Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Hillary Clinton and the Branch Davidian Holocaust

Do you remember Waco? Do you remember the Branch Davidian compound, led by one David Koresh? Do you remember the siege of the compound and the horrors that ensued?

If you don’t, here’s the story, told by David Hardy at American Thinker:

The 1993 Waco showdown began when federal authorities rushed the communal home of a religious group, killing six of them, and losing four agents in return. The FBI then besieged the place with tanks and other armored vehicles, and ended up with the armored vehicles punching holes in the building, and injecting massive quantities of CS “tear gas.” When that didn’t work, the tanks began to demolish the building, eventually smashing about a quarter of it and damaging the remainder. A fire broke out and 74 people died in the flames, including twenty-one children. It was the deadliest law enforcement operation in American history.

After the tragic debacle, the Clinton administration claimed that Attorney General Janet Reno had been solely responsible for the final assault. There had been no White House input during the siege, and at the end, President Clinton only acquiesced in a decision Reno had made.

The evidence is strong that the Clinton White House was calling the shots, and that Hillary played a prominent role.

As law enforcement operations go, it was the worst. It was a holocaust. Whoever was in charge, whoever gave the orders deserved to be publicly shamed and held accountable.

Unless of course, the responsible party was Hillary Clinton herself.

We know that then-Attorney General Janet Reno fell on her sword—sort of. She accepted responsibility while testifying before a Congressional committee. And yet, she kept her job.

Hardy suggests that the chain of command ran from Hillary herself through her former law partners Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell to Janet Reno. He adds that he believes that Janet Reno kept her job because the Clinton administration needed to keep her quiet.

In normal circumstances, the official who gave the order to attack the compound would have resigned in disgrace. Are we to believe that Reno did not need to resign because she was not responsible for incinerating dozens of people, including many children?

Linda Tripp—of Monica Lewinsky fame- described the reaction in the White House as officials saw what was happening on CNN:

Linda Tripp, White House secretary and Foster associate, described the real Waco chain of command in an on Larry King Live: “[Vincent] Foster, Mrs. Clinton, Webb Hubbell, Janet Reno” – and she described their reaction to the fire and the fiery deaths of 21 children:

L. TRIPP: [A] special bulletin came on [CNN] showing the atrocity at Waco and the children. And his face, his whole body slumped, and his face turned white, and he was absolutely crushed knowing, knowing the part he had played. And he had played the part at Mrs. Clinton's direction.

Her reaction, on the other hand, was heartless. And I can only tell you what I saw.

Foster had a special Waco file. Deborah Gorham, his personal secretary, said that he had a cabinet reserved for his most sensitive files: “There were two. One was Sean Hadden [a White House staffer], and the other was Waco.”

After his death, Foster’s Waco file somehow vanished. Secret Service Agent Henry O’Neil later testified before a Congressional committee that on the night of Foster’s death he encountered Maggie Williams leaving Foster’s office with two handfuls of folders. Williams denied removing any files, and when called upon to explain her presence in Foster’s office that night, claimed she had gone “in the irrational hope that she would find her colleague still alive there.”

Did Foster commit suicide because he knew that someone would have to take real responsibility for Waco?

In the end Hardy does not have a smoking gun connecting Hillary to the Waco catastrophe. And yet, his surmise makes perfectly good sense. One can only assume that Hillary was responsible and that the White House was trying to protect her reputation.

Would it have mattered? Perhaps, not that much. After all, Hillary’s leadership in the Libya incursion, to say nothing of her ability to provide security for Amb. Chris Stevens showed clearly enough her level of manifest incompetence.

As of now, people continue to promote the absurd notion that she is eminently qualified for the presidency.

7 comments:

Trigger Warning said...

"Holocaust" is right.

Anyone remember this?
https://goo.gl/images/Uz3aWC

And Bush was no better. Ruby Ridge, anyone?


Dennis said...

Ruby Ridge and Waco is the first time I started questioning the FBI role in government. Up until that time I thought they were the good guys because I had known people who had became agents when I was stationed in DC. Comey has further erode my trust in the FBI just when I was starting to trust them again.
The same is true of the Department of Injustice which seems wholly political in its application of the law. Hillary's ability to walk away from charges when others have been prosecuted has the DOJ written all over it.
Given Hillary's ability to demonstrate contempt for large segments of this country's citizens it is not difficult to see her doing something like Waco. Even her response to Waco was unfeeling and almost "What difference does it make." Where Vince Foster never got over it. The desire to use the agencies of the government agains't anyone who might disagree with her is strongly denoted in her treatments others and even those who protect her life. This is a nasty old woman with a contempt for others that is not going away. Hard to believe that anyone who has this contempt can actually govern "We the people."
It is why I mentioned Waco before.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Hillary Clinton is the exaggerated embodiment of every negative female stereotype. Pamela Anderson may be the exaggeration of the female form, but Hillary is the exaggeration of the dark feminine. The Devil Wears Pant Suits. There are too many references from too many people about too many incidents to leave anything beyond doubt: Hillary is a bitch.

We hear endless reports to bolster the narrative of what a jerk Trump is, but this is said in a vacuum -- as though it provides contrast to his opponent. As though it is a compelling reason we ought not vote for him. Well, at least Trump didn't have a record of bodies in his wake.

I'm sure Hillary saw the Branch Davidians as a bunch of deplorables -- contemptible religious nuts, and their kids were collateral damage. This is from the woman who claims to be a champion of children.

What we see here with Lefty leaders like Hillary is a show of force to keep people in line... the implied "You're next!" Behind every Leftist movement is the threat of violence, and the weapon of fear is its randomness. Random, like a fringe apocalyptic cult group like the Branch Davidians in Waco.

The moves against the Branch Davidians began a month after Bill Clinton took office. A coincidence? No way. Coming off the federal alphabet soup law enforcement operation in Ruby Ridge six months earlier, the Feds wanted to show how they were going to deal with people with guns. This was the Clintons first salvo (read: signal) about how they planned to deal with guns. After the Waco conflagration, the Clintons successfully pushed for an "assault weapons" ban.

The most important detail of the Waco disaster was that it didn't have to happen: federal authorities had NUMEROUS opportunities to arrest David Koresh on BATF weapons charges while he was away from the Branch Davidian compound. They chose not to. Instead, they decided to do a full, military-style assault on the cult complex, which was surrounded by abundant open ground. The Branch Davidians could see them coming. Strange choice when you're going after a group on dangerous weapons charges.

Waco was political theater. What the Feds didn't expect was the Branch Davidians fighting back. 4 BATF officers and 6 Branch Davidians died. it was intended to be a visible demonstration of federal power against guns and groups with guns in the wake of Ruby Ridge... which was another botched, unnecessary, heavy-handed federal law enforcement operation. Both "sieges" ended with militarized federal law enforcement strategies and tactics. They spawned the militia movement. It made kooks into plausible patriots.

And it motivated one man to mix ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel, put it in a Ryder box truck, and blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Yes, Timothy McVeigh did that to mark the 2-year anniversary of the immolation at Waco.

This is the Clinton legacy. Waco was yet another of Hillary's achievements as the smartest woman in the world. I'm glad you brought it up, Stuart. It needs to be remembered and discussed. In a Hillary Clinton presidency, you can count on her to act fast and furiously against guns, with a visible demonstration of power to let everyone know "You're next!" There is nothing graceful or subtle about Hillary. She is filled with hate.

Dennis said...

