Hillary's History of Denial

Nearly twenty years ago, David Irving, a British historian of WWII and Hitler, sued American scholar of the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt, for defamation.  He claimed that her references to him as a Holocaust denier in her book, Denying the Holocaust, were harming his career. He was indeed a "Holocaust denier," and remains one to this day.  But because British libel laws are different from American libel laws, Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin, had to prove that Irving had intentionally falsified historical evidence to bolster his attempt to deny that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews.   From Wikipedia: 

"Irving's decision to file his lawsuit in the English courts gave him the upper hand by shifting the burden of proof. Under American libel law, a public figure who claims to have been libeled must prove that the statements in question are defamatory, that they are false, and that they were made with actual malice or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Furthermore, reliance on reliable sources (even if they prove false) is a valid defense. In contrast, English libel law requires only that the claimant show that the statements are defamatory. The burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that the statements were substantially true, and reliance on sources is irrelevant. "

Now there is a film about that trial, Denial. It stars Rachel Weisz and Tom Wilkinson and several other fine actors.  It is a riveting film.  Who in the 1990s could imagine a legal battle over "did the Holocaust happen?"  But it happened.  It was a grueling, labor-intensive work of dedication to the truth.   Lipstadt's lawyers had to convince her that she should not testify nor should any Holocaust survivors be allowed to speak.  This was enormously counterintuitive to Lipstadt and to anyone watching the film. But her lawyers convinced her that the trial had to be about Irving, his writings, his filmed speeches.  He was already on film mocking survivors (as Hillary mocks Trump supporters).  They also convinced Irving that the trial should be by judge, not jury.   As Irving acted as his own lawyer, they appealed to his ego. Her lawyers convinced Irving that no Jury could possibly understand the nuances of his scholarship.  It worked and he agreed.

Irving had kept diaries for twenty years.  He was required to turn them over to Lipstadt's defense. The lawyers involved read every word he had written, for publication and in his diaries. His own words proved, without a doubt, that Irving had repeatedly falsified documents and photographs in order to "prove" that Hitler had never ordered the extermination of the Jews.  He even denied that Jews were ever gassed at the camps.  This was easy to disprove.  The trial was four years long from filing to verdict.  The judge took four weeks to review the material once both sides rested.  Judge Charles Gray decided in Lipstadt's favor and Irving had to pay all the legal expenses, $3.2m.  It bankrupted him but has not stopped him from spewing his viciously anti-Semitic and racist views around the world.

All of which brings us to the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton and her thoroughly illegal, clearly purposeful private server set up when she began her term as Secretary of State.  She had a get-rich-quick plan and implemented it the day she became a member of Obama's cabinet.  She set up that server and embarked on her pay to play scheme.  Foreign and domestic cronies came; they gave, they got what they wanted.  In return the money kept rolling in to the Foundation and huge, 6-digit checks were written for speeches by Bill and Hillary.  They earned hundreds of millions for "speeches" and favors during those four years.  This was her intent from the outset, beginning forty-some years ago.  They have earned all their money by gaining power and selling their access to it.  They have produced exactly nothing.  They are a blight on our political landscape.

Watching the film Denial one cannot help but compare the British justice system and ours re: the recent FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's illegal activities that went nowhere.  Granted, this was not a trial but the Irving v. Lipstadt case was about the truth; James Comey's pretend investigation was about something else entirely. It was about protecting a corrupt political power player at all costs, but it cost Comey his credibility.   In some ways our system is better; had Irving sued in the US, he would have had to prove that what Lipstadt wrote was untrue, which he could not have done.  In the UK, she had to prove that what he wrote was false and that he knew it was false. James Comey listed Hillary's many violations in front of a Congressional committee.  He said she had broken numerous laws, was careless with top-secret material, that she lied countless times about many important things, that she and her aides destroyed thousands of emails and several devices. It was learned later that he had made numerous side deals that gave immunity to her aides and agreements that allowed them to destroy their devices.  Then he said he was not recommending charges because he could not prove she had "intent" to break all those laws!  What a crock!

Intent, justifiably, is what lost David Irving his case and Lipstadt's lawyers proved it beyond all doubt.  Comey surely knows Hillary had intent to deceive but let her skate and continue seeking the office of President.  So our two federal agencies charged with preserving justice have failed us.  A film script with this chain of events would not survive a first read-through.

