Trump triumphs -- Media's 'primal scream' is heard round the world

No, America, that wasn’t an earthquake. That was a media scream that registered 11 on the Richter scale as Republican Donald Trump defied media demands and went on to win the presidential election in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump to concede.
A nearly unanimous media failed to carry the unpopular Hillary across the finish line. Once again, America rejected the liberal Democrat. Advil set the tone early with a comment: “Politics giving you a #migraine? Advil® Migraine is the best candidate for pain relief.” CNN commentator David Axelrod called it a “primal scream.” ABC’s Terry Moran called it “a rejection of the neoliberal world order that has been the consensus around the world.” CNN commentator and former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones called the election a “White-lash against a changing country.”
When it appeared that Hillary would not concede, after campaign chairman John Podesta appeared before her supporters in Manhattan and told everyone to go home and get some rest, even some in media criticized her. USA Today Washington correspondent Paul Singer was typical: “Stunned that @HillaryClinton did not concede. If @realDonaldTrump pulled that, people would go bananas.”
The election was a national rejection of both the traditional media and the Hollywood elite who piled on money, endorsements, appearances and offensive videos telling people to vote. Celebrities went full-on insane. Actor Mark Ruffalo vowed to do a nude scene if Clinton won. Madonna said she would perform oral sex on Clinton voters. It was so overboard that it might well have caused voters to just say no to all of star media.
The night went from what CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called a “real nail-biter” to one his co-anchor Jake Tapper said is, "going to put the polling industry out of business.” Left-wing Fusion referred to a “Terrifying/exciting state-by-state #ElectionNight.” The New York Times prediction tracker went from overwhelmingly predicting a Clinton win to 94 percent for Trump as the clock neared 11 p.m. Even when Hillary won Virginia, the Times was sending out downbeat emails saying she “preserved a slim path to victory.”
Trump supporter and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee joked: “Wouldn't wanna be under that giant glass ceiling if Hillary is forced to concede. That party might end like Carrie's prom.” Fox News contributor and commentator Richard Grenell blasted the news media. “The media is for sure losing tonight no matter who pulls this off. How wrong they were.”
What media and pollsters had predicted would be an early night turned into a long contest. Around 8:40 p.m., liberals and media staff started to panic. Huffington Post Senior Political Reporter and Politics Managing Editor Amanda Terkel showed the tension. “Office debate right now: ‘Trump might win!’ ‘Trump ain't going to win.’”
By 9 pm ET it spread. CNN commentator Sally Kohn showed the typical liberal reaction. “IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS CLOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Former CBS anchor Dan Rather summed it up. “Nearing cardiac arrest time for team Clinton.” Global Editorial Director, The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman said what was on many lips: “This is starting -- starting -- to look like an American #Brexit.”
The media pointed fingers at FBI head James Comey. Pundit Michael Smerconish blamed him for the vote. “Changing my @TIME 2016 person of yr prediction (who most influenced news) to James Comey #ElectionNight.” Atlantic Senior Editor Adam Serwer put it succinctly: “Congrats to the New York FBI office.” He went further later: “Congratulations to Vladimir Putin, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Atlantic Senior Editor David Frum found another villain – Russia. “We may be living through the most successful Russian intelligence operation since the Rosenbergs stole the A-bomb.”
Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter blamed it on masculinity. “Trump didn't win because of Comey. He won because he's a testosterone candidate and men weren't ready for a woman president.” He continued to hammer out hyperbole: “America has never faced such a crisis before. World War II was 4 years but US always fairly sure we would win. This will be a new menace.”
Journalists had earlier celebrated as Hillary broke the “the glass ceiling.” ABC gave up all pretense of neutrality and had former Clinton staffer and Clinton Foundation contributor George Stephanopoulos moderate election night coverage. Comedian Emo Phillips reflected Hollywood’s agenda in one short Tweet: “I don't get it. We had all the funny tweets.”
The New York Times showed that media bias remained an issue into election night, writing that, “an intense public distrust in the media is threatening the networks’ traditional role as election night scorekeeper.” In a think piece discussion about coverage of the race, the Times controversial media columnist Jim Rutenberg said Trump, “received coverage of a billionaire reality-television star who turned politics into performance art.”
He followed that up with one of the worst media bubble comments of the election: “The press needs to explore the frustration of those many Americans who think free trade’s gone too far; that immigration threatens the national fabric; and that insiders from Washington, Wall Street and the media have rigged the system against them.”
Election Day brought out the strange in the media, as well. CBS Evening News veteran Bob Schieffer wondered if the nation were “enduring some kind of curse.” He added in nice biblical metaphor: “What should we expect next – that it will rain frogs? I wouldn’t bet against it.”
Pollster Nate Silver crowed early because he had been criticized for giving Trump a better chance to win the World Series than Trump had of becoming president. The Cubs won. “This doesn't seem like an election in which one candidate had a 99% chance of winning tbh,” he Tweeted.
Washington Post quasi-conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin bashed the GOP in her election day screed, urging Republicans to help Clinton succeed. “Do I think all this is likely? No, but then we are among the thousands of center-right Americans who think the solution to the sclerotic GOP may very well be a new political party.”
Earlier in the day, The Washington Post described the ballot with a mountain full of understatement: “An acrimonious race reaches an endpoint.” Of course, the Post probably described WWII as an international disagreement.
The foreign press chimed in, too. German newspapers warned of a “Trumpocalypse” and called the GOP candidate a “Horror-Clown.” The Daily Mail described the vote as, “Clinton, Trump fight for soul of divided US before vote.”
Far left media grew more bizarre as the day went on. Huffington Post featured a story headlined: “I Voted With My Vagina And I’m Proud Of It.” Buzzfeed Senior editor Rachel W. Miller retweeted a Cosmo article on anal sex with this classic comment: “Pretty sure this experience is worse than any cringey butt sex, Cosmo, but ok.”
As the perfect conclusion to the night, Huffington Post decided to stop using the controversial tagline it had on Trump stories. “The Huffington Post’s editor's note calling Donald Trump as a ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ is no more, a source in the newsroom tells POLITICO.”

