Lobbyist Lanny Davis Seeks a Rematch with Obama over Honduras Coup

Time for a Chicago style beat down.  I too wonder if Mr. Obama has it in him because I cannot stand motherfuckers like Lanny Davis.  

Here.

Here.

Al, I've stayed with you since early in the primary campaign, notwithstanding occasional differences. Anyway, watching your coverage of Honduras, I get the impression that after chastising some comentators for saying that Obama should be more decisive in condemning and taking action against the coup, you are now giving him an ultimatum of sorts? What has happened in the meantime? Lanny Davis? Well, yeah, that guy gets my blood pressure up also...

IMHO State Secretary Clinton should be given a chance. This is her moment to clarify what she stands for. And if she blows it, then yes, Obama should intervene and disown her. 

I think the question of remedies needs more discussion in general.  Diplomacy and economic sanctions I understand.  But I don't see how law enforcement efforts against "money launderers, narco-traffickers, ex-Cuban terrorists" can have any practical effect on the coup.

Such law enforcement should be occurring anyway, coup or no coup.  But even assuming that law enforcement can be ramped up, is it realistic that it can have any quick impact? 

I would also like to hear more about the role of money-launderers and narco-traffickers and their connection to the coup. If their role is key, that story is not being reported by the MSM.

Whatever the connection, though, I find it hard to believe that law enforcement - as opposed to sending in the marines - would change anything in the near future.  Law enforcement is a slow, methodical process.  And your post suggests that timing is of the essence.

Am I reading too much into your reference to law enforcement? Do you agree that economic sanctions are the real hammer here, with law enforcement merely being a secondary, perhaps even symbolic tool?

Dan - Most people's level of patience doesn't change just because there's an urgency. Impatient people are that way on a calm sunny day with no external stresses. Patient people are methodical and strategizing even in the middle of a storm.

I chastised people for suggesting, without evidence, that the Obama administration plotted the Honduras coup. And - as I did with the Iran crisis - chastised some for seeking language of condemnation, which is ineffective in almost every circumstance. But I did not chastise anybody for urging stronger sanctions that would be effective. It's important to separate those things out and not see them as one.

Secondly, I'm not delivering any "ultimatum" to anybody. I'm simply explaining how events will be seen from Latin America if those mediation "talks" don't accomplish results by this weekend, which is the deadline given by Honduras' elected president.

As for Secretary Clinton, I think I've given her plenty of wiggle room above. I said that I don't know which member of the administration cooked up this tepid oatmeal of putting marathon talker Oscar Arias in charge of talks. It could well be Restrepo, not Clinton, or someone else (although my hunch is that it is one of the two, or both). When the talks were announced, I predicted they would last only one day. In fact, they lasted zero days so far as Zelaya and Micheletti couldn't be seated in the same room. What is left are a simulacrum of talks between committees of other players. My skepticism about these talks was voiced from day one.

Yes, this is a test for Secretary Clinton. I'm simply laying out the scorecard upon which she and others will be graded.

Jim -

Here are some very fast law enforcement actions that don't require lots of time:

1. The US can pull the visas of every Honduran involved with the coup government, and their family members: all the Supreme Court members, the members of Congress that voted to install Micheletti, the illegitimate "cabinet" members, the entire military brass, and the officials of the Chambers of commerce and business that have paid lobbyists in the US.

Any immigration attorney will say that, unfortunately, foreigners have zero legal rights in the US. As long as that exists, even if I don't like it, I think it's appropriate to use in this case.

That's a considerable swath of the Honduran oligarchy on that list. Most of them travel regularly to the US. Some have business interests there. Almost all deposit their money there and convert lempiras to dollars.

2. Audit the US bank accounts of coup officials and companies. At the slightest sign of money laundering, launch an investigation and freeze them under US racketeering statutes. Again, I don't like the racketeering laws, but since they are there, this is an appropriate mafia to use them on. The coup is a criminal enterprise. If US law defines it as such, lots of prosecutorial and Dept. of Treasury tools suddenly become available.

3. Kick all Hondurans out of the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, and send them home. If some wish to bargain to be sources of information once they get there, maybe they can navigate their way back.

4. The State Department has the authority to define certain organizations as terrorist organizations. The Department of Justice has similar authority to define as narco-trafficking and organized crime organizations. Those definitions bring immediate consequences. For example, US companies and citizens may not support or do business with such organizations financially.

