Is Chuck Todd Correct

The Obama Administration and previous Congress(es) identified the countries immediately affected by an “Executive Order” on immigration enacted Friday Jan. 27, 2017 under the incoming Trump Administration.

Included Countries Excluded Countries
Iraq Saudi Arabia
Syria Egypt
Iran Pakistan
Libya Afghanistan


Those first seven countries were named by Congress in 2016 as “countries of concern.”

Jan 29, 2017: While interviewing Reince Priebus, Chuck Todd (Meet The Press) brought up the other four countries pressing Priebus on why the new Administration did not include “the excluded countries”! Chuck Todd asserts (without providing any reference of fact) about travelers from the “Excluded Countries”…

Here’s what I’m confused about, when you look at those folks that have committed terrorist attacks in this country, killed American’s – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. You have more terrorist have come from those three counties than any of the seven, that in fact, you have Saudi Arabia, more have come from Saudi Arabia to kill Americans, than the seven countries combined. Why was Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt, not included on this list” … “if you are so concern about this issue.

Having been in office for a total of eight (8) days, Todd should not have been asking this question of Reince Priebus or the new Administration! And, it’s not the question any American with a clear head – is thinking of.

If Chuck Todd is correct, even if NBC and Todd smudged the numbers and information for a “gotcha moment” on air…

Why were Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt not included on this list by the Obama Administration/Congress?

And, why did he (Chuck Todd) not ask Obama’s Administration the same question?

Most Americans may understand why Chuck Todd never asked this question of anyone in Obama’s Administration. NBC and Todd have been identified among those in Media who have worked to benefit both Obama and the Clinton’s.

But “why these countries were not included by Obama’s Administration” is the more important question. We’ll look into possible reasons and update this work.


Media was all a buzz as were the people who voted in the 2016 Election. Back in July, Comey gave Team Clinton a pass on the basis there was no intent. Or should we say, no intent “management coulda/woulda” decipher to justify bringing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. The exodus and wrath of dissenting FBI Agents suggest otherwise. Even the the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin laptop and recent FBI announcements add curiosity and concern to the mix

However, this work is not about FBI agents but what these investigations do reveal and what has been confirmed yet ignored in recent decisions on criminality – based on the laughable absence of intent.

NOTE: In many cases regarding National Security, law does not require “intent” for someone who violates law to be found guilty. Should we consider how many times Court Judges tell Defendants (regular Citizens) “ignorance of the law is not an excuse” and find them guilty?

But here are just five points that do prove intent!

1. Hillary Clinton lied about the handing of “Classified Information”

This is an intentional act of concealment. The often changing talking points (i.e.: excuse from Clinton) further validates intent because this message was tweaked every time new information was discovered. Each tweak a succession of lies!

2. Hillary Clinton set-up and maintained a Private Server for eMail Communications

Again, this is an intentional act of concealment.

The only reason to setup a communications server outside of the US Government System she was required (by law, oath and/or policy) to use as Secretary of State – is an intent to conceal. Team Clinton has repeatedly said this was done for the purpose of convenience.

Convenience doesn’t fly and here’s why!

Any smart phone for the last several years has supported collection of electronic mail from multiple sources (email accounts and servers) just as most desktop mail applications support multiple accounts. Six or seven years ago, ‘some’ smart phones may not have supported multiple accounts. But such a limitation could have easily been rectified by selecting a different phone, or asking the manufacturer to modify the software.

In addition, the U.S. Government presumably has the resources to make those modifications in-house. But throw a $100,000 at the hardware manufacturers’ software developer to make a $1,000 modification and swoosh, it’s done.

Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation probably spent ten times that setting up and maintaining the external server, unsecured, located in an unsecured facility, maintained and accessed by unauthorized personnel.

3. Hillary Clinton was not forthcoming about that server. (another lie – legal evasion in lawyer terms)

For nearly eight years Obama and Hillary Clinton have claimed to be the most transparent Administration in U.S. history. If this were true, why setup a private server and then conceal the server existed?

Hillary Clinton was not forthcoming about this server to anyone except those in her inner circle! Which included President Obama (a modern tech user) who misrepresented knowledge of this server device.

Presence of an external server was found indirectly by examining email to/from messages of people who communicated with Clinton on a regular basis.

Despite the fact that Obama has used Executive Privilege regarding his communications with Secretary of State Clinton, discovery of President Obama’s misrepresentations was disclosed in the same ‘indirect’ manner through chains of emails passed through this server. Additionally, Obama used a pseudo account too.

4. Hillary Clinton’s Private Server was intentionally Erased “of all data” before turning it over to the FBI/Congress

Internal messages released by WikiLeaks in combination with other sources revealed the necessary steps to remove all traces of data on Hillary Clinton’s Private Server were taken within hours of a Congressional Hearing and issuance of a Subpoena to produce those electronic messages.

If Hillary Clinton was a trustworthy Government employee, there would be no reason at all to erase all data from a server’s hard disc. Wedding and yoga messages were not what other Government Agencies and Congress were interested in. And, they’re not that interesting!

But the server hard drive(s) were erased long before the existence of the server became known and subsequently handed over to investigating agencies. This erasure process coincided with the issuance of a Subpoena to hand over the data.

Had the issuing agency(ies) known about a private, non-government, unsecured external server being used for top secret and internal State Department business activities, the Subpoena would certainly have been expanded to cover this equipment.