A loud cheer for the Silent Majority that lifted Trump to victory

Our long national nightmare is over and the Republic has been saved.
I’m originally from the Deep South. My father, who passed away in 2006, was a blue-collar worker. We lived paycheck-to-paycheck. We went to church on Sunday. We lived a quiet life – just like many families in so-called “Fly-Over Country.”
Click here to join Todd’s Newsletter: Common Sense Conservative Commentary!
My father was a member of the Silent Majority and had he been alive he would’ve cast his vote for Donald J. Trump.
I’ve lived in New York City for more than a decade now – and I’ve seen firsthand the contempt for country folks like my father – people from rural America.
As I wrote in my book, “God Less America,” I feel like a “Duck Dynasty” guy living in a Miley Cyrus world – where right is wrong, wrong is right – it’s as if our values have been turned upside down.
President Obama called us bitter. He said we were the kinds of people who cling to guns and religion.
Time and time again he stood on foreign soil and apologized for our nation. And to this day it remains unclear whether he believes the United States is the most exceptional nation on Earth.
Hillary Clinton called us deplorable – irredeemable.
"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it."
The only thing deplorable was Hillary Clinton's basket of grossly generalistic comments.
"And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up," she went on to say. "He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric."
Her campaign portrayed Conservative Catholicism as a “bastardization of the faith” and seemed to imply that Evangelicals are a bunch of impoverished country bumpkins.
Click here to get Todd’s latest book – “God Less America” –  a tribute to gun-toting, Bible-clingers!
We were mocked by Hollywood and dismissed by academics. We were marginalized by the media – bullied and belittled by sex and gender revolutionaries.
But all that changed on Election Day – when Donald Trump became a champion for the Silent Majority. He gave us a voice.  And now the Silent Majority is silent no more.
We the People have decided that it’s time to drain the swamp.
It’s time to restore traditional values. It’s time to protect the Constitution. It’s time to defend our sovereignty. It’s time to save unborn babies.
It’s time to stand up for the American working man and bring jobs back from China and Mexico. It’s time to eradicate the scourge of ObamaCare.
And it’s time to hire the bricklayers so they can start building that giant wall.
The Deplorable Americans have spoken – and on the eighth day of November in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Sixteen – we have decided to Make America Great Again.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

World leaders welcome Trump presidential victory with mixed reactions

Donald Trump defied the polls and pundits until the very end, defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s presidential election.
His win comes as a “wake-up call” to establishment politicians, as his win exposes the dissatisfaction with the way politicians have run things in the past.
Trump acknowledged during his acceptance speech early Wednesday morning saying America will “get along with all other nations willing to get along with us.”
The world took notice to this historic election as well. Some responses were hopeful for foreign relations to continue smoothly.
Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Donald Trump on winning the U.S. presidential election. The Kremlin said in a brief statement that Putin expressed "his hope to work together for removing Russian-American relations from their crisis state."
Putin also said he has "confidence that building a constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington that is based on principles of equality, mutual respect and a real accounting each other's positions, in the interests of our peoples and the world community."
Turkey's justice minister Bekiz Bozdag also commented on the election telling the state-run Anadolu Agency on Wednesday, "in essence our relations are relations between two states and we hope that under the new presidential term the Turkish-U.S. relations will be much better. That is our expectation."
A top Palestinian official acknowledged on Wednesday that he doesn’t expect the U.S. positions to change on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under Donald Trump.
Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said, "We have been preparing so that we can respond to any situation because our stance is that our alliance with the U.S. remains to be the cornerstone of our diplomacy whoever becomes the next president."
During his speech on Wednesday morning, Trump had a message of hope saying he plans for America to “deal fairly with everyone, all people, and all nations.”

More on this...

• Trump win raises question about UN climate deal

• Donald Trump Wins Election: Officially Named 45th President of the United States

• What President-elect Trump should do now: Ten suggestions

In his campaign he has caused a great deal of controversy with his plans to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, bring trade cases against China and his plans to deport all criminal aliens out of the country.
While some comments of Trump’s victory were positive, others were not as warm.
France’s Socialist government openly endorsed Clinton. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said France would work with the new president, but expressed concern saying, "We don't want a world where egoism triumphs.” Ayrault added, "There is a part of our electorate that feels ... abandoned," including people who feel "left behind" by globalization.” Fact: Have the French forgotten that America freed them from the Nazis in world war 2.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault

Indonesians called to question Americans who voted for the billionaire on social media. Some people say that under a Trump administration they fear they'll be prevented from visiting relatives and friends who live in America or traveling there as tourists.
A couple of Chinese participants at a U.S. Embassy event in Beijing say they'd welcome a Trump presidency, while another says he thinks the Republican candidate projects a flawed image of the United States.
Speaking of Cuba's leaders, Communist Party member and noted economist and political scientist Esteban Morales told the Telesur network that "they must be worried because I think this represents a new chapter."
Carlos Alzugaray, a political scientist and retired Cuban diplomat, said a Trump victory could, however, please some hard-liners in the Cuban leadership who worried that Cuba was moving too close to the United States too quickly.
Many people joked threatening to leave the U.S. in the event of a Trump win, however Canada and the prospect of Americans moving there appears to have drawn so much online interest that it has knocked out the country's immigration website.
Searches for "move to Canada" and "immigrate to Canada" spiked Tuesday night as election returns favored Republican nominee Donald Trump. "Canada" was a leading U.S. trend on Twitter, with more than 1 million tweets.
The NATO chief discussed Trump’s call for counter-terrorism efforts saying he’s ready to discuss his push further but a collective defense of Europe is needed.
Trump’s speech was one of inclusion, a desire for change and a new chapter for America with a message of creating a nation for all and helping world relations adding, “We will have great relations all around the world.”