Had a regular citizen committed even one of the crimes Hillary did, he or she would have been charged, convicted and imprisoned. Regarding Hillary, the fix was in of course.  Comey and AG Lynch most likely took their marching orders from Obama and they both sacrificed their souls and good name.  There are too many conflicts of interest to list here but suffice it to say that Comey is a political animal whose brother is the accountant for the Clinton Foundation, that he himself has benefitted from that Foundation and its donors' largess.   Obama probably does not hold Hillary in high regard but does not want a Republican to succeed him so he gave the order: she must not be indicted.

There obviously exists in the US a two-tiered system of justice based on political power.  People like the Clintons muscled and cheated their way into the presidency, the Senate, the State Dept., and out of too many scandals to list.  They never doubt that they will escape responsibility for the damage done or laws broken, nor for her casual abuse of national security concerns in order to shield her money-grubbing scheme from prying eyes.  They believe that she is entitled to the presidency; they will do anything to win it.  David Irving was certain he would win his case too.  He was so confident of his own intellectual power to persuade that he thought he could convince the judge that Hitler was a good guy, that six millions Jews were not exterminated, that blacks were inferior, and that he should be celebrated for his historical pseudo-scholarship.

There is a scene in the film where the judge asks if Irving actually believes what he says and writes, is that "intent to deceive," can he be guilty if he actually believes his version of who Hitler was?  Lipstadt's barrister, momentarily stunned by the question, replied "the bridge between Holocaust denial and Hitler apology from anti-Semitism is very easy to build, because what more would an historian who is an anti-Semite want to do in exculpation of Hitler, which he has been trying to do by telling lies for years, what more would he want to do than to deny the Holocaust?"

Like Irving, the Clintons absolutely believe in their own superiority and entitlement.  They always deny any culpability or responsibility for their thirty years of crimes against this country in service of their own power and wealth. Like Irving, they accuse anyone who questions their integrity of libel.  Hillary acted aggressively to slander the women with whom Bill dallied.  David Irving is a version of the Clintons; so wedded was he to his own ideology he thought all the "right" people would believe him.  He had contempt for anyone who disagreed with him.  The American left has nothing but contempt for their political opponents.  Hillary especially has contempt for the American people, all of them outside her rarified circle.  We are nothing to her but a means to an end.

She accuses "all of us" of being guilty of implicit bias and thinks that will win her votes.  She is the one with more bias than the lot of us.  She is our version of David Irving:  elitist, misguided and dangerous.  Voters must find her guilty by electing Trump.  History is on trial.  See the film.

Nearly twenty years ago, David Irving, a British historian of WWII and Hitler, sued American scholar of the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt, for defamation.  He claimed that her references to him as a Holocaust denier in her book, Denying the Holocaust, were harming his career. He was indeed a "Holocaust denier," and remains one to this day.  But because British libel laws are different from American libel laws, Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin, had to prove that Irving had intentionally falsified historical evidence to bolster his attempt to deny that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews.   From Wikipedia: 

"Irving's decision to file his lawsuit in the English courts gave him the upper hand by shifting the burden of proof. Under American libel law, a public figure who claims to have been libeled must prove that the statements in question are defamatory, that they are false, and that they were made with actual malice or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Furthermore, reliance on reliable sources (even if they prove false) is a valid defense. In contrast, English libel law requires only that the claimant show that the statements are defamatory. The burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that the statements were substantially true, and reliance on sources is irrelevant. "

Now there is a film about that trial, Denial. It stars Rachel Weisz and Tom Wilkinson and several other fine actors.  It is a riveting film.  Who in the 1990s could imagine a legal battle over "did the Holocaust happen?"  But it happened.  It was a grueling, labor-intensive work of dedication to the truth.   Lipstadt's lawyers had to convince her that she should not testify nor should any Holocaust survivors be allowed to speak.  This was enormously counterintuitive to Lipstadt and to anyone watching the film. But her lawyers convinced her that the trial had to be about Irving, his writings, his filmed speeches.  He was already on film mocking survivors (as Hillary mocks Trump supporters).  They also convinced Irving that the trial should be by judge, not jury.   As Irving acted as his own lawyer, they appealed to his ego. Her lawyers convinced Irving that no Jury could possibly understand the nuances of his scholarship.  It worked and he agreed.

Irving had kept diaries for twenty years.  He was required to turn them over to Lipstadt's defense. The lawyers involved read every word he had written, for publication and in his diaries. His own words proved, without a doubt, that Irving had repeatedly falsified documents and photographs in order to "prove" that Hitler had never ordered the extermination of the Jews.  He even denied that Jews were ever gassed at the camps.  This was easy to disprove.  The trial was four years long from filing to verdict.  The judge took four weeks to review the material once both sides rested.  Judge Charles Gray decided in Lipstadt's favor and Irving had to pay all the legal expenses, $3.2m.  It bankrupted him but has not stopped him from spewing his viciously anti-Semitic and racist views around the world.

All of which brings us to the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton and her thoroughly illegal, clearly purposeful private server set up when she began her term as Secretary of State.  She had a get-rich-quick plan and implemented it the day she became a member of Obama's cabinet.  She set up that server and embarked on her pay to play scheme.  Foreign and domestic cronies came; they gave, they got what they wanted.  In return the money kept rolling in to the Foundation and huge, 6-digit checks were written for speeches by Bill and Hillary.  They earned hundreds of millions for "speeches" and favors during those four years.  This was her intent from the outset, beginning forty-some years ago.  They have earned all their money by gaining power and selling their access to it.  They have produced exactly nothing.  They are a blight on our political landscape.

Watching the film Denial one cannot help but compare the British justice system and ours re: the recent FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's illegal activities that went nowhere.  Granted, this was not a trial but the Irving v. Lipstadt case was about the truth; James Comey's pretend investigation was about something else entirely. It was about protecting a corrupt political power player at all costs, but it cost Comey his credibility.   In some ways our system is better; had Irving sued in the US, he would have had to prove that what Lipstadt wrote was untrue, which he could not have done.  In the UK, she had to prove that what he wrote was false and that he knew it was false. James Comey listed Hillary's many violations in front of a Congressional committee.  He said she had broken numerous laws, was careless with top-secret material, that she lied countless times about many important things, that she and her aides destroyed thousands of emails and several devices. It was learned later that he had made numerous side deals that gave immunity to her aides and agreements that allowed them to destroy their devices.  Then he said he was not recommending charges because he could not prove she had "intent" to break all those laws!  What a crock!

Intent, justifiably, is what lost David Irving his case and Lipstadt's lawyers proved it beyond all doubt.  Comey surely knows Hillary had intent to deceive but let her skate and continue seeking the office of President.  So our two federal agencies charged with preserving justice have failed us.  A film script with this chain of events would not survive a first read-through.

Had a regular citizen committed even one of the crimes Hillary did, he or she would have been charged, convicted and imprisoned. Regarding Hillary, the fix was in of course.  Comey and AG Lynch most likely took their marching orders from Obama and they both sacrificed their souls and good name.  There are too many conflicts of interest to list here but suffice it to say that Comey is a political animal whose brother is the accountant for the Clinton Foundation, that he himself has benefitted from that Foundation and its donors' largess.   Obama probably does not hold Hillary in high regard but does not want a Republican to succeed him so he gave the order: she must not be indicted.

There obviously exists in the US a two-tiered system of justice based on political power.  People like the Clintons muscled and cheated their way into the presidency, the Senate, the State Dept., and out of too many scandals to list.  They never doubt that they will escape responsibility for the damage done or laws broken, nor for her casual abuse of national security concerns in order to shield her money-grubbing scheme from prying eyes.  They believe that she is entitled to the presidency; they will do anything to win it.  David Irving was certain he would win his case too.  He was so confident of his own intellectual power to persuade that he thought he could convince the judge that Hitler was a good guy, that six millions Jews were not exterminated, that blacks were inferior, and that he should be celebrated for his historical pseudo-scholarship.

There is a scene in the film where the judge asks if Irving actually believes what he says and writes, is that "intent to deceive," can he be guilty if he actually believes his version of who Hitler was?  Lipstadt's barrister, momentarily stunned by the question, replied "the bridge between Holocaust denial and Hitler apology from anti-Semitism is very easy to build, because what more would an historian who is an anti-Semite want to do in exculpation of Hitler, which he has been trying to do by telling lies for years, what more would he want to do than to deny the Holocaust?"

Like Irving, the Clintons absolutely believe in their own superiority and entitlement.  They always deny any culpability or responsibility for their thirty years of crimes against this country in service of their own power and wealth. Like Irving, they accuse anyone who questions their integrity of libel.  Hillary acted aggressively to slander the women with whom Bill dallied.  David Irving is a version of the Clintons; so wedded was he to his own ideology he thought all the "right" people would believe him.  He had contempt for anyone who disagreed with him.  The American left has nothing but contempt for their political opponents.  Hillary especially has contempt for the American people, all of them outside her rarified circle.  We are nothing to her but a means to an end.

She accuses "all of us" of being guilty of implicit bias and thinks that will win her votes.  She is the one with more bias than the lot of us.  She is our version of David Irving:  elitist, misguided and dangerous.  Voters must find her guilty by electing Trump.  History is on trial.  See the film.