Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Hillary category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile’s book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald’s article highlights the Clintons’ dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.

The first viral falsehood is “The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.” Greenwald’s article exposed that by saying “The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied ‘only to preparations for the general election,’ and had nothing to do with the primary season.” Greenwald then wrote “The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is.”

Hillary’s media, like her, can’t be trusted. They’re as willing to ignore the truth as she’s been all her life. Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn’t her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.”

This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

This isn’t my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile’s reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post’s goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald’s closing paragraph is good advice:

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

Amen to that.

Technorati: , , , ,

If I had to give this article a title, I’d give the title ‘You can’t beat something with nothing’. Another title I’d consider is ‘Republicans win while Democrats whine’. Katie Packer Beeson’s article is spot on.

It starts by saying “The Democrats seem to enjoy gloating about the hot mess that is the Republican Party these days. Former GOP presidents warning the president about the people he surrounds himself with; sitting Republican U.S. senators calling the president unstable and unqualified; and a former GOP speaker of the house saying “there is no Republican Party. The president isn’t a Republican.” And Democrats’ friends in the mainstream media have kindly created an echo chamber that makes them think that they are always right and the Republicans are a bunch of sexist, racist, whack jobs. So why aren’t they winning?”

It continued, saying “So when they lost the election, there was a reckoning. The leadership of the Democratic Party was drummed up and new, forward-looking leaders took the reins and offered an alternative to what they saw as the disaster of Donald Trump. Wait, no. That isn’t what happened. Instead, they re-elected Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. They elected Chuck Schumer as Senate majority [editor’s note: Schumer is minority leader] leader and completely sold out to the New York and California wings of the Democratic Party.”

Then there’s this:

Instead of talking about middle-class tax cuts, they talked about transgender bathroom access. Instead of talking about fixing Obamacare, which was crushing many in the middle class with high premiums and complicated doctor selections, they walked right into the trap of the alt-right and began tearing down Civil War statues.

Democrats still haven’t figured out how to talk to blue collar America. They’re experts at talking to college professors and progressive activists but they’re worthless at talking with factory workers, small businesses and tradesmen. It’s like those people are from another planet. (Perhaps, it’s the Democrats that are from a different planet?)

Look how paralyzed Hillary looks when confronted by a coal miner:

Hillary looked positively petrified. She looked like she would’ve rather been anywhere else in the world than at that roundtable.

What [Democrats] don’t seem to understand is that you can point out your opponent’s weaknesses all day long, but if you don’t provide an alternative, then people will stick with the status quo. I’ve spoken to dozens of Republican women in recent months who have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, and when I ask why they don’t defect, the answer is always the same: “It’s no better over there.”

Until Democrats learn what animates blue collar workers, they should expect to lose lots of races, at least enough to keep them in the minority for a decade or more.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This op-ed is this morning’s water cooler conversation in DC. That’s because Donna Brazile wrote it to criticize Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Ms. Brazile even took a swipe at President Obama, saying “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt.” But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The op-ed continues, saying “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. ‘What?’ I screamed. ‘I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.’ That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016.”

That isn’t the worst of it. Here’s some additional important details:

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. “No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers. Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

I can’t understand why Ms. Brazile is surprised. I published this post last October. According to an article in UK Daily Mail, “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

The woman that helped rig the Democratic Party’s nomination in favor of her friend is surprised that her friend is controlling the DNC? Isn’t that rich? Who’s the culprit? Is this woman the culprit?

If not her, who?

Her?

Personally, I’d choose ‘All of the above.’

Anyone that watched Tucker Carlson interrogate Rep. Brad Sherman, (D- Calif.), last night probably thinks that Sherman is insane. That’s missing Sherman’s objective. Sherman wasn’t on to debate the issues of the day. His mission was to act like an idiot, which he accomplished, without talking about the Democrats’ Russian collusion problem. Sherman initially talked about the Republicans’ tax reform bill, which doesn’t exist yet, saying that it will kill millions of jobs while exploding the deficit. That’s more than a little strange since Tucker asked him about Hillary’s campaign and the DNC paying for the Russian dossier.