Trump wins presidency, defeats Clinton in historic election upset

Donald Trump: I will be president for all Americans

Donald Trump, defying the pundits and polls to the end, defeated Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s presidential election and claimed an establishment-stunning victory that exposes the depth of voter dissatisfaction – and signals immense changes ahead for American policy at home and abroad.
Seventeen months after the billionaire tycoon’s Trump Tower entrance into the race, the first-time candidate once dismissed by the political elite will become the 45^th president, Fox News projects.
Speaking to cheering supporters early Wednesday morning at his victory party in New York City, the Republican candidate and now president-elect said Clinton called to congratulate him, and Fox News confirms she has conceded. Despite their hard-fought campaign, Trump praised Clinton for her service and said “it is time for us to come together as one united people.”
“I will be president for all Americans,” Trump vowed, after a brief introduction by running mate Mike Pence.
TRUMP'S AGENDA: WHAT HIS ELECTION MEANS FOR AMERICA
Sounding a call to “reclaim our country’s destiny,” Trump declared: “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. … America will no longer settle for anything less than the best.”
Trump will be the oldest president in U.S. history, entering the Oval Office at age 70. With her defeat, Clinton falls short in her second bid to become the first female president of the United States.
Though Clinton called Trump, her campaign initially did not concede defeat. Earlier, her campaign chairman John Podesta addressed supporters nearby in New York and said several states were “too close to call.”
Clinton herself did not appear at the rally. Podesta had urged supporters to “head home” and said they would not have “anything more to say tonight.”
Amid Trump’s victory, Republicans also were projected to hold onto their majority in the House and Senate, improving Trump’s chances of advancing his agenda in office.
A surge of support in key battlegrounds – and especially surprise victories in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – helped propel Trump to victory. The GOP nominee built a commanding lead early on with wins in heavily contested North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Iowa.
Clinton won her share of battlegrounds, including Virginia and Nevada and Colorado, but could not make up for Trump’s strong performance in other states thought to favor the Democrat.
The billionaire businessman’s victory marked a remarkable upset and turnaround, after he had been complaining amid a rough patch just weeks ago the vote could be “rigged” against him.
Clinton was still thought to have the clear advantage in the electoral map going into Tuesday’s vote, yet the polls had been tightening in the race’s closing days.
His victory could demonstrate just how much the dynamics were shifting in his favor – and perhaps how his true support was elusive all along to pollsters and others gauging the race.
Without question, his bid was helped over the last two weeks by a burst of setbacks for his opponent.
Eleven days before the election, FBI Director James Comey announced the bureau was revisiting the investigation into Clinton’s personal email server use while secretary of state, after discovering new messages on the laptop of disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide. He closed the case again on Sunday, but the political damage may have been done. And the WikiLeaks release of emails hacked from Podesta’s account became a constant distraction for the campaign, as the messages revealed infighting, internal concerns about the Clinton family’s foundation and even evidence that the now-head of the Democratic National Committee leaked town hall questions to Clinton during the primaries.
This at times overshadowed the numerous allegations of sexual harassment and assault against Trump that came out in October (which he denies), following leaked footage from over a decade ago showing Trump making crude comments about women.
Trump’s victory marks the second time Clinton was thwarted in her bid to become the first female U.S. president, having been defeated by President Obama in their 2008 primary race.
But Trump has been able to defy expectations from the start. He defeated a deep field of 16 competitors during the Republican primaries – stitching together a motivated coalition of voters invigorated by his outsider, populist message; throwing his rivals off their talking points during a raucous marathon of debates; and commanding media attention throughout with his unpredictable, learn-as-he-goes campaign style.
He also defied party orthodoxy, railing against free-trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership and staking out a sometimes-confusing set of positions on foreign policy that may yet evolve. Democrats have criticized him heavily for statements expressing admiration for Russia’s Vladimir Putin and a desire to rebuild ties with Moscow.
Trump was aided by the infrastructure of the GOP, but his campaign never came close to the juggernaut operation mounted by Clinton. While she entered the final stretch of the race with an army of high-powered surrogates, Trump’s campaign was driven mainly by him, an inner circle of family members and a rotating set of top campaign advisers. Surrogates like retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani advocated aggressively for the Republican nominee, but he remained at odds with many influential elected Republicans who in some cases – as with House Speaker Paul Ryan – endorsed him, but only reluctantly. His stances on trade as well as his hardline immigration proposals – including variations on a plan to suspend Muslim immigration from certain countries – also made party brass uncomfortable.

The late emergence of a 2005 tape showing him making crude comments about women led some congressional Republicans to abandon him entirely. But even the biggest controversies seemed only to ding Trump, whose resilience in the polls could be credited to a movement of grassroots supporters who seemed to have little interest in the nominee’s tensions with the GOP establishment and saw him as the true change-maker in the election.

Hillary Clinton Cartoons

Trump's children explain why voters should elect their father

Trump's children explain why their father should be elected

Three members of Donald Trump’s family made their final pitch to voters Monday night on “Hannity” hours before Election Day, saying that they believe their father can get the country back on track.
“Seventy percent of this country believes this country is heading in the wrong direction and he knows what to do to get the country back on track,” Ivanka Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity with Donald Trump Jr. and Tiffany Trump sitting next to her. “And the excitement and belief in the potential of Trump leadership is amazing to him. He’s so encouraged by it. He’ll never let Americans down.”
Trump Jr. said the campaign had been greeted with an outpouring of warmth from disaffected Americans who “haven’t had a voice in generations. He said their reactions had changed his family.
“They see that look of hope in my father and watching them react to his message and even our message. It’s really special and has changed us a lot.”
Tiffany Trump added that the support of the American people had fueled him to go out there and that he was becoming more inspired each and every day.
Donald Trump, in his final pledge to voters, vowed to make America safe and prosperous again, while Hillary Clinton vowed to unite a divided nation.

More on this...

• Closing Arguments: Trump pledges jobs, security; Clinton sounds unity message in final push

• Trump's immigration message may have impact on Arizona voters

• Fox News Electoral Scorecard: Map shifts again in Trump's favor, as Clinton holds edge

In Trump Jr’s final plea to voters, he illustrated that Clinton had fought for special interests and “every elite class you can get.” He told “Hannity” that America needs an outsider to break up the system.
“This is a rare and unique chance to bring an outsider to Washington D.C. – someone who is willing, able and ready to take on the DC cartel and break it up. Both sides have failed us. This is really about insider vs outsider and we need an outsider to break up this system.”
The latest Fox News Electoral Scorecard shows Trump’s prospects improving in four key states -- Arizona, Iowa, Utah and North Carolina – though Clinton still has the advantage on the electoral map.

