Prosecute Clinton: For a Server or Orchestrating Mass Murder?
The kabuki theater stunts between the two-pronged hydra-head of the one-party political class in America knows no bounds. After Mueller was shot down for his lame and easily disprovable case against Trump, the tide turned against the Democrats.
Now it’s Hillary’s turn in the hot seat, not that it really matters. As I noted on a previous occasion, Clinton the CFR-directed Iron Maiden would have to kill a toddler in Times Square during the New Year celebration to be arrested, prosecuted, and locked up.
The real Collusion, the Conspiracy, the Crime, was between the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele…..(and many others including Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page and her lover, Ohr and his wonderful wife, and on and on!). @replouiegohmert
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 28, 2019
In fact, she is, and Donald Trump knows it.
The DNC, Fusion GPS, Steele, Comey, McCabe, et al, all of this distractive squabbling basically serves as a sideshow to the real crimes of Hillary Clinton, faithful servitor for the war party and state.
I’m not going to re-post the disgusting video clip where Clinton chortles over her role in murdering Muammar Gaddafi. Instead, I’ll focus on her egregious violation of international law by siccing the NATO murder machine on the people of Libya.
The New York Times, the newspaper of record propaganda, lied when it declared Hillary Clinton tried but failed to bring “democracy” (neoliberal style) to Libya. Gaddafi was primarily a threat because he represented Arab solidarity and, at least as important, his plan to create a gold dinar currency to unite the Arab and Muslim world.
“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” notes Anthony Wile. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”
This was, as well, one of the primary motivations—in addition to knocking out of Israel’s primary enemies—for the imposition of medieval sanctions imposed on Iraq following Papa Bush’s illegal invasion.
In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced a plan to trade Iraq’s oil in euros, thus undermining dollar hegemony. The sanctions and Bush Jr’s invasion sent a message to OPEC members—the US dollar controlled by the financial elite is the only acceptable monetary unit for buying and selling petroleum.
It’s said Obama was reluctant to unleash NATO on the people of Libya, but Hillary convinced him otherwise. The subsequent carnage was described by the NYT as “smart power,” a rather grotesque characterization, to say the least.
Beyond a small number of nonpartisan antiwar activists, noninterventionists, and libertarians, only a small faction of leftists report and analyze Clinton’s war crimes in Libya.
During Clinton’s grilling over the Benghazi ratline that fed arms from Libya to Saudi-spawned jihadi maniacs in Syria trying to overthrow another of Israel’s Arab foes—Bashir al-Assad—Republicans almost touched on the crux of the matter (but only because a Democrat was in the hot seat).
Don Debar, a RadioJustice host, put it into perspective:
The most interesting part of the Hillary Clinton Republican committee show yesterday—and it is a show, a sideshow—was when one of the Republican members of Congress actually tried to get rid of the sideshow and deal with the actual issue at hand, which is not Benghazi but Libya proper, and particularly Hillary Clinton’s role in destroying that country.
Representative [Peter] Roskam opened his interrogatory of Clinton by asking whether her statement that was captured on camera when she was getting ready for an interview – ‘We came, we saw, he died’ – about the murder of Muammar Gaddafi represented her policy towards Libya,” he added.
And in denying that it represented policy she – under oath – essentially admitted to the fact pattern of US policy being regime change in Libya and the killing of Gaddafi. Both are war crimes, both are prosecutable acts at the International Criminal Court, and her statements were made under oath.
And the thing I am looking at next, I am very interested in seeing what statements were made by the Obama administration under oath in their response papers to a lawsuit that was brought under the war powers act back in 2011 by Dennis Kucinich and nine other members of Congress seeking to make the US government stop this war on Libya because it had not been authorized by Congress at that point, to see if any of those pleadings contain an absolute denial under oath of the US having as an aim either regime change or the killing of Gaddafi.
And if I do find that—and I have copies of the pleadings—then basically I am going to be in possession of the two contrary statements taken under oath, one from Clinton saying that the policy was regime change and the killing of Gaddafi, and one from the White House saying that it was not the policy. And then someone, somewhere—some court, somebody—has to resolve that contradiction.
Of course, this will never happen—the financial elite, its obedient congressional water carriers, and the corporate propaganda media will not allow it to happen.
Hillary may get a light hand slap for the role she played in colluding with the DNC to prevent Trump from taking office—this is entirely iffy—but she will never be shackled and sent to The Hague to stand trial for facilitating mass murder and reducing a formerly prosperous nation to a miserable and violent failed state.
Justice neoliberal-style is reserved for the likes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, and a host of others, not favored operatives such as the criminal Hillary Clinton.
Article posted with permission from Kurt Nimmo