Hillary Clinton is a political hot mess. It is one scandal after another with the former U.S. senator. Ted Harvey (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) reports on one:

You've heard of Benghazi and Uranium One. But more than a year after Hillary Clinton’s resounding loss to President Trump, she must now grapple with a new scandal: An ongoing Federal Election Commission investigation into an alleged $84 million money laundering scheme orchestrated by the Hillary Victory Fund — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic state parties.
Based on former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile’s public comments, a memo by former Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and months of reviewing FEC reports, the Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint accusing the Democratic establishment of using state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder money to Clinton’s campaign. The Hillary Victory Fund solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane, “papered” them through state parties en route to DNC and then the Clinton campaign.
In reality, the fund either never transferred $84 million to state parties, sending the funds straight to the DNC, or it made the transfers without state parties having actual control of the money. In either case, the fund violated campaign finance laws in precisely the way the Supreme Court deemed illegal in its 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. And that’s only the tip of allegations in this particular iceberg.
If and when the allegations are confirmed by the FEC, Clinton’s $84 million money laundering scheme will go down as the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

She really is something.

She fooled me.

I got taken in.

I will not pretend otherwise.

I thought she stood for something.

I was so wrong.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Wednesday, January 10, 2018. Another US service member has died in Iraq, another drawdown -- not a withdrawal -- is discussed, how some women hijacked the Golden Globes to turn the attention to their pet issues and not focus on assault and harassment -- and how they stripped male survivors out of the narrative, and more.

Yesterday afternoon, the US Defense Dept issued the following:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DoD Identifies Army Casualty

Press Operations

Release No: NR-008-18
Jan. 9, 2018

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.

Spc. Javion Shavonte Sullivan, 24, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, died Jan. 8 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, from a non-combat related incident. Sullivan was assigned to the 16th Signal Company, 11th Theater Tactical Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas. The incident is under investigation.

For more information, media may contact Fort Hood Public Affairs at 254-287-9993 or 254-287-0106.

"B-b-but Barack pulled all US troops out of Iraq!!!!"

Sadly, some still pimp that lie -- some who are too ignorant to know better and some who just live to lie.

‏Verified account @starsandstripes

Spc. Javion Shavonte Sullivan, who died Monday in Iraq, joined the Army to “make a better life for his family, fight for his country”

1 reply10 retweets18 likes

Chad Garland (STARS AND STRIPES) notes, "He is the first U.S. servicemember to die while supporting the anti-ISIS campaign this year, and the 22nd since Operation Inherent Resolve began in the fall of 2014."

22 US service members have died in the Iraq War since the bulk of the press lied that a "withdrawal" took place. At the end of 2011, a drawdown took place. There is a difference. And while Barack Obama and the White House had the press spinning for it, the Defense Dept always used the term "drawdown." With the exception of Ted Koppel, not one journalist rushed to tell you the truth about the US service members who remained in Iraq.

Interesting footnote to that, Ted did so on NBC and on NPR -- and two programs no longer air. Kind of like the outlet that told the truth in the lead up to the Iraq War -- MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS -- is no longer around. Running with the pack seems to lead to longevity which is why so few ever sticks their necks out.

This is from NBC's no longer airing ROCK CENTER -- we first noted it in the 12/12/11 snapshot:

MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?

AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.

The only one still on the air that Ted discussed the topic on is NBC's MEET THE PRESS (12/13/11):

Ted Koppel: The point is Ron Paul was almost right last night. You remember, and it was one of the overlooked points in the debate, he spoke of the 17,000, he spoke about civilian contractors who are still in Iraq. We do have 17,000 people still in Iraq. They're not all civilian contractors, but a great many of them are. You've got a consulate in Basra, a consulate in Erbil. The one in Basra is just less than 20 miles from the Iranian border; 1,320 Americans down there. They are rocketed two or three times a week. They are about as vulnerable as any Americans have been since 1979 at the embassy in Tehran. And if they were to be frontally attacked, and I'm suggesting that that's not unlikely at all, you're going to see the U.S. military come back in. Because, while the ambassador said, "No, no, no, we're going to rely on the Iraqis to do the job," there is no way that the U.S. military will wait for the Iraqis to save those Americans, and they're going to need saving.

That was the drawdown at the end of 2011, it was not a withdrawal.

ALSUMARIA has reported that there will be a reduction of the number of US service members in Iraq shortly.

If the reduction happens, it will be another reduction. All this time later, we've still not seen a withdrawal of US forces.

Earlier this week, John Perkins (INFORMANTION CLEARING HOUSE) observed:

Washington’s recently passed 2018 military budget was touted as $700 billion; however, it actually surpasses $800 billion when relevant sections of the State and Energy Departments and intelligence agencies are included. This is bigger than the combined military budgets of the next seven – nine (depending on how it is measured) largest countries. (1)
Where does that money go? Who profits from these expenditures? How many of our elected officials own stock in Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and the other merchants of death, as well as the banks and Wall Street firms that finance them? (2)
You, Ken Burns, and I may think that we lost the Vietnam War. But investors in war profiteering corporations came to a different conclusion. They did then and they do now.
How stupid are they?
(1) https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320
(2) http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-9-biggest-defense-contractors-in-america-2016-5/#1-lockheed-martin-corporation-

War is big business. It always allows filth to rake in millions in blood money.