5. Work with the other Central American governments - a majority can easily be found - to expel Honduras from CAFTA. Again, I don't like CAFTA - the free trade agreement - but since it's there, use it!

6. I would cut humanitarian aid too. It is high naivete to presume that most of it even gets to the poor in a corrupt coup regime like that. Redirect it through NGOs instead.

7. Prohibit the International Republican Institute (IRI) from granting funds to a long list of coup-participating organizations and political parties. And use the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to immediately fund grassroots citizen organizations like Via Campesina opposing the coup. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Again, I don't think these funds should exist, but if they're there, let's use them to really promote democracy.

8. Identify those ex-Cubans and others of the oligarch diaspora (ex-Venezuelans, too) that congregate in South Florida and have lent financial support to this coup or its key players, and pull their visas, too.

None of these things require long drawn out processes.

If the US does these things, you will see the Honduras oligarchy bawl and scream and run away from its own coup. That is their weak link. In a "revolt of the spoiled brats," they'll have fun, fun, fun 'til their daddy take's their T-Bird away...

There are practical reasons to insist on forward movement in resolving this situation. First, the resources of the resistance to the coup are very limited. These are for the most part not wealthy people. Many are missing work and putting their jobs on the line to participate. Second, with the expulsion of the media, the opportunities for the death squads to be re-activated are there. Every day that the coup remains in power, the likelihood that they will be deployed increases.

For ourselves, we can afford to be patient. But for the sake of the Honduran people, we must not be. Hard sanctions, especially seizure of bank accounts and restrictions on travel, are essential.

I guess those Clinton feelings never went away for a lot of people, including the blogger hereabouts...

Look, I think Hillary has performed ably as Secretary of State while never once stepping into the President's spotlight (unlike, say, the freaking Veep). She's advancing HIS agenda, not the other way around. The Honduran policy is the Obama policy.

And if it's not, this post is the public damning of a man you once went to the mat for, Al. That's surprising.

To take a step back from the Lanny Davis red herring, the Obama foreign policy is so very clearly one of careful re-engagement in the world of diplomacy, in the Middle East, in eastern Europe, in south Asia, and in Latin America. In serving that policy (so clearly enunciated during the historic campaign) the Obama-Clinton team is clearly working well.

They're not going to insert themselves dramatically on either side in the Irananian clerical dispute - and they're not gonna order up an invasion of Honduras; they'll gradually turn the screws...maybe. You'll note that other Obama Administration agencies are hardly turning those screws, so you can hardly say the State Department is running off the rails.

I'm 100% for the restoration of the elected President of Honduras, but I doubt this administration will be the militant instrument of that result. We're getting what Obama promised - and I think it's a good idea to avoid trying to scratch that old-fashioned Clinton itch...

Tom - I would very much like for my initial worry over Secretary Clinton's nomination last winter to be proved wrong. Indeed, until this Honduras coup, I'd said here various times that I thought she was doing a swell job.

But the gambit of the Arias-led "talks" in Costa Rica has only served to give oxygen to the coup. And unless it pulls a rabbit out its hat by this weekend, somebody in Washington is going to have to stand up and face the music for what will have been a counter-productive maneuver.

I say very clearly above that I don't claim to know that it is Secretary Clinton. I suggested also the name of Dan Restrepo, the White House LatAm guy who is not part of the State Dept.

It's also not honest for you to portray my urgings as to "order up an invasion of Honduras." What part of "nobody's asking you to send in the Marines" didn't you understand?

I've outlined, here in the comments section, eight immediate moves that the administration could take which are mostly in undoing longtime institutional backing for the Honduras oligarchy-turned-coup-regime.

Lanny Davis is not a red herring to millions in Latin America watching the circus up above from the vantage point of having lived under military coups in most countries here. He is the proof positive that the US form of "democracy" is not more democratic than different democratic systems South of the Border. Lobbyists accomplish on behalf of monied interests profoundly anti-democratic acts every single day in Washington.

I do expect the President to walk his talk on such lobbyists. That was central to his campaign promises. It was not central to Secretary Clinton's campaign, though, and nor did she have a pro-democracy stance toward Latin America, as Stephen Zunes pointed out (I linked to that in the previous thread).