An example of Hillary being the nasty old lady: http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/13-times-hillary-clinton-truly-nasty-woman/
And one wonders why a number of us would fear a repeat of a Waco like attack by the federal government especially given Comey's lickspittle response to Hillary's illegal actions and the militarization of almost every department of the federal government.
If one wonders where that army outside the military that Obama talked about is one only has to look at the amount of ammunition the federal government is buying that is not destined for military use.
Remember that the Obama administration spends a vast majority of its time taking about domestic terrorism meaning anyone who might challenge the state and little about Islamic terrorism.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Hillary got 97% of the donations from Department of Justice employees. Go figure.

We don't win anymore. The system is rigged. Drain the swamp. Make America Great Again.

Slogans? Sure. But it's getting harder to argue with them.

Get ready. This election is close, and they know it. This wasn't supposed to happen. The Left is going to be on the warpath, resorting to violence and intimidation. "By any means necessary," right?

Perhaps you, too, can be an enemy of the state.

Anonymous said...

... I lost my expostulations by looking up "Starets".

Last line: Now we learn that HRC was the Evil Starets (Rasputin) in Command.

My disgust become fear. -- Rich Lara

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Let's say this presidential election ends up very close, possibly coming down to Florida again. Because we're beyond the halfway point in a U.S. Census, there is a possibility that the popular vote and electoral college vote will be off. Not as bad as it might be in 2020, but it is a possibility.

Let's say Hillary wins the popular vote, but Donald wins the Electoral College. Under our Constitutional system, Trump would be the winner. That is, unless there would then be mischief leading up to the Electoral College vote on the Monday, December 19.

Or let's just say Hillary wins amidst substantial irregularities that impact close elections in one or more key states. If Trump wins, and it's by a paper-thin margin in Florida again, the Democrats are not going to stand down on "Florida II." Or Trump wins, and the Democrat lawyers move to legal action that delays certification of the results. Or the irregularities are so pervasive and widespread that it compromises the perceived integrity of the election. This could disrupt the Electoral College doing its job.

Trump does not enjoy support from any establishment or institutional authorities, including his own party. You can count on them turning their back on Trump for the sake of stability. They may not succeed in electing Hillary, but they certainly could by selecting or imposing Hillary "for the good of the country."

It Trump falls short, it will be because of a huge support in middle America that is defined by a belief more than the man, and that support will not go quietly. If it's perceived to be because of vote fraud, it will be an absolute mess, because it's unclear where things go from there...

Procedurally, a contested election will become a law enforcement and/or judicial issue. Law enforcement will be called to investigate, handled by state, county or municipal authorities, unless they invite federal assistance. But remember: Bush-Gore 2000 ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court's lap because the Florida Supreme Court punted and did not apply the law properly, making it a federal issue under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bush won that decision 5-4. The grand problem we have is that there are eight U.S. Supreme Court Justices today. If it went to them, and things fell on ideological lines, the decision would be 4-4. A stalemate.

The House of Representatives could not intervene if one of the candidates achieved 270 Electoral Votes. If it were a tie in a two-way race, it could. So then it could come down to Trump or Hillary seeking to influence Electors at the state level -- based on their state rules. Or perhaps a "faithless Elector" chooses to not follow the election results in their states and act as an "unpledged Elector." Then things get interesting.

And that's when the violence would begin, if it had not already because of the uncertain outcome. Particularly if Trump was declared the winner. We know how Obama and Trump feel about each other. This could get very, very mischievous and very, very ugly. Then you could have unthinkable banana republic stuff happening. Who would stand for the good of the country? Would Obama declare a state of emergency? What would the state and local authorities do?

There are all kinds of hypotheticals, scenarios and what-ifs. But a contested election is an extremely dangerous possibility, given the current composition of the Supreme Court, our current White House occupant, and the individual "conscience" of an unpledged or faithless Elector. Who would save the day? It'd be pins and needles like 2008 all over again... this time political instead of economic. We can all agree this election has been contentious. It's been a mess. Why should we not assume it will live up to its billing right up to the very end? I am not trying to sound the alarm or be alarmist, but we are a bitterly-divided nation... much more so than in 2000. Neither candidate will go quietly, and nor will our sitting president.