Next, Sherman insisted that Tucker didn’t “have a defense for a Trump impeachment.” When Tucker pointed out that there’s no proof of Trump colluding with the Russians but that there’s proof that the Hillary campaign hired a British spy to compile the fake Trump dossier, Sherman said that he wasn’t interested in impeaching a private citizen.

Sherman is hoping that he’s the topic everyone’s talking about Friday morning around the water cooler. Admittedly, Sherman looked like a pompous jackass who might appear insane. Still, the important thing to remember about the interview is that Tucker queried Sherman about why the Clinton campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS to put together a fake dossier against President Trump. On that topic, Sherman didn’t engage, instead insisting on telling Tucker which topics were important and which topics were “nonsense.”

I couldn’t watch the entire interview. Thank God for DVRs, which allowed me to speed through the parts that were unbearable to watch. I’m betting you won’t be able to watch the entire interview, either:

Again, the thing to take from the interview is that Democrats don’t want to talk about the DNC’s increasing PR problem. The other thing you’re allowed to think after watching the interview is this famous movie scene:

Byron York’s article might be the most politically devastating article written recently. In his article, York wrote “Investigators looking into the so-called ‘Trump dossier’ were not surprised when news broke Tuesday night that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through the Democrats’ law firm, Perkins Coie, financed the ‘salacious and unverified’ compilation of allegations of Trump collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign. (The ‘salacious and unverified’ description comes from former FBI Director James Comey.)”

As explosive as that is, it pales in comparison to the next part of York’s story, which says “Sometime in October 2016, that is, at the height of the presidential campaign, Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele ‘reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.’ It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election. ‘The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,’ wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.”

Then there’s this:

The deal began in the spring of 2016, when Elias was approached by Fusion GPS, and lasted until right before Election Day. When Fusion approached Elias, it had already been doing research work on Trump for an unnamed client during the Republican primary. But the dossier itself was funded entirely by Democrats, using Elias as a middle-man. After the DNC and the Clinton campaign started paying, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to do the dirt-digging. His work later resulted in the dossier.

If this story had a title, that title might be ‘As the bubble bursts.’ Another title might be ‘Multiple seismic events recorded at DNC.’

Easiest prediction of the day: things will get much worse for the DNC before they get better. Brit Hume sums that line of thought up perfectly during this interview:

This is the best that the DNC could come up with:

Hillary Clinton’s forked tongue is getting her in trouble again. The world’s greatest feminist (in her mind) just said something so stupid that it sounds like something from the Onion, not from a former presidential candidate.

During “an interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr,” Hillary tried changing the focus by saying “This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated anywhere, whether it’s in entertainment, politics. After all, we have someone admitting to being a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office.” When confronted on the subject of Hillary’s husband being a philanderer, she replied “That has all been litigated. That was subject of a huge investigation in the late ’90s and there were conclusions drawn. That was clearly in the past.”

As with most things uttered by a Clinton, there’s a hint of truth to the statement, followed by tons of BS. It’s true that Bill’s indiscretions have been investigated. What hasn’t happened, though, is holding the Clintons accountable. That likely won’t happen, unfortunately.

Typical Hillary

“He’s been a supporter — he’s been a funder for all of us, for Obama, for me, for people who have run for office in the United States,” she said. “So it was just disgusting and the stories that have come out are heartbreaking. And I really commend the women who have been willing to step forward now and tell their stories.”

It’s one thing to read the quote. Watching the video adds a different dimension to the story:

It’s just the latest example of the Clintons’ sociopathic behavior. Whether they’re genetically predisposed to spinning things or whether it’s years of training, it’s pretty clear the Clintons aren’t honest people.

The scandal that’s quickly overtaking (consuming?) Harvey Weinstein is turning into a major headache for Hillary Clinton, too. This afternoon, Hillary issued a statement, saying “I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by the women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”

That’s BS. Hillary knew about Weinstein’s behavior long ago. Over the weekend, Jake Tapper called the Weinstein matter one of Hollywood’s worst-kept secrets. Since then, look at the high-profile actresses that’ve come forward and said that Weinstein either harassed or assaulted them. Should people believe that the Clintons didn’t know about Weinstein’s behavior?

This article is devastating to Weinstein but it’s trouble to Hillary, too, because it says “Lurid allegations against Harvey Weinstein spread like wildfire on Tuesday as A-list actresses Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow accused the studio head of harassment, and the New Yorker published an exposé with claims he raped three women and forced himself on four more.” That isn’t the entire story, though. Here’s more:

“I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,” Paltrow told the Times. Then 22, she confided in her boyfriend Brad Pitt what had happened, and Pitt later confronted Weinstein.

Then there’s this:

Three of the women who spoke with Farrow said Weinstein raped them, one of which later refused to speak on the record. Four more women said they experienced unwanted touching and four others said Weinstein masturbated in front of them or exposed himself.

Current and former Weinstein Company employees admitted to the New Yorker many at the company knew of Weinstein’s behavior towards women and said some employees acted as “honeypot[s]” to attract women to meetings with Weinstein only to leave the women alone with the producer.

But we’re supposed to believe that Hillary is surprised and that she’s just learning about Weinstein’s behavior now? I might’ve been born at night but it wasn’t last night.

There’s no reason to trust Hillary’s statement. She’s a proven serial liar. (Think about her story about running from the helicopter in Bosnia-Herzegovina while it was taking gunfire.) Finally, let’s remember what this story is about:

It’s about a wealthy man sexually harassing and/or sexually assaulting women. It’s also about a famous politician pretending not to know anything about this fundraiser’s behavior.

It’s totally predictable that Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton haven’t offered their opinion on Harvey Weinstein’s predatory behavior. While other Democrats denounce Weinstein’s actions, Obama and the Clintons have been silent.

It isn’t surprising that Hillary “Clinton did not mention Weinstein during an appearance Monday night at the University of California, Davis, as part of her book tour, her first public appearance since the story broke.” What’s interesting is that the media isn’t criticizing Hillary. It isn’t like they should be surprised. She put up with a cheating hubby for years. She didn’t speak out against nations that mistreated women while she was the US Secretary of State.

The Clintons’ ties to Weinstein are pretty extensive and pretty long-lasting. According to the article, “Weinstein has long been a Clinton donor with ties to the political family. Weinstein was one of many from Hollywood who donated to Bill Clinton’s legal defense fund in the 1990s, a Washington Post report from the time stated. More recently, the Clintons rented a home next to Weinstein in the Hamptons in 2015, and Weinstein served as a connector between Hollywood stars and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Weinstein raised about $1.5 million from 1990-2016, according to data from the campaign finance-tracking Center for Responsive Politics, and was a bundler for Clinton’s 2016 effort, including at a star-studded fundraiser for Clinton in June 2016 at Weinstein’s Manhattan home.”

Then there’s this:

CRP’s OpenSecrets website shows Weinstein was a bundler for Obama as well, and the Hollywood giant visited the White House on several occasions during Obama’s tenure. At a White House event for student films in 2013, first lady Michelle Obama credited Weinstein for making the event happen and praised him as a wonderful person and a good friend.

That gives an entirely new meaning to the old saying that “politics makes for strange bedfellows.” Apparently, they don’t get stranger than Weinstein.

I can’t imagine how Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Kimmel will respond to this article. While Kimmel all but officially accused the NRA of not caring if guns killed people, Hillary insisted that a) the NRA owns the GOP and b) the GOP will never vote to protect Americans.

According to the article, “The National Rifle Association, in its first statement on the Las Vegas shooting and in a rare break from its traditional opposition to gun-related regulations, called Thursday for a federal review of so-called bump stocks and suggested new rules might be needed for the device apparently used by the shooter in Sunday’s massacre. ‘The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,’ the NRA said in a written statement.”