The summer-fall after a US president's inauguration is when the various functionaries begin to test the limits of their "turf," and some reveal that their original instincts supercede their loyalties to the administration that hired them.

The Honduras coup presents the very kind of "test" that Biden got so much heat for mentioning during the campaign, but he was essentially correct: It is a test for Obama. It is also a test for Clinton, and for everyone involved.

This is not about "scratching an itch." This is about a coup d'etat which, if it succeeds, will surely and soon bring more military coups in this hemisphere. The stakes are that high. And if the President and/or the Secretary don't rise to that challenge with the kinds of "smart power" actions they always talk about, then they will each be accountable for their inactions. They will blow, in a single stroke, all the benefit of the doubt and good will that Latin America has given them so far. That's not an "itch." That's a hard reality.

The first 3 words that came to my mind when I first heard about Lanny Davis's new job were: Mark, Penn, Columbia. One rogue associate is bad enough, but this is too common of a pattern for Clinton and her associates.

Clinton commented during the campaign that "we should not risk destabilizing the Musharraf regime" but she ignored the inevitable result of the growing internal Pakistan legal challenges against Musharraf. Many of us knew that Clinton's world view was not so different from the failed conventional wisdom operative inside the beltway for the last few decades. Add to that her poor judgement with the Authorization of Force in Iraq, her ever more ridiculous attempts to justify that, plus her Bosnia fairy tales...

So I never saw her as a good choice for VP or Sec of State, but having respect for Obama's political judgment hoped that this appointment made sense at some level.

Oops.

This coup is not a challenge created by an inept previous administration. This is a true test of this administration's foreign policy. There is no one else to blame if this is mishandled. And comparing it to the handling of Iran developments is the ultimate apples and oranges. We have enormous connection and leverage to one nation and very little to another.

Consider that this is the president that made empathy a campaign issue , a governing philosophy and a word central to some of today's most important political discussions. Well there are thousands if not millions of us that put hope in Obama that with just a little empathy toward the people of other countries we could turn US policies toward a direction with better advocacy for human rights around the globe.

So I could not agree more Al. I think your analysis of the consequences of failure are spot on. This is a big test for Obama. For Clinton also, but I only have the slimmest hope that she will see the light in the midnight hour. I frankly don't think she has the qualifications (nor the empathy) for the job and I hope she crashes and burns so we can get past her quickly. But just in case, I dedicate this link to Sec of State Hillary Clinton.

You have given me mutch to think about and I am wavering in my support of how Obama is handling the Honduran coup -- though I also agree w. Tom W. upstring in general on Obama's approach...

What you clarified for me however, is the possible consequences of not intervening on the rest of Latin American leadership and other risks for Coups.. I hear that loud and clear now...

Probably not, but a girl can dream, right?

Seriously:  Good advice, Al.

http://digg.com/politics/Al_Giordano_Lobbyist_Lanny_Davis_Seeks_a_Rematc...

Al is right:  This coup needs to be unambiguously opposed, by actions as well as words, by the U.S. government, and time is running out, or else the coup regime will gain legitimacy through passive acquiescence.  The crisis cannot be treated as some sort of regional contretemps or sideshow, or as a protracted diplomatic game in which we're just trying to get these hot-headed Hondurans to have a beer together and sort things out.  The latter is a State Department specialty, in which matters of principle are drowned in a bathtub of blathering. 

My problem with Hillary Clinton has always been that she seems to be perfectly comfortable as the voice and errand-runner of whatever political or policy establishment in which she has managed to rise to the top, whether on the Wal-Mart board, serving the interests of New York State Democratic party leaders, or now presiding over an army of mainstream foreign policy intellectuals and negotiators whose idea of progressive change is having dinner at one friend's house in Georgetown and dessert at another friend's.  Unless she is pushed -- from the White House -- into determinedly rattling the Honduran coup-meisters' cage, the sense of crisis will liquefy and Al's feared result, a regional back-door legitimation of coups, could well come to pass.

Al - didn't see your more in-depth alternatives when I posted earlier - those sound right to me. As you know, I'm very much in favor of sanctions in the wake of the coup. And yes, 'send in the troops' was hyperbole with a purpose: mainly to argue that Sec. Clinton's role is limited to diplomacy. Her job is simple at the top: to engage the U.S. more fully and aggresively in active diplomacy everythere around the globe. That's what Obama promised - and it's what the President himself is doing.

I just don't think it's constructive to make this a Hillary Clinton narrative (which you can see from other comments here, people are happy to do). Why try and open daylight there? Why try and make this her coup, as opposed to other regional policies? Why "scorpion" and "underling" etc - and I know you're careful with language.

I just seems (and I could be 100% wrong) as if you're looking for a bad guy within the administration, so that when the deal goes down, it's that person's policy that will have resulted in the non-restoration of Zelaya - rather than the President's.

(Of course, Barack Obama may well prefer it that way - which, btw, is entirely legitimate - that's the way Presidents must often play the diplomacy game. Clinton knows this fully. I suspect her blast of the WH vetting process was fully approved by her boss).

On the main point we agree: this is a big test for the Obama Administration. I think both the President and his Secretary of State should be stronger on this. The coup should not be allowed to stand.

Al: I chastised people for suggesting, without evidence, that the Obama administration plotted the Honduras coup. And - as I did with the Iran crisis - chastised some for seeking language of condemnation, which is ineffective in almost every circumstance. But I did not chastise anybody for urging stronger sanctions that would be effective.

This is not quite accurate.  On the morning of July 3, with 24 hours of the OAS 72-hour deadline gone, you posted this:

...so far, in the shared hallucination of the coup defenders, they seem to believe they can bluff their way into forcing a negotiation still.  [a 'hallucination' that has been borne out - Nell]

And this touches close to another misconception in some other circles that is being spoken: that if only the United States would cut off all aid to Honduras, the coup would instantly fall. (A related spin is that if only the United States had instructed the coup plotters in advance that said aid would be cut off – something that may have well occurred anyway - the coup would never have happened.)

That kind of analysis falls short for two reasons:

One, the hallucinatory nature of how the Honduran elites see themselves includes a willingness to destroy their own economy in a blazing attempt to assert their hallucination upon Honduras and the world. True or false, the pig-headed coup adherents really seem to believe they can survive and remain in power without that aid, or at least they seem willing to try for a while.

Secondly, Washington’s announcement that it has already put all but humanitarian aid “on pause” - the flow of money is already cut off - pending a decision on whether to legally define the regime in Honduras as a “military coup” isn’t having that effect.

From this vantage point, it’s strange to see people who I thought opposed the concept that Washington should dictate events in the hemisphere basically insisting that Washington should now dictate them. They seem to disregard the advances of the last decade that have made it impossible for the US to rule the hemisphere by decree anymore, something we should all celebrate.

A reasonable reading of that last paragraph is that it chastises people seeking stronger U.S. sanctions than had yet been applied.

People and organizations who had been and were continuing at that point to urge the U.S. to cut off aid formally and completely, to withdraw Amb. Llorens, and to take additional actions against the coup government and its members (such as denying them visas to come to DC to rally their right-wing base)were not insisting that Washington should dictate events in the hemisphere.  They were insisting that the U.S. government put its full weight behind the OAS ultimatum, rather than sitting aside passively pretending that this country, which funds 60% of the OAS budget, is just another member.

They were not saying that if the U.S. did signal with strong sanctions its full commitment to the OAS effort, that the coup would instantly fall.  They simply assessed, as events have confirmed, that given the past history and the continuing U.S. funding for the coup-supporting organizations in the Civic Union, it would take serious actions to make Micheletti and his backers believe that they couldn't just hold out.

At that point, it would have been helpful for you to join the efforts of WOLA, Just Foreign Policy, SOA Watch, and many other organizations in encouraging people to call and write the State Department to ask for stronger, public sanctions.  Or, at least, not to criticize them.  But your understandable irritation with left skeptics who early on held the Obama administration responsible for the coup and were reluctant to acknowledge real differences between its response and past policy seemed to be causing you to lump in with them people and organizations doing their damnedest to act in support of those resisting the coup. 

At that point, as you have since acknowledged, Sec. Clinton was sending different signals than Pres. Obama.  She was declining to formally declare it a coup, had not said explicitly (and still has not to date, though a reporter recently extracted the statement from State Dept. spokesperson Ian Kelly) that the U.S. demands that Zelaya be returned to office, and was more interested in using the aid cutoff as leverage against Zelaya than as a hammer against the coup-makers.

The usurpers read the signals and received the message that the U.S. was not fully behind the OAS ultimatum, that if they could just hold out and keep Zelaya from returning, they'd get their negotiations.  Which they could then try to drag out forever.  So far, they appear to have read the signals correctly.

Tom - We're not far apart at all on this one. Still, I think Lanny Davis' mercenary intrusion into the story is actually helpful in one way: It reminds both Clinton and Obama of how badly this will be perceived in light of his involvement if they are perceived as caving to him. As community organizers know, such turns of the story are useful when it comes time to remind those in power to do the right thing.

Nell - That's a lot of words for what is still, on your part, an errant reading of what I think is clear from my words you quote.

I still think that withdrawing the Ambassador at a time when the US Embassy is protecting Zelaya's family would be crazy and counterproductive. Do you really want to leave them at the mercy of the wolves of the coup to make what would only be a symbolic gesture.

And, secondly, I still assert that the "military coup" trigger of foreign aid that is already put on pause would not at all discourage the coup leaders to back down. That's why I've proposed eight or nine actions that I think would be more effective than that.

You will never see me join in coalition with organizations such as WOLA, who consistently sell us down the drain on these matters, as they did with Plan Mexico and Plan Colombia before this one. They get other groups to go along with them and then they negotiate with members of Congress to water down everything. They are completely untrustworthy institutions that seek only their own self-perpetuation, and our job as journalists is to give proper scrutiny to their actions, too, rather than join in coalitions with them.

You'll notice that in nine years of Narco News, we've never urged people to write their elected officials or otherwise ask for permission for anything. It's antithetical to what we do, and we would lose our credibility by joining with some of the rogue's gallery of NGOs and such who have never improved any situation in this hemisphere.

Based on how you've described my words during various points in the past two weeks, I conclude that you're not a careful reader of them. That's not my problem, though.

It speaks volumes about the cluelessness of the Honduran junta that they thought hiring Lanny Davis was a good idea. "He's tight with Hillary—she's the Secretary of State!"

Imagine that you are Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod, and the sight of Lanny Davis on some news channel already has you adrenalized to beat back his nonsense. Would ANYONE who worked on the campaign (for Obama) think, "Well, if Lanny sez they're okay, I guess we should give them a hearing"?

My guess is that Hillary didn't know that Lanny had signed on with the junta. Her own self-preservation instincts are stronger than allowing her old attack dog to position her against her boss.

Al, obviously this crisis demands all of your attention at the moment (as it should) but I thought this important enough to merit posting, and certainly of interest to the readers of The Field: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/A-New-Vision-for-Urban-and-Metropolitan-Policy/ 

First of all, i would like to thank you`ll, for your support, the Honduran people, the poor people is the people who support Mel Zelaya, if you can speak or read spanish, you may want to check this. http://honduras.redeshn.com/2009/07/13/la-constituyente-que-queria-micheletti/ 

The bulk of IRI’s programming in Honduras is concentrated on helping city governments better serve their citizens.  Our program and record is very clear and transparent there.  We encourage those who are interested to learn more about our governance programming at: http://www.iri.org/lac/cen_good_gov.asp.  The other aspect to our program in Honduras seeks to help encourage political parties and civil society focus on substantive issues such as healthcare, roads, education and economic development.  IRI stands by that work as well. 

"IRI Spokesperson" - I find it highly unusual that someone would post a comment as "spokeperson" of the International Republican Institute without disclosing one's name and official title. (For the rest of the readers here, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that description.)

But it seems to me your own provided link rebukes your claim that "IRI does not fund any groups in Honduras." I followed those links and found that it funds, for example, the foreign travels of La Paz mayor Danilo Cervantes, a member of the Nationalist Party of Honduras, one of the parties that back the coup d'etat. (It was the Nationalist Party candidate for president Porfirio Lobo Sosa, who ran against Zelaya in the last presidential election and will reportedly try again for that post this year.)

That constitutes support for a political party, whether the money is channeled through a municipal government controlled by it or not doesn't change that IRI funds (that is to say, US taxpayer funds) are bolstering the coup.

Perhaps the functionaries at IRI don't see it that way, but the people of Honduras and the world clearly will. Any further use by IRI to fund such projects should be prohibited by NED as part of the sanctions until the coup regime falls.

Just in case readers of The Field haven't stopped by the Narco News frontpage, here's a link to Bill Conroy's report on the financing of Lanny Davis's lobbying.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2009/07/whos-behin...

...of this story more than my own:

Monstrous Hell-Rat Lanny Davis Lobbying for Pro-Coup Honduran Business Group

The comments' section there is pretty unanimous on this one, and very funny!

Al, I'm not sure NED can unilaterally step in and shut down IRI or NDI projects, since IRI and NDI have their own boards, on which sit Republican and Democratic members of Congress who would probably be irritated if NED were bossing around their parties' "democracy assistance" foundations.  Funding may technically pass through USAID (part of State) to NED and to IRI and NDI, but as a practical matter, these institutes are associated with the two American political parties and function independently of State or the White House, since their appropriations are specified by Congress.  If IRI can be materially tied to real-time funding of the Honduras coup plotters, however, then this would be a strong argument for much stronger oversight and review by Congress of what it's doing (with testimony at hearings from people with evidence of what's actually happening). A complication could be the fact that IRI has been under John McCain's tutelage for a long time, and one wonders whether Obama or senior Democrats would be willing to get in an argument with him about IRI (figuring they might want McCain's support on something more central to the president's agenda).  But democracy assistance and assisting anti-democratic coup plotters aren't compatible, the President would have to agree.

Al, do you know if Washington has officially called the coup a coup? If not, where can I go to find such information and/or keep an eye on this development?

Thanks for all your work.

Robert - Although many administration officials, including President Obama, have verbally defined it as a "coup," the State Department still has not made its formal definition of "military coup" which would trigger a stop to all aid that is not defined "democracy promotion" or "humanitarian."

In the interim, it has stopped all aid in that category without invoking that definition.

In the moment that changes, one way or another, we'll be reporting it loudly.

Hope that answers your question.

HONDURAN de facto leader Roberto Micheletti said he would be prepared to step down, but only if ousted President Manuel Zelaya does not return to power.

"For peace and tranquility in the country ... without the return of ex-president Zelaya, I would be ready to do it," Mr Micheletti said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25790377-12377,00.htm...

Honduras reimposes curfew amid protest threat

The measure came after Rafael Alegria, who led protests in the wake of Zelaya's June 28 ouster, said followers would choke access routes to the capital, Tegucigalpa, on Thursday and Friday before fresh mediation talks in Costa Rica on Saturday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_honduras_121

Imagine for a moment the debates within the White House by the policy people in charge of arguing about Honduras.   I want to know if the staff response to what Obama wants can be characterized as, "You can't do that.  The American people would freak out."  I understand the risk and compromise endured by practitioners of democracy.  If my characterization has even a bit of truth; Good Lord! When will the American body politic not freak out if Obama were to take action as outlined here by Al for the good of democracy and the Honduran people? C'mon dude, line up your support and make a call for the good of all and not some cadre of well educated blow hards, a small army of executive assistants, and their prize possession, their own asses.  Imagine again, if you will?  Finally, is it even folly to think that the Honduran people can win back their country with our fucking help to begin with.  It would be great if they could and stay alive afterward.  

Let's set the facts straight about the Honduran coup d'etat: Dictator
Micheletti, is just that, a dictator! Presidents are elected, this
freak came to power by militarily kidnapping president Zelaya who was elected by the HOnduran people. Second, if the people really didn't want him, there was an election coming up where they could of gotten a new president if those were their wishes.

Don't let over-paid mouth-pieces like Lanny Davis fool you. The truth
is that the the super rich of Honduras just want to keep raping the
poor like they have for 500 years and they don't want the poor to have any rights. These priviledged few were terrified by the economic empowerment that President Zelaya was providing for the under-priviledged that are under constant abuse by the likes of the apparel industry (yes, Hanes and Fruit of the Loom to name a few).

Last, I would recommend that you all read the Honduran constitution
and see who wiped their butt with it and you will soon find that it was none other than these coup d'etat master-minds. The good thing is that their day in court shall be here soon, and if that doesn't
happen, you can directly blame Hillary Clinton and President Obama for it.

Those are all the facts. Now you decide for yourself and if you don't
believe me, just Google those things and you will see for yourself.