Mark Curtis‏Verified account @markcurtis30 Jan 8

Look. BP is now doing fine from #Iraq oil. And one of BP’s Board members is ‘Sir’ John Sawers, former head of MI6, who in 2003 Iraq invasion/occupation was the UK's special rep in Iraq. It’s just amazing what is allowed to happen. 

41 replies948 retweets726 likes

It's not the 99% getting rich off wars. They're the ones sent to foreign countries but they're not the ones getting rich off the wars.

Changing topics, the Golden Globes again. A discordant note was struck and I didn't even realize it until this morning (I sort through things in dreams, as noted many times before).

I missed an issue because I was so appalled by the glorification of the vile Kirk Douglas:

Women.

Time and again, we heard about women.

That was self-serving and victim-erasing.

I'm embarrassed for everyone who spoke -- including two friends.

Kevin Spacey isn't accused of assaulting any woman.

The victims of assault and rape are not just women and what took place was insulting and self-serving. It's now morphed into "poor Michelle Williams." Mark Wahlberg's not the problem. She should have hired a better agent. If a film has reshoots or goes beyond it's shooting schedule, you get that in writing and you get what you want. And it's generally the easiest thing to get in a contract because the studio expects the director to stick to the shooting schedule. This is not a gender issue -- that Mark got more money that Michelle for reshoots -- it's an issue about making the demands you need to make. Joan Crawford accidentally saw Bette Davis' contract for WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? She saw Bette was getting a better per diem and other benefits. Joan, like Bette, was a woman. It wasn't sexism. It has to do with representation and also with hawk-eyeing the work you're paying your agent a commission to do.

Michelle is not going to get as much to make a film as Mark is currently. He's established as the lead of several hit films and she's not been the lead in any hit film. But she is an extremely talented actress and her agent should have demanded a hard out and a most favored nation clause. If her agent had, the studio would have been forced to pay Michelle for the reshoots and pay her what they were paying Mark.

When FOX sued Elizabeth Taylor, it wasn't about the box office for CLEOPATRA. It was about the fact that they didn't want to pay her what they owed her. (This is when they tried to invoke a moral's clause, etc.) Her contract stipulated what she would be paid for the scheduled shooting and what she'd be paid if shooting went over. This is not a new issue. Michelle was poorly represented and might want to consider new representation.

But if we could leave the issue of wage gap -- which always looks a little elitist when you're that far above poverty level -- don't mistake what happened at the Golden Globes with fighting for -- or even respecting -- the survivors of assault and harassment.

All victims are not women. Anthony Edwards bravely came forward to talk about what happened to him. It devalues Anthony and every other male survivor when we jabber away about women, women, women without ever acknowledging that anyone can be a victim.

To present the falsehood that the victims are women only and then to use it to whine about how many female directors this or wage that is nonsense. It was embarrassing.

I firmly support equal pay for equal work, I champion women directors. Those are important issues.

But if the topic for the night is assault and harassment, then you do not waste time on those two topics and get applause. You should instead be called out for diverting attention from the issue on hand and also for stereotyping survivors.

We need to note this from WSWS:

Organizing Resistance to Internet Censorship: An online discussion with Chris Hedges and David North

On January 16, 2018, the World Socialist Web Site will video livestream a discussion on Internet censorship, featuring Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and WSWS International Editorial Board Chairperson David North. WSWS reporter Andre Damon will moderate the discussion.

The webinar will explore the political context of the efforts to censor the Internet and abolish net neutrality, examine the pretexts used to justify the suppression of free speech (i.e., “fake news”), and discuss political strategies to defend democratic rights. Hedges and North will also field questions from on-line listeners.

The webinar will be streamed live by the WSWS on YouTube and Facebook on Tuesday, January 16 at 7:00 pm EST (midnight in London, 1:00am in Berlin, 3:00am in Moscow and 11:00 am January 17 in Sydney. Full Time Zone Conversions).

Chris Hedges is the host of RT’s On Contact and a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist who presently writes a weekly column for Truthdig. He is also the author of the bestsellers American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle and War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Hedges has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University and the University of Toronto.

David North has played a leading role in the international socialist movement for forty-five years, and is presently the chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site and national chairperson of the Socialist Equality Party (US). His published works include A Quarter-Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony; The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century; The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique; and In Defense of Leon Trotsky.

Andre Damon has written extensively on Google’s censorship of left wing, anti-war, and progressive web sites.

Help promote the event by sharing this video on social media

Government and corporations escalate Internet censorship and attacks on free speech

By Andre Damon

The year 2018 has opened with an international campaign to censor the Internet. Throughout the world, technology giants are responding to the political demands of governments by cracking down on freedom of speech, which is inscribed in the US Bill of Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and countless international agreements.

Bloomberg, the financial news service, published a blog post titled “Welcome to 2018, the Year of Censored Social Media,” which began with the observation, “This year, don’t count on the social networks to provide its core service: an uncensored platform for every imaginable view. The censorship has already begun, and it’ll only get heavier. Read more »