5. Team Clinton destroyed multiple communication devices outside Government procedures.

Again, concealment is the only reason to destroy devices outside of the US Government Systems and Procedures Hillary Clinton was required to use as Secretary of State.

Any lie is an attempt to conceal, mislead and/or deceive.
    Including the “ground zero” story about Benghazi and a Video!

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, forth (4th) in the Line of Succession for the Presidency and outside of Congress, second (2nd) to the President in making decisions and recommendations that affect this Country and its Citizens.

No one should believe Hillary Clinton was given this position without being proficient enough to have the position.

So, if John Doe, a regular guy, blue collar worker can read the law and understand its requirements, Hillary Clinton certainly knew the difference and accordingly — the legal requirements.

Additionally, Wiki-Leaks revealed this ‘unsecured private server’ was a topic of discussion and high level concerns of Clinton’s inner circle and other people working for her. They all knew the difference too!


A vote for Hillary Clinton, was a vote to continue this Now Transparent Intent to “Deceive the American People“.

Should White House Eject Reporters

In a Jan 23, 2017 interview between Kellyanne Conway (Counselor to President Trump) and Sean Hannity at Fox News, Ms. Conway makes a very smart observation.

“If they (White House Reporters) snark, if they roll their eyes, if their Twitter feed is filled with 92 percent anti-Trump tweets, they’re not being reporters, they’re being opinion columnists,”… “They’re being professional political hacks and pundits, and we have a right to call that out.”

Not only does the President of these United States “have a right to call them out”, but the Administration has a right to kick them out – with the peoples support. “Reporters” assigned to the White House are supposed to be News Reporters and not Opinion Columnists. (“supposed to be” are the key words!)

Many “Reporters” are proving themselves to be Opinion Columnists as Kellyanne describes. Would consumers benefit if they were kicked-out of the White House Press Room? Opinion Columnists do not report “News” no more than a Tabloid publishes facts consumers will use to form an opinion and subsequently vote on issues important to America.

This is why White House Reporters are supposed to be News Reporters and not Opinion Columnists – personal Opinions have no business in the Press Corps, utilizing White House resources and consuming the valuable time of real News Reporters who will correctly and effectively communicate White House News to Voters.

People Magazine, Elle, Cosmopolitan, Star, National Inquirer do not have White House reporters for a reason, they do not report news – they sensationalize stories – usually useless nonsense based on the high moral grounds of a small clic.

Over the last eight years with a foundation documented in film 80 years ago, Media has conducted itself in much the same manner as the Hitler Propaganda Machine. The only difference, its foundation has always been backed by wealthy media connected moguls who have sought to control pieces of the country through manipulation of our political process and the politicians they cover.

Hollywood use to depict life in early America fairly correctly in old westerns and most notably in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” with James Stewart. While Wikipedia does a great job of outlining the story, the back-story is entirely missing.

From the beginning of the story, as soon as Mr. Smith (a patriotic and relatively simple man of conviction to country and its people) arrives, all Washington News Reporters do is trick him into looking like a total buffoon while having a laugh at his and the country’s expense.

The real story in the film is how a Congressman and influential News Barron manipulates a story about what Mr. Smith is saying during a filibuster he stages once he discovers the Congressman (who recruited Mr. Smith for the job) is using his position as a Congressman to enrich himself in the private sector.

Eighty years later and Media’s once covert attempts at manipulating news in an effort to influence voters and what the country believes is no longer a hidden objective. Media of all types have complained about the Internet since its inception. Politicians jumped on that bandwagon as soon afterwards. What they really fear is being exposed for the lies, sensationalism, misdirection and manipulation they have survived on for centuries.

During the 2016 election cycle, Media and the DNC were exposed (via WikiLeaks) of its collusion and conceited efforts to manipulate the outcome of the 2016 Election. No one denied it and only a few News Agencies with integrity reported on it. Similar to the absence of News Reporting during 2012 when a “video” was blamed by Clintons’ Team to cover up the shortcomings of the Obama Administration just eight weeks before the 2012 Election.

In 2008, it was the Journo-List Group of 450 Professional and Employed Reporters who’s open, publically published written mission was to distract readers from anything negative revealed about then Presidential Candidate Barrack Hussein Obama using misinformation and disinformation.

The entire foundation of the Journo-List Group was to influence the Vote via published stories in favor of a two term Senator with an entire political background rooted in corrupt special interest. With the combined reach of their collective news agencies, they had the power and stated objective to influence the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election.

So was it coincidental that Obama, the DNC, Media and Clinton Campaign worked together in 2016. Hillary Clinton, while still under FBI and Congressional investigations, exposed of lies to America, Congress and Concealment (private server) was supported by the DNC who colluded to give her the Nomination. Bernie Sanders with a turnout of 25,000 in Los Angeles alone was by far the more popular Democrat Candidate.

Bottom line: White House “Reporters” who prove they are Opinion Columnists, should lose their credentials, clearance and be shown the door. News Agencies who replace them with similar pundits should be given the same consideration as one would give Cosmopolitan and People.

The alternative is one that could put Political segments of Media Industry completely out of business. President Trump and all Government Agencies could easily go direct to consumers (voters) by publishing all Press Events on the Internet. Consumers don’t need some opinionated hack telling them what “they think people say”, when they can hear it in full context directly from the horse’s mouth.