Benghazi guards turned on US diplomats in 2012 attack, sources say

Benghazi intel in Clinton 'quid pro quo' email

An obscure private firm hired by the State Department over internal objections to protect U.S. diplomats in Benghazi just months before the American ambassador and three others were killed was staffed with hastily recruited locals with terror ties who helped carry out the attack, multiple sources told Fox News.
The explosive charge against Wales-based Blue Mountain Group comes from several sources, including an independent security specialist who has implemented training programs at U.S. Consulates around the world, including in Benghazi, where he trained a local militia that preceded Blue Mountain. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Blue Mountain used local newspaper ads to assemble a team of 20 guards, many of whom had terror ties, after securing a $9.2 million annual contract.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

John "Tig" Tiegen was there and says guards turned on Americans.

“The guards who were hired were locals who were part of the Ansar al-Sharia and Al Qaeda groups operating in Benghazi,” said the source, whose assignment in Benghazi had ended in November 2011. “Whoever approved contracts at the State Department hired Blue Mountain Group and then allowed Blue Mountain Group to hire local Libyans who were not vetted.”
TIMELINE OF CLINTON'S BENGHAZI STATEMENTS

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Stevens, shown in rear wearing black, with several of the guards sources say turned on him. (Special to Fox News)

Many were members of the Libyan government-financed February 17th Martyrs Brigade, an Islamist militia that had previously guarded Americans before being replaced by Blue Mountain.
John “Tig” Tiegen, one of the CIA contractors that responded to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack and co-author of “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,” confirmed to Fox News that the local Libyans who attacked the consulate that night included guards working for Blue Mountain.
"Many of the local Libyans who attacked the consulate on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, were the actual  guards that the State Department under Hillary Clinton hired to protect the Consulate in Benghazi,” Tiegen told Fox News. “The guards were unvetted and were locals with basically no background at all in providing security. Most of them never had held a job in security in the past.
“Blue Mountain Libya, at the time of being awarded the contract by our State Department, had no employees so they quickly had to find people to work, regardless of their backgrounds,” he said.
One former guard who witnessed the attack, Weeam Mohamed, confirmed in an email sent to the Citizens Commission on Benghazi and obtained by Fox News, that at least four of the guards hired by Blue Mountain took part in the attack after opening doors to allow their confederates in.
“In the U.S. Mission, there were four people [who] belonged to the battalion February 17,” Mohamed wrote to the Commission, an independent body formed with Accuracy in Media to investigate the attack and the administration's handling of it.
“Always armed. And they are free to move anywhere inside a building mission.
“And therefore, they had a chance to do an attack on the mission's headquarters. They have all the details about the place. At the same time they have given the United States a painful blow,” Mohamed wrote.
Blue Mountain officials did not return multiple requests for comment. The State Department acknowledged in internal emails obtained by FoxNews.com the local recruits fell short of their duty, but discounted the claim any took an active role in the attack that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
“While the Accountability Review Board report and other reports were critical of our local guards’ performance, we are not aware of any evidence that they participated in the attacks themselves,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby.
Blue Mountain was hired in February 2012, following an uprising that ended Col. Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule and plunged Libya into violent chaos. Congressional testimony in the wake of the attack on a consular office in Benghazi revealed that Stevens and his staff had made hundreds of requests for security upgrades but had been ignored by officials in Washington.
“We kept asking for additional support, including a 50-caliber mounted machine gun, but the State Department would not give it to us, because they said it would upset the locals,” the source told Fox News. “Instead, the State Department hired a company that doesn’t have employees, which then hired terrorists.”
Clare Lopez, a member of Citizens' Commission on Benghazi, said the Clinton State Department bears blame for the security situation.
“Think about it: Hillary Clinton's State Department actually hired the very people who, along with their jihadist allies in Benghazi, attacked us and killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith as well as CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Ty Woods,” Lopez said.
According to government records obtained by the Washington-based Judicial Watch, the State Department was in a “rush” to hire Blue Mountain UK, and its affiliate, Blue Mountain Libya, which together formed The Blue Mountain Group to secure the Benghazi contract.
“I understand there was a tremendous rush to get the original contract awarded, and the Service level agreement was most likely overlooked in the rush,” wrote State Department contracting officer Jan Visintainer, in a June 6, 2012, email. Emails obtained from [missing word] after the attack showed Visintainer urged Blue Mountain officials not to talk to the media.
Blue Mountain UK was formed in 2008 by David Nigel Thomas, a former Special Air Service official. Charles Tiefer, a commissioner at the Commission on Wartime Contracting, told Reuters the company was not well known.
"Blue Mountain was virtually unknown to the circles that studied private security contractors working for the United States, before the events in Benghazi," Tiefer said.
Despite the size of the operation, and having no staff or track record with the State Department, Blue Mountain Group landed the $767,767-per-month contract to protect the Benghazi consular office, beginning on Feb. 17, 2012.
The company solicited applications in local newspapers and on websites, and very little, if any, screening of guards was done, the security specialist told Fox News. The lack of vetting led to several potentially dangerous hires beginning in March of 2012, he said.
“One of those guards hired by Blue Mountain was the younger brother of the leader of Al Qaeda of Benghazi,” he said.
In an email obtained by Judicial Watch, Jairo Saravia of the Regional Security office for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, told his superiors in Washington that Blue Mountain had held and lost security contracts in Tripoli, with the Corinthian Hotel and Palm City complex.
“The latest information is Blue Mountain is not licensed by the GOL (Government of Libya) to provide security services in Libya,” Saravia wrote. “I would advise not to use their services to provide security for any of our annexes and/or offices due to the sensitivity this issue has with the current GOL.”
Prior to Blue Mountain, security for Americans in Benghazi had been provided by the February 17th Martyrs Brigade under a direct agreement with the State Department. Despite its Islamist orientation, the militia included dozens of locals who had been carefully cultivated and trained by the U.S., according to the source. The majority of the February 17 Militia guards were fired without warning when Blue Mountain was hired, leading some members to turn against the Americans, he said. The State Department kept on at least three February 17 employees for patrol.
Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer in Libya who has vast, first-hand knowledge of some 600 security requests denied to the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, testified on May 8, 2013, before the Congressional Committee On Oversight & Government Reform that he was aware that employees with both February 17 Martyrs Brigade and Blue Mountain had ties to Islamist terrorists.
“I had met with some of my agents and then also with some annex personnel. We discussed that,” Nordstrom told lawmakers.
Nordstrom testified that the “ferocity and intensity” of the 13-hour, four-phase attack, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, was nothing that they had seen in Libya, or that he had seen in his time in the Diplomatic Security Service, with as many as 60 attackers in the consulate.
“I am stunned that the State Department was relying on [locals] with extremist ties to protect American diplomats,” U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, told Fox News. “That doesn’t make any sense. How does that happen?”
Fox News was able to verify through a former Libyan guard the identities of several February 17 employees hired despite terrorist ties, who he said participated in the attack. While their identities have been provided to federal authorizes, none have been prosecuted.

Greg Gutfeld: The three most important lies about this election

Gutfeld: Life will go on no matter who wins the election

Below are three untruths about Tuesday's election:
1. THE ELECTION WAS ABOUT THE OUTSIDER
Not really. It was about culture. We know this for a fact: if you replaced Trump with Rubio, Kasich or Cruz, you'd still get the SAME attacks from “Funny or Die,” Bill Maher, Jay Z, Lady Gaga, and so on.
The culture enveloped within the liberal industrial complex deems any opposition to be evil. So really, the rebellion wasn't about insiders vs. outsiders -- it was about a rejection of decades of liberal fascism expressed through identity politics, balkanized grievances, racial politics, attacks on traditional institutions and anti-exceptionalism.
The Trump phenomenon was a thumb in the eye of liberal complacency. It was the first time in my memory that a Republican gave the same treatment back to the Democrats. That caused this new fretting over polarization. There was no polarization when only one side (the Dems) was the bully.
No one spoke of polarization when the left demonized a decent man like Mitt Romney. But when you have a candidate like Trump hit back, now you have polarization. This should have been a gift for Republicans -- but it wasn't.
Where Trump and his mouthpieces went wrong was turning this into an attack not on leftism, but on the establishment -- which lumped real Republicans, ideological conservatives, hard working grass roots activists, and even noted military heroes into the same box as Hillary, Obama, Hollywood and the Harvard faculty.
Sorry Trumpets -- those people who were winning Republican state seats and governorships for decades -- they weren't the enemy. They were on your side -- and they were slandered by simpleminded shouters.
The fallout: a lower, less enthusiastic turnout among Republicans.
And a last point about this non-establishment vs. establishment myth: it gave a phony path for opportunists to abandon the principles they had previously pretended to cherish. A so-called conservative who demonized you for not being religious or right wing enough now dropped to his knees for the perfect RINO.  Suddenly… principles didn't matter!
The best example of this charlatanism: any evangelical leader who spent decades chastising his flock (and non-flock alike) for immorality was suddenly out stumping for Trump.
2. THE MEDIA'S IN THE TANK FOR (FILL IN NAME OF CANDIDATE)
No, the media is in the tank for ratings. Remember, Trump got more free media than all the candidates combined.
Every network loved him, because he made them money by getting them eyeballs -- which helped pave the way for his nomination.
So as you complain about the unfairness of the coverage against Trump now remember that without the media, you wouldn't even be having that conversation. Instead you'd be wondering about how big the margin will be in the Rubio win.
And yes, there were reporters who tried to curry favor with the Clinton campaign in hopes of gaining access. But is that any worse than a newspaper spending hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing stories in order to kill them?
The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Enquirer paid a Playboy Playmate six figures for her story of her affair with Trump (while he was already married to Melania). In a practice called, "catch and kill,” the paper, it’s alleged, bought the story to protect Trump by buying and burying it.  When we bring up media collusion there's one hell of an example.
We covered another, flimsier example of "fixing" that implicated Hillary -- involving a guy named Jeff Rovin. But what of this Playmate story by our own beloved Wall Street Journal?  This "catch and kill” explains one glaring oddity:  as the Enquirer generated salacious stories about Trump opponents like Hillary and Ted Cruz, it seems to have missed the big stories on Trump. For a paper that prides itself on scoops, the Enquirer was absent on the Trump front. 
We talk about the candidates’ flaws -- but what of ours? Team sport ideology has compromised principles -- as we accept certain actions that would have repulsed us before. Loyalty these days seems a replacement for principle. This operates on the analogy that people consider a political party a "home." I don't.  My home is my actual home.
There are lots of people whose jobs depend on Trump winning on Tuesday. There are a lot of people whose jobs depend on Hillary winning. This is why you have to take any opinion not tethered to facts with a grain of poop.  The exceptions to this amorality: the people who were honest to a fault, and were willing to lose a paycheck. Think Jonah Goldberg. Kevin Williamson. Ben Shapiro. Think of everyone of who didn't sacrifice principles for more appearances on TV.
But look -- there’s a bright side for breathless TV chatter boxes: you will benefit from your adversary winning!
If Trump wins, the left will do great.  If Hillary wins, so will the right. Fact is it's just easier to scream at the enemy than it is to support your own embarrassment.
3. THE WORLD IS ENDING
It's not. Or if is ending, it has nothing to do with this election.
If Hillary wins, or if Trump wins -- it's not as big a deal as the people say it is.
When JFK was assassinated? Yes, that was a BIG deal.  When Nixon resigned?  That was a BIG deal. But despite the horror and shock from those events -- we all got on with life. We still went to work. We fed the kids. We mowed the lawn. So lighten up with the apocalyptical BS.  No one is going to change your life as much as the people around you who love you and care about you.
And remember, the easiest thing to stoke, is anger. And if you're a conservative, and you get off on anger, then you're not a conservative at all.
Conservatives by nature reject the easy lure of emotion. We decry impulsiveness -- it's why we're seen as stiff and humorless. When in fact, we're full of wisdom brought on from life experience.
It's a good thing when we let a little emotion in but to let it govern your decisions is wrong.
And remember, liberals: Trump is a centrist. Cruz was way more to the right. And he got rejected!
Trump also thrives on acceptance. He needs love -- and will likely abandon his most rightwing talking points (because he already has those guys), to court YOU, the respected liberal.
So if Trump wins, all you leftists will be in the driver's seat. You'll get more from him than from Hillary.
And remember, conservatives: Hillary is hawkish. She's also she's out of steam -- hobbled by scandal, distrust and dislike. She might be of little impact at all -- just happy to sit in meetings, nod a lot, then watch “Madame Secretary” on Netflix through the early evening. She won't care who hates her, because it's a forgone conclusion.
So if Trump wins, he becomes more liberal, and if Hillary wins, she becomes more conservative. Trump ran to the right of his internal vision; Hillary ran toward Bernie Sanders to save herself.  Once they take the oath, they will change.
And we'll read about it online. Then walk the dog.
Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel's (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET). He joined the network in 2007 as a contributor. Click here for more information on Greg Gutfeld. 

State Department contractors detail how Clinton and her team ignored security rules

State Department whistleblowers speak out about Clinton

EXCLUSIVE: Two State Department contractors, with decades of experience protecting the United States' most sensitive secrets, are speaking out for the first time about Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and how the rules for government security clearance holders did not seem to apply to Clinton and her team.
“The State Department was her oyster and it was great for the [Clinton] foundation and great for the Clintons to be able to have such a great position," Dave Whitnah told Fox News.
Whitnah said he worked within the State Department's Office of Security Technology which is responsible for cameras and alarms and sweeping for bugs. Whitnah said everyone understood the secretary of state is the primary target of foreign intelligence services.
“The number one person would be the secretary of state and their communications," Whitnah explained. "You can think of the Iran negotiations, nuclear negotiation, negotiations with Russia, talks with Russia. You know, anything to do with foreign policy."
Whitnah emphasized that tens of millions of dollars were spent on technical security for Clinton that apparently was disregarded as her team traveled around the world on official U.S. government business.
"It was unfathomable that [her BlackBerry] would be used for anything other than just unclassified communication," Whitnah said. Clinton’s devices were not certified as secure by the State Department. As for her use of a non-secure BlackBerry, Whitnah stressed that email can be intercepted and, “Even if turned off, it’s still a listening device so that’s why you take out the batteries.”
As Clinton was sworn in as secretary in January 2009, government contractor Amel Smith said he was also working at the department and: "State Department rules are clear. I helped write those rules."
Smith says his 30 years of experience includes serving in the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne, before becoming a counter-intelligence and counter-espionage investigator at State tracking down breaches of classified materials. He reviewed some of the FBI witness interviews from the Clinton email investigation with Fox News, and questioned those who claimed not to have the proper training in handling sensitive information.
"I hear things like, well, I forgot, um, I don't know that I was trained, I don't know this. You know -- every single person that had access to that information when it was sent is in violation," Smith emphasized.
The FBI witness interviews also show secure facilities for classified information -- known as SCIFs -- were specially built for Clinton in her in Washington, D.C., and Chappaqua, N.Y., homes. Doors that were supposed to be locked were left open.
"If you've got an uncleared person in there, it's automatically a compromise," Smith said.
Another FBI interview summary said there were personally owned desktop computers in the secure facilities at Clinton's homes, yet she told the FBI that she did not have a computer of any kind in these facilities.
"If somebody said they're there, then they probably were there, and you know, the reason you would deny it was because you probably didn't have approval," Smith said.
Having unapproved computers in a SCIF would automatically call for a security investigation.
Asked for his reaction to Clinton's claim that nothing she sent or received was marked classified, Whitnah called that assertion a “misrepresentation.” Fox News was first to report in June that at least one of the emails contained a classified information portion marking for "c" which is confidential. FBI Director James Comey later said in July when he recommended against criminal charges that a handful of Clinton emails contained classified markings.
But more than 2,100 emails with classified information, and at least 22 at the “top secret” level, passed through Clinton's unsecured private server. Asked how it happened, Smith said, "Personally, there had to have been somebody moving classified information from C-LAN, C-LAN again is Secret, Confidential only, and JWICS. JWICS is where all top secret information is."
After new emails were found in the Anthony Weiner sexting case belonging to his estranged wife Clinton aide Huma Abedin, the FBI reopened the Clinton email investigation. On Sunday, Comey said the emails did not change his recommendation against criminal charges because his investigators did not find intent to move classified materials outside secure government channels
"Whether it's the private email server, whether it's this private laptop. If there's classified -- one document on there -- that's classified, it's a violation. Somebody violated [the] law," Smith said. "Throw all the politics out the window, what we're talking about is the defense of this nation."
Asked about Smith and Whitnah, who filed a complaint against the State Department, a department spokesman said they were not direct hires -- adding that the head of diplomatic security told the FBI that Clinton was "very responsive to security issues."

Patrick Caddell: The real election surprise? The uprising of the American people

For more than two years the American people, in a great majority, from left to right, have been in revolt against the political class and the financial elites in America. It is a revolt with historic parallels, most closely resembling the Jacksonian revolution of the 1820s. It is an uprising. It is a peaceful uprising of a people who see a country in decline and see nothing but failure in the performance of their leadership institutions. And they have signaled their intent to take back their country and to reclaim their sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the analysts, the pollsters and most importantly the commentariat of the political class have never understood, and in fact are psychologically incapable of understanding what is happening. And for the entire cycle of this presidential campaign they have failed to grasp what was happening before their eyes – for it runs counter to everything they believe about themselves.
In truth, they are suffering from cognitive dissonance  believing in their righteous superiority and are not capable of realizing that it is they who have become the adversary of the American people. And therefore they have been wrong, in this entire election cycle, every step of the way.
For them, American politics only began yesterday. They know little history and have no appreciation of the collective consciousness of the American people. Whether it is the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who came within a hair’s breadth of knocking out the coronated nominee of the Democratic establishment or on the other side, the emergence of the total outsider Donald Trump, the most improbable candidate of all. In truth, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, sucked from the same trough even if it was from opposite ends. But the critical point that is missed, by almost everyone, was that neither Sanders nor Trump created this uprising. They were chosen vehicles – they did not create these movements, these movements created them.

In less than a day we will know how far this revolt has come. But, make no mistake, whatever the outcome, this revolt is not ending, it is merely beginning.

In less than a day we will know how far this revolt has come. But, make no mistake, whatever the outcome, this revolt is not ending, it is merely beginning.
Several years ago, I began, with my colleagues at Armada, an ongoing, in-depth research project on what has become known as the “Candidate Smith” project. A good friend of mine, Lee Hanley, who sadly just passed away, volunteered to begin this project with only one charge: that we explore my hypothesis that something profound was happening in the collective consciousness of the American people.
What we learned in our in-depth research was as astonishing as it was unexpected. It became clear from this really deep public opinion inquiry that American politics has entered an historic paradigm. What is emerging in what had been assumed to be the static political system was about to be reconfigured in ways and that we still do not know fully. But one thing is certain: the old rules of politics are collapsing and a new edifice is emerging.
The conventional wisdom that America is absolutely divided into warring tribes is a tired falsehood. Overall, in the attitude structure of the American people, the elements of this new paradigm are commonly shared by upwards of 80 percent of the population – from the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left to the Tea Parties on the right. The political battleground is no longer over ideology but instead is all about insurgency.
The larger atmosphere is dominated by three overriding beliefs:
First, the American people believe that the country is not only on the wrong track but almost 70 percent say that America is in actual decline. The concept of decline is antithetical to the American experience.
Second, for more than three centuries, the animating moral obligation of America has been the self-imposed obligation that each generation passes on to its children a better America than they themselves inherited. This is what makes us Americans. In Armada’s polling we found that a majority of Americans believe that they are better off than their parents were. But a great majority says that THEIR children will be worse off than they themselves are today. This is the crisis of the American Dream. And it is no surprise that a majority of Americans agree that if we leave the next generation “worse off” that there will still be a place called “the United States” but there will no longer be an “America.”
Third, when asked whether or not everyone in America plays by the same rules to get ahead or are there different rules for well-connected and people with money, a staggering 84 percent of voters picked the latter. Only 10 percent believed that everyone has an equal opportunity.
These over-arching attitudes provide the framework for today’s political revolt.
Unfortunately, I suspect, if you asked these questions of the political, financial and media elite they would have a very different response.
From the time I was a teenager and a self-starting pollster I have had an acute interest in the phenomenon of political alienation.  In our research, the current level of alienation that now grips the American electorate is staggering and unprecedented.
Here are some of our latest results among likely voters from early October 2016:

1.  The power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day, as political leaders on both sides, fight to protect their own power and privilege, at the expense of the nation’s well-being. We need to restore what we really believe in – real democracy by the people and real free-enterprise. AGREE = 87%; DISAGREE = 10%

2.  The country is run by an alliance of incumbent politicians, media pundits, lobbyists and other powerful money interests for their own gain at the expense of the American people. AGREE = 87%; DISAGREE = 10%

3.  Most politicians really care about people like me. AGREE = 25%; DISAGREE = 69%

4.  Powerful interests from Wall Street banks to corporations, unions and political interest groups have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for them. They are looting the national treasury of billions of dollars at the expense of every man, woman and child. AGREE = 81%; DISAGREE = 13%

5.  The U.S. has a two-track economy where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find, where huge corporations get all the rewards. We need fundamental changes to fix the inequity in our economic system. AGREE = 81%; DISAGREE = 15%

6.  Political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right for the American people. AGREE = 86%; DISAGREE = 11%

7.  The two main political parties are too beholden to special and corporate interest to create any meaningful change. AGREE = 76%; DISAGREE = 19%

8.  The real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans but between mainstream American and the ruling political elites. AGREE = 67%; DISAGREE = 24%

These numbers and many, many more from our research paint the true outlines of the emerging political paradigm and the insurgency that it has ignited. In fact, it is the last question above that is agreed to by “only two-thirds” of the American people. Despite everything we are told day and night – that political battle in America is between Democrats and Republicans – two thirds of the American people believe that the battle lines are drawn between mainstream America and its ruling Political Class. THIS is the battle of 2016 and beyond.
These are findings that the reader has likely never been told. For they reflect the legitimate dissent of the American people from the actions and leadership of their establishment institutions. This is something the political class and mainstream media refuse to recognize much less acknowledge.
Befitting the emerging new paradigm, 2016 has already been an election like none we have ever known. But it is not without some parallels to another election.
In 1980, America was gripped with a foreign policy crisis, there hostages being held in Iran, inflation was exploding and the electorate was very unhappy. The country had two candidates for president: the incumbent – President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan. For the first time in polling history both candidates, Carter and Reagan, were viewed negatively by the American people -- although their negatives were nowhere near the level of Clinton and Trump’s unpopularity. While the shock of Vietnam and Watergate had helped propel an unknown peanut farmer to the presidency, there was nowhere near the level of alienation and discontent that now grips America.
I was Jimmy Carter’s pollster and strategist in 1980 and I know, more than anyone, about what really happened. The entire Carter campaign was premised on painting the controversial Ronald Reagan as too risky to be president and too dangerous to entrust with nuclear weapons.
Exactly a week before Election Day there was a fatal presidential debate (that I wanted to avert) which gave Ronald Reagan his chance to make his case. It shook up the election.
The coalescing of voters around Carter began to break down. Within a couple of days Reagan had established a small lead over President Carter.
On the Saturday before the election the race had rebounded into a tie or slight Carter lead. And then it all fell apart.
My polling for the campaign told the story. By Sunday night President Carter was 5 points down and by Monday night the margin had exploded to 10 points down.
The uniqueness of 1980 is this: In the history of American polling this was the only presidential election that entered the last weekend close and finished in a landslide. The only one.
The question on the table now is: could 2016 be the second such election? If it is, it won’t be for Hillary Clinton.
The political class and the mainstream media have a narrative that Trump’s late surge is the result of an intervention by FBI Director James Comey. That narrative, like every one they’ve had over this cycle, couldn’t be more wrong. The momentum of the election was already moving toward Trump before Comey’s announcement to reopen of the Clinton email investigation. That event, like the presidential debate in 1980, tended to accelerate what was already in motion.
No two elections are really the same, whatever similarities they share. And neither are 1980 and 2016.
Here are a couple of differences – In 1980 there was no early voting. Without thinking through the consequences, this reform has resulted in millions of ballots being cast long before the campaign culminates. And that is almost surely an edge for Hillary Clinton and the better organized Democratic Party.
While both elections in 1980 and 2016 feature an American public that attitudinally wants real change there are differences that have already been noted: Many polls show that by just about 2 to 1 voters do not want to continue the policies of President Obama. In 1980 disapproval of Carter’s job performance did not extend to the personal feelings Americans had for Carter and the deep respect they had for his integrity.  (And of course, in both elections, Americans saw the country headed in the wrong direction.)
As suggested before, the alienation and discontent of the American electorate is way beyond that of 1980.
In 1980 the mainstream media was far more even-handed in its coverage and prided itself on journalism and not partisanship.
As I look at some of the deeper polling results, the questions I have been able to inject into the Breitbart/Gravis polling questions of recent days, may be in the end, instructive. As with Jimmy Carter in 1980, Hillary Clinton is far more likely to be viewed as qualified to be president and possessing a better presidential temperament.
But the results of the latest poll are worth pondering: Here are the most interesting questions and answers.   First, voters were asked to agree or disagree with following question:
For years, the political elites have governed America for their own benefit and to the detriment of the American people – this election is the best chance in our lives to take back our government. AGREE = 63% (with 46% strongly agreeing); DISAGREE = 31%
Voters were then asked the same two questions of each candidate: Which is closer to your opinion if (Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump) wins: the political elites and special interests win; the political elite and special interests lose.
By 65 percent to 35 percent voters said that if Hillary Clinton wins the political elites WIN.  And by an opposite margin, the majority of voters said that by 57 percent to 43 percent the elites LOSE if Trump wins.
Significant numbers of Clinton’s own voters believe that her win is a victory for the unpopular elites and special political interests.
So the question is, if these attitudes are salient in the voters’ minds as they vote on Tuesday it could produce the biggest surprise of all in 2016.
But regardless of who wins on November 8 this uprising of the American people has just begun.
Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for  President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of "Political Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel.

Comey's closing move sparks new fury with the presidency at stake today

Kurtz: FBI flips again as voters go to the polls

So the November surprise is that the October surprise didn’t count.
That’s not quite true, but captures the dizzying end to the 2016 campaign, which saw James Comey again announce that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation nine days before the election, and then exonerate her less than 48 hours before the voting begins.
Which raises the question of whether he should have gone public in the first place, given that the new “evidence”—not reviewed at the time—turned out to be mostly duplicate and personal emails.
It’s not much of a bumper sticker, but I guess Clinton can claim to be the only candidate cleared twice by the FBI.
Comey’s move undercuts Donald Trump’s claim that Clinton’s election could spark a constitutional crisis, but not his overall rhetoric about a culture of corruption. Yet the damage has been done, fueling arguments by Comey’s critics that he unfairly politicized the last stretch of the campaign.
Comey’s Oct. 28 letter to Capitol Hill transformed the campaign, put Clinton on the defensive, energized Trump and had some impact on the polls, which were already tightening. I said at the time that we just didn’t know whether the new cache of emails—which weirdly wound up on Anthony Weiner’s computer, via Huma Abedin—would be incriminating or a nothing-burger.
There’s even a school of thought that Comey’s second letter late Sunday doesn’t help Clinton because it brings the focus back to the email scandal just when she’s trying to make a closing argument.
The Clinton camp is obviously relieved. And once again, we have partisan reactions on both sides.
Trump had been ripping Comey’s July decision not to seek an indictment against Clinton as evidence of a “rigged system.” When the FBI chief made the new inquiry public, Trump praised him for “guts.” Now he is questioning how the bureau could have reviewed 650,000 emails in such a short period of time.
Newt Gingrich, a major Trump ally, says the FBI boss caved: “Comey must be under enormous political pressure to cave like this and announce something he can't possibly know.”
On the other side, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman rips into Comey:
“The election was rigged by James Comey, the director of the F.B.I. His job is to police crime — but instead he used his position to spread innuendo and influence the election. Was he deliberately putting a thumb on the electoral scales, or was he simply bullied by Republican operatives? It doesn’t matter: He abused his office, shamefully.”
Washington Post editorial writer Stephen Stromberg is also critical:
“If you have ever watched a procedural crime drama, you probably recognize the words, ‘the jury will disregard.’ It is the instruction judges give jurors to ignore inadmissible testimony after it has already been offered in open court. Of course the jury, composed of human beings, cannot forget what it has already heard — even if they try. The integrity of the proceedings have already been damaged.”
There’s also chatter about the awkward relationship that Clinton would have with Comey, who serves a fixed 10-year term and can only be removed for cause, if she wins.
For now, as the candidates wrap up their mad dash to far-flung rallies, Comey’s open-and-shut pronouncements are baked into the cake. That is, along with a separate inquiry into the Clinton Foundation, “Access Hollywood,” the sexual misconduct allegations by a dozen women, “basket of deplorables,” and charges by each nominee that the other is unfit for the White House and would lead us into war.
An incredible melodrama, with the presidency at stake. Oh, and control of the Senate as well. The curtain is finally coming down on this one.
Until Wednesday, when the media will be consumed by sound and fury over the outcome of the election and the prospects for the 45th president—whoever he or she may be.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Hillary's #1 aide Huma Abedin: Undeniable ties to terrorists

Huma Abedin DNC 2016 She wrote an open letter to Clinton supporters calling herself "a proud Muslim"

She wrote an open letter to Clinton supporters calling herself "a proud Muslim"

Chelsea Clinton's Wedding Cartoons