-worthless flu shots? Better still, could they not have come closer to guessing the actual flu varieties for the shot so that my elderly parents didn’t get horribly sick along with all of their fellow residents in their assisted living facility? They all got flu shots like good little soldiers.

Then, too, they might have saved several hundred thousand dollars if they had decided to take a pass on studying why so many lesbians are fat.

Yes, the CDC is studying why so many lesbians are fat. Yet, the CDC itself points out that most gay men are thin and fit, so there’s nothing innate about “gayness” that makes one fat.

Now, If your average conservative had mentioned that even one lesbian was fat, they would be driven out of whatever profession they were in even if they owned the business. We live in a fun era in which calling a black man “thin” or “burly” or “from Chicago” is an MSNBC “dog whistle” of racism heard only by professional racist canines at MSNBC. So, the chances of giving offense are great and I shall try to avoid that. I believe that conservatives are actually kinder than liberals and there is no point in trying to hurt people’s feelings. I know and am fond of several lesbians, some on the heavy side, some not.

Nevertheless, the question of why some lesbians are fat is one that I can solve in an instant without tens of thousands of dollars, though I would be happy to accept some.

There are two reasons. First, because all lesbians are women! Yes, it’s true!

Lesbians, like all women of any sexual proclivity, get fat when they take in more calories than they burn in the course of a day. That’s it. It’s true for men as well, of course, but because women must have periods in order to reproduce, and a certain percentage of body fat to have periods, Nature has made it particularly tough for women to lose weight. Nature has a great sense of humor and, unlike liberals, Nature is plumb crazy about procreation.

We heterosexual women count among us many Plus Size ladies. Many. And there are beautiful, slender lesbians to be sure. I have known several. They are always fending off delusional but confident men who believe that if the lovely ladies tried them even once, they would change teams in grateful astonishment. These women would not be studied. Because they are not fat.

This brings us to the second reason some lesbians are fat. Some fat women are lesbians because they are fat, not the other way around. Again, I emphasize the “some.”

Many of those married heterosexuals who are now Plus Size did not start out that way. Men have a much narrower range of what they consider acceptable body types. Men who look like something you would cast for bait still believe that they are entitled to a “hottie”. Pot bellies, comb-overs, terminal flatulence, whatever; they feel they should merit nothing less lovely than a Dallas cheerleader at minimum, only younger. So women who want to attract men must fit, however temporarily, into desirable dimensions.

Speaking for myself, in college your Ammo Grrrll weighed 107 pounds. When I married at the end of my junior year, I gained 20 pounds. At the reception. Then you start having babies. I gained 30 pounds with my first child and weighed 5 pounds less than Mr. Ammo Grrrll, who is a foot taller than I am, when I delivered. Thankfully, I lost most, but not all, of that quickly. The baby, alone, weighed almost 9 pounds. I only gained 12 pounds with my second child, who was a foster child. The chances that I will ever see 107 again are roughly the same as the chances that American Sniper will win a Best Picture Oscar.

Not every woman living a lesbian lifestyle was gay from birth. Some had bad experiences with men and made a choice. But, there are also some women who might prefer men to women, but sadly, haven’t found a man who is attracted to them. It is true and I have known them. Everyone wants love and most women want a relationship. If men are not available, then some larger ladies will find each other. There. Show me the money.