What Hillary didn’t mention during her interview with Kimmel last night was that the “Obama administration’s ATF gave its seal of approval to selling the devices in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.” The NRA “called on the ATF to review that assessment. ‘In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved,’ the NRA said. ‘Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.'”

Democrats have insisted, dishonestly, that Republicans hate gun regulations. Actually, that’s fairly true, mostly because most of the Democrats’ gun control legislation wouldn’t fix problems. Mostly, though, what’s true is that Republicans understand the importance of protecting their families. This video explains what a bump-stock is:

The difference between possible legislation outlawing bump stocks and gun control legislation offered by Democrats in the past is that this legislation might potentially fix a problem. That’s why the NRA is willing to join the discussion.

Last night, Hillary Clinton stopped past the Tonight Show with Jimmy Kimmel, seemingly to remind people why they rejected her. During her interview, Hillary threw one insult at President Trump after another. When Kimmel “asked if Clinton would have felt differently about losing the election if her opponent had been someone other than Trump”, Hillary replied “I would have. Yeah, I’ve thought about that a lot. If I had lost to another Republican, somebody who I disagreed with, but who I thought was temperamentally capable of being president, who would take the job, and the awesome responsibility seriously, of course I‘d be disappointed, but I wouldn’t be so worried about my country and the world as I am now.”

What a sore loser. It isn’t just that she’s a sore loser, either. It’s that she hasn’t said anything gracious about President Trump. President Trump and his administration did a fantastic job dealing with Hurricane Harvey in Houston and Hurricane Irma in Florida. Why didn’t she compliment him on that? Is she that into running a scorched earth book tour? Apparently, that’s Hillary’s plan.

On Puerto Rico, Hillary said “It’s hard to figure out. What are the priorities if 3.5 million Americans, and Puerto Ricans are Americans, let’s make sure people remember that, if they aren’t the highest priority of your government in responding to such a terrible natural disaster. What are you people spending your time doing? Golfing? Tweeting? Watching cable TV? I mean, find some time to tell the Navy to get down there and rescue people and provide food and provisions and medical care.”

First, Hillary’s dishonesty is breathtaking. Send the Navy in to rescue people, she whines. You mean like Hillary sent troops to Benghazi to protect Ambassador Christopher Stevens? Hillary’s had the opportunity to save lives. Hillary failed at that responsibility. That’s part of why people rejected her.

Next, it’s disappointing to see Hillary imply that President Trump doesn’t care about Puerto Ricans. The reason why the Navy and Coast Guard weren’t dispatched is because President Obama shrunk the size of the military. Hillary didn’t mention that these assets are getting stretched thin thanks to the previous hurricanes. Finally, Hillary didn’t admit that Puerto Rico got hit with back-to-back Cat-5 hurricanes in back-to-back weeks.

Apparently, Hillary doesn’t like reading newspapers any more than she likes reading cables from ambassadors serving in hotspots in northern Africa. Then there’s this:

“I can’t believe that one whole political party in the greatest country on Earth is totally sold to the gun lobby and will do whatever they are ordered to do, despite the loss of life,” she said. “One of the first things that Trump signed as president was to reverse President Obama’s order that people with serious mental health problems should not be able to buy guns.

“And so he signed it, and aren’t you happy that people we already know who have mental health problems can now buy guns?” she added. “This makes no sense, and the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of gun owners know we need common-sense gun safety measures, so I’m going to keep fighting for it.”

What dishonesty. People who have mental health problems haven’t been able to buy guns for decades. That’s just a fact. That’s one of the reasons why we do federal background checks on everyone buying a gun.

Hillary’s weekly diatribes aren’t just annoying. They’re hurting our nation. At a time when we need cool heads to prevail, Hillary’s approach is similar to that of the proverbial bull in a china shop. After you watch this video, let’s hear whether you think she’s a thoughtful politician who’s passionate about the issues or just a sore loser: