Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton insisted that there was a “vast right wing conspiracy” dedicated to taking down her husband. Twenty years later, Hillary is still pushing conspiracy theories:

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection. The former secretary of state pushed the theory on Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states. “They are also going to do third party again,” Clinton, 71, said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

“She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset. “They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it’s going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

Wow! This comes from a woman who was just a few votes away from being president. That’s frightening.

Then, too, it isn’t that surprising. Democrats see ghosts wherever they look so seeing this ghost isn’t that unusual by Democrats’ standards. Seeing this ghost by normal people’s standard would be weird. Remember that HRC didn’t just accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset. HRC also accused Jill Stein of being a Russian asset.

If HRC got into the race and won the nomination, she’d get drilled. It’s being charitable to say that she’s exhibited erratic behavior. She’s made unsubstantiated accusations. The economy is fantastic. Trying to prove otherwise is challenging at minimum. HRC must know that her time has passed.

The voters that are coming of age only think of HRC as a Swamp relic from a bygone generation. They don’t remember her as former First Lady. They likely don’t remember that much about HRC as Obama’s Secretary of State. Remember that was 12 years ago.

This is a great example of Hillary’s paranoia. It’s proof that a little HRC paranoia goes a long way.

This past week, Rose McGowan criticized Hillary Clinton. Actually, Ms. McGowan let the former First Lady have it with both barrels. Supposedly, “Rose McGowan called out Hillary Clinton last week over a report that Clinton’s publicist told journalist Ronan Farrow that his investigation into Harvey Weinstein’s alleged history of sexual misconduct was ‘a concern’ for the Clinton camp. ‘I knew that Hillary Clinton’s people were protecting the Monster,’ McGowan wrote, referring to Weinstein. ‘I can’t believe I used to support her. I guess predators are her style.'”

Good for Ms. McGowan. Hillary is one of the nastiest, cold-blooded, public figures I’ve ever seen. Frankly, I wouldn’t want her autograph or a copy of any of her books. She’s so morally bankrupt that she didn’t walk away from Bill Clinton. She’s so morally bankrupt that she kept accepting money from Weinstein.

This interview shows how the system works:

It’s built by the Clintons, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby to perpetuate their disgusting behavior. The thought of rehabilitation for any of these monsters should be the furthest thing from society’s mind. The hell these people caused shouldn’t be forgotten.

Bill Clinton did some unspeakable things but what Hillary did was, in my estimation, infinitely worse. She portrayed herself as a champion for women while she protected her husband and predators like Harvey Weinstein. It’s important that people remember that Hillary put herself in charge of “bimbo eruptions.” That’s such a disgusting term, isn’t it?

Hillary wasn’t asked to handle it. She volunteered to do it. All the while, she protected Harvey Weinstein, too. Here’s hoping that Ms. McGowan’s criticism will be a major part of Hillary’s epitaph. Hillary’s earned it.

Roger L. Simon’s latest article isn’t likely to help Democrats sleep well at night. Simon’s article quotes extensively from Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s WSJ op-ed, which is behind a paywall. The biggest story lately has been impeachment. That won’t stay the biggest story forever. If Attorney General Mukasey is right, I’d hate to have a last name spelled B-i-d-e-n. Here’s Mukasey’s explanation:

That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.” [Bold mine]

I doubt that Moeller’s investigation into Ukraine was that vigorous. Nobody will doubt that Durham’s investigation is thorough enough. This is why this digging is utterly worthwhile:

The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

I don’t know what Durham will find but I’m confident he’ll find lots of stuff. After all, he’s the guy who took over a cold case after 30 years, then found the evidence and witnesses and won a conviction. If I’m a Biden or associated with the Clinton campaign, I’d start worrying. It’s warranted.

The first paragraph of Tim Ryan’s opinion piece sounds reasonable. It’s a statement of why he wants to be president. It’s actually semi-coherent.

It says “Like many Americans, my family and I have spent our entire lives at the epicenter of de-industrialization. We’ve watched as urban and rural communities have been hollowed out — good paying jobs have gone overseas, too many people have died from opioid addiction and our neighborhoods have crumbled from failing infrastructure.”

Unfortunately for Ryan, the next paragraph is pure BS:

We are fed up. I am fed up. And that is why I am running for president. I’m going to lead a revolution for working people in America. This includes all workers: white, black and brown, men and women, gay and straight, urban and rural. In other words, I want to fight for all the Americans left behind by Trump’s elitist economic agenda that puts the well-being of millionaires, billionaires and corporations above that of hardworking Americans.

What the hell is he talking about? Trump’s elitist economic agenda? This is the lie that Democrats will peddle. And yes, lie is exactly the right word. President Trump’s economic policies have brought manufacturing jobs back in large numbers. The small coal-mining communities of southern Ohio and also Pennsylvania are significantly better off today than they were 4 years ago. That’s why Ohio went from being a swing state to being a solid red state in 4 years (2012 to 2016.)

Further, as Larry Kudlow frequently highlights, wages for the lowest wage earners are growing fastest:

The Democrats’ goal is to paint the economy as rigged for “millionaires and billionaires” while giving President Obama the credit for the great economy. The Democrats want it both ways. Imagine that!

The Democrats’ economic message, including Tim Ryan’s, is BS on steroids. Listen to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Tim Ryan. You’d think we were living in Soupline America when we’re actually living in fantastic economic times.

I’m tired of Democrats criticizing this economy. Each month for a year, I’ve read articles predicting a recession is near. That’s BS too. That’s the Democrats’ fear-mongering. Democrats hate prosperity when Republicans are in office.

Ultimately, Ryan has an economic message, which puts him ahead of most Democrat presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton in 2016. Unfortunately for him, his message, like most Democrats’ economic message, is BS, aka fiction.

UPDATE: Tim Ryan complained about jobs being exported. This article addresses that issue:

Robbie Hunter, president of the state Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents more than 400,000 workers, says that dozens of his members plan a major “Blue Collar Revolution” demonstration Saturday morning at the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco, which will be attended by 14 of the Democratic presidential contenders and 5,000 delegates and guests.

The effort aims to send a message that the party is in danger of eroding a critical base if it continues to back the Green New Deal resolution being pushed in Washington, D.C. by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her allies. Hunter argues the measure’s goals could endanger thousands of jobs in the Southern California oil industry alone. “All it does is do what the Democratic Party seems to be very good at lately — which is export our jobs, while doing nothing for the end game, which is the environmental,” Hunter said.

Until Democrats push environmental extremists out of their party, they’ll continue losing blue collar voters.

During the 2016 general election campaign, Democrats criticized then-Candidate Trump for not saying he’d accept the results of the election. Immediately after she lost, Hillary Clinton started doing everything possible to undermine President Trump’s election. Of course, we now know that she had lots of help from deep state actors like Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, Jim Clapper, John Brennan, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

It’s worth noting that Brennan accused President Trump of committing treason multiple times. Right after President Trump’s summit with Russia President Vladimir Putin, Brennan tweeted that “President Trump’s performance…rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”

President Trump’s behavior wasn’t treasonous just like Hillary’s giving Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov the now-infamous reset button wasn’t treasonous. For the former director of the CIA to make such a statement is anti-patriotic.

Now that the Mueller report turned into a dud, Democrats want to relitigate that faux investigation, too. It’s increasingly apparent that Democrats have turned into what I call Relitigation Nation. If they don’t get the results they want, Democrats throw a hissy fit and insist that Republicans must be covering something up. This time, they’ve turned to a new version of smear campaigning under the guise of oversight hearings.

I’ve started talking about a new campaign, which I’ve titled ‘No More Euphemisms’. The Democrats’ thinly disguised oversight hearings are nothing of the sort. They’re the start of the Far-Far Left’s impeachment proceedings. Democrats have insisted on relitigating the conclusions of the Mueller report. The evidence doesn’t support obstruction of justice charges. There was no evidence that “any American” conspired with or collaborated with the Russian government.

Remember when Michelle infamously said that “for the first time in my life, I’m proud of America and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change”?

It’s impossible to escape the fact that Democrats are the sorest losers in politics. If they don’t get their way, they whine to high heaven. That isn’t what leaders do. That’s what sore losers do.

Finally, I won’t put up with Biden’s claim that re-electing President Trump will end America as it should be. The Obama-Biden administration tried to fundamentally transform the United States. No thanks! I prefer the president to enforce the laws of our nation consistently. I prefer an administration that doesn’t selectively ignore the laws it doesn’t like.

There’s no doubt that Democrats will cave on building President Trump’s wall. The only question is when it’ll happen. Democrats have already admitted that what’s in effect isn’t working. Further, Democrats can’t hide the fact that they’ve voted for border wall funding previously. In fact, rather prominent Democrats have voted for the wall, including President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein. In fact, that quintet voted to spend much more than the $5,700,000,000 that President Trump is asking for right now.

How can these Democrats continue to say no with this information floating around out there? Let’s remember something important about President Trump’s election. Voters signaled that they were tired of politics as usual. They demanded politicians that actually got things done. Thus far, Democrats have sounded like obstructionists.

President Trump has made counter-proposals. Democrats haven’t. They’ve just repeated their mantra that they’re for border security, too. I’m not saying that Republicans have done the right thing. They’ve failed, too.

Byron York’s article highlights the Democrats’ hypocrisy:

In 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which mandated the construction of multilayer pedestrian fencing along about 600 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. It passed with big, bipartisan majorities: 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate. Some top Democrats who are still in the Senate today supported the fence: Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, and Sherrod Brown. Just the next year, Congress made clear it didn’t really mean what it said. The new law was amended to make fence building optional.

In 2013, Congress got back into the fence game. The Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill included something called the “Southern Border Fencing Strategy.” It called for 700 miles of at least single-layer pedestrian fencing along the border. It wasn’t a standalone measure; the fence was to be part of a broader package of border security measures alongside provisions that would create a process by which the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants would ultimately gain a path to citizenship.

It’s just a matter of time before Democrats are forced to cave. They’ve been dealt a difficult hand despite what the MSM has written. At some point, they’ll have to do something that will upset their base. They can’t continue to play to the Democrats’ worst instincts.

When Democrats listen to their hard left wing, they lose bigtime. Democrats will lose because they’re liars. It’s painful to listen to this particular liar:

I just read President Reagan’s final speech from the Oval Office. Despite what Ms. Pelosi said, President Reagan never once mentioned the Statue of Liberty in that speech. That’s why I won’t trust her on border security.

When it comes to undermining the first step in democracy, aka elections, there’s no low too low that Democrats won’t accuse Republicans of. Byron York’s article chronicles the Democrats’ Stacy Abrams’ attempt to steal the Georgia gubernatorial election.

York wrote “Well before Election Day, Democrat Stacey Abrams accused her Republican opponent, Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp, of using his office to throw minority voters off the rolls. ‘He disproportionately purged voters of color,’ Abrams said on The View about a week before the election. ‘That’s problematic because regardless of intent, the result is that racial bias has been injected into our system and undermines confidence in our democracy.'”

Those statements have a problem, though. They’re opinions. The Abrams campaign never supplied proof that these things happened. Instead, Abrams’ fellow Democrats raced to microphones to repeat Ms. Abrams’ allegations:

“I think that Stacey Abrams’ election is being stolen from her,” said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker. “If Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it,” said Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. “If she had a fair election, she already would have won,” said Hillary Clinton.

Again, where’s the Democrats’ proof? The Democrats’ habit is to make wild accusations, then have the Fake Media amplify the accusations. Don’t have proof? That’s ok. We’ll repeat it often enough until people buy the Democrats’ BS. Here’s Sherrod Brown yapping to the National Action Network:

BTW, NAN was founded in 1991 by Reverend Al Sharpton.

Most Abrams supporters did not suggest that she actually won more votes than Kemp. Instead, they pointed to Georgia’s requirement that the winning candidate must receive more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. The Abrams scenario was based on the hope that, somehow, Abrams might find an additional 17,000 or so more votes, while Kemp got no more, and then Kemp, while still substantially ahead in total votes, would have less than 50 percent of the total. If that happened, there would be a runoff with Abrams.

The only problem was, the numbers weren’t anywhere close to what Abrams needed.

Why let reality get in the way of undermining democracy? The Media Wing of the Democratic Party, aka Fake News, didn’t. As someone committed to accuracy, doing the required research and getting things right, I don’t have a problem labeling the Media Wing of the Democratic Party as Fake News. It isn’t like they’re searching for the truth. They’re working to further their agenda. Period.

Yes, they have First Amendment rights. They just don’t have any credibility with honest people. That territory is reserved for journalists like Salena Zito, Byron York and Ed Morrissey.

The US has reached a tipping point. Will we insist on honesty and principled patriotism? Or will we settle for the Democrats’ constant undermining of our system of government? I hope it’s the former.

Monday afternoon, Sen. Casey, (D-PA), removed his despicable campaign ad. This didn’t happen because Sen. Casey is a man of integrity. It happened because he isn’t a man of integrity.

First, it’s important to know what’s in the ad. According to the article, the “ad accuses Mr. Barletta of voting to let insurers refuse coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions. It features a woman, Stacie Ritter of Lancaster County, whose twin daughters were diagnosed with cancer saying, ‘if Lou Barletta has his way, kids like mine could be denied the care they need.'”

It isn’t difficult to figure out why Rep. Barletta, (R-PA), got upset with the ad. Rep. Barletta put this letter together to criticize his opponent:

Here’s a partial transcript of Rep. Barletta’s video:

What Bob Casey did with that commercial is one of the most hurtful, insensitive things I’ve ever experienced in my political career. Bob Casey knew that my 18-month-old grandson, who is a twin, has cancer. I told him and his wife a month ago. They knew what we were going through.”

In pulling his ad, Sen. Casey, (D-PA), published a statement that implies that the ad “involving children stricken with cancer were unintentional” and that “he takes Mr. Barletta at his word about the impact it had on his family.”

What’s interesting is that “the Democrat’s campaign is still running the ad in the rest of the state.” That’s the definition of a dirtbag. Sen. Casey’s ad implies that Rep. Barletta would advocate for policies that would hurt his 18-month-old grandson. Why would anyone think that pulling the ad in a small section of Pennsylvania will eliminate the Barlettas’ pain?

If I didn’t know better, I’d bet that Sen. Casey is just as tone-deaf as Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. It takes some effort to reach that ‘level’ of insensitivity.

The NYTimes’ bias shines through in this article. It starts in a paragraph that says ‘In the lead-up to the report, Trump’s allies agreed that this was paramount. The central question in my opinion,’ David Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, wrote this week on the Fox News website, ‘is did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?’ And the report’s answer is clear: No.”

One of the findings of the 568-page report is that there is proof that Hillary’s emails were accessed by hostile actors. Contrary to Jim Comey’s declaration of July 5, 2016, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. The fact that most of her top campaign people got immunity suggests that the FBI didn’t pursue them with the same vigor that Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued Paul Manafort or Carter Page.

Then there’s this:

Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Right. Tell that to David Petraeus and Gen. Flynn. Mueller’s team couldn’t find the political mainstream if they were given a GPS and a year’s worth of gasoline. Mueller’s prosecutorial team looks more like Hillary Clinton’s donor list than a team of skilled prosecutors. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte disagree with the NY Times:

Chairman Goodlatte stated emphatically that well-established DOJ and FBI procedures weren’t followed in investigating Hillary. That says it all. Goodlatte then said that there’s a stark contrast in the procedures used in the Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. No grand jury was impaneled for the Hillary ‘investigation’. There was a grand jury impaneled for the Trump-Russia investigation. Again, that says it all.

The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

This is disgusting reporting. If Hillary had followed government procedures, there wouldn’t have been an investigation. Hillary acted like this nation’s laws didn’t apply to her. The fact that she’s now gotten bit by the FBI is karma. What comes around goes around.

After reading Scott Johnson’s post, a contrarian thought popped into my head. In his post, Scott quoted Andrew McCarthy as saying that the “Obama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics.” He then quoted McCarthy as saying “It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.”

Anyone that’s paid a minute of attention to this case knows that the Clinton Slush Fund, aka the Clinton Foundation, had ties to some nasty Russian companies and oligarchs. My question for the legal eagles and people from the intelligence community is whether it’s plausible to think that the Obama administration used its intelligence capabilities to find out if Trump had discovered a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian government or Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin.