Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Just 2 months ago, I didn’t know who Bill Taylor was. Now I know that he’s another career diplomat who doesn’t like it that President Trump is implementing the foreign policy that the American people elected him to implement. Tuesday, Taylor testified that “President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate both election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son — and was willing to hold up military aid and a White House meeting to get a public announcement from the country that the probes were underway.”

Even if that’s true, that’s still a nothingburger. Unfortunately for Taylor, there was a man of integrity in the room during Taylor’s testimony. That man’s name is John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is a former US attorney who now represents TX-04. Tonight, Ratcliffe appeared on The Story to be interviewed by Martha McCallum. After Ratcliffe said that he couldn’t repeat what he said in the secret room, Ratcliffe figured out a legal way to say what happened during his cross-examination of Taylor. Here’s the video of that interview:

Predictably, Democrats described today’s testimony as “the most damning they’ve heard.” Ratcliffe had a different perspective. First, though, is part of what Taylor testified to:

“I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.”

In this instance, Taylor’s testimony was third-hand information at best. Third-hand testimony heard behind closed doors and which doesn’t come with a transcript of Congressman Ratcliffe’s cross-examination is virtually worthless.

Congressman Ratcliffe noted that “At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible.”

Ratcliffe also noted that “[Schiff] keeps trotting in career ambassadors who are alarmed at Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to foreign policy. Who’s surprised at that? And again, today, I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, but again, the MSM keeps reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him on that and, under Adam Schiff’s rules, I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You have a quid pro quo without the quo.”

Ratcliffe’s final major contribution of the interview came when he said this:

Martha, if this was a court case, the lawyers for the defense would be moving for a directed verdict. They’d be saying ‘this case isn’t allowed to go to a jury because the prosecution is missing an essential element of their case.’ There is no quid pro quo until someone from the Ukraine says ‘We knew that military aid was being withheld during that July 25th call and that testimony hasn’t come and it isn’t going to come.”

This impeachment case is collapsing, albeit behind closed doors. It isn’t just that the case is weak. It’s that the Senate is about to vote on Lindsey Graham’s resolution that essentially says that the House process has been a travesty:

Sen. Graham is right in pushing that the impeachment trial be dismissed without a trial if the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, aka Adam Schiff, isn’t willing to afford to President Trump the same rights that were granted to President Nixon and President Clinton. The House Democrats’ impeachment process is a travesty. It shouldn’t be treated like it was an honest investigation based on constitutional rights.

Ed Rendell is an old-fashioned Clinton spinmeister. Specifically, that means that he doesn’t need verification to make outlandish unsubstantiated statements. He just needs a microphone. Nowhere is that more visible than in this article and interview.

In the interview, Rendell said “I think we got to watch what rolls out in the next month or so. I think there’s more evidence to come and I think as the evidence rolls out, it’s going to become more and more clear that the president not only broke the law here but he abused his power at the detriment of the United States of America.” Rendell also said that “President Trump ‘committed a crime by soliciting the Ukraine government to get involved in the U.S. election.'”

Apparently, Democrats don’t care about the truth. Nothing in the transcript of the call shows that President Trump solicited “the Ukraine government to get involved in the U.S. election.” What’s apparent is that President Trump wanted Ukraine to help investigate a corrupt politician who bragged about getting a prosecutor fired after that prosecutor started investigating the company this corrupt politician’s son worked for at the time.

Here’s a great rule for Democrats to apply. If you don’t want to be investigated, stop being corrupt like Joe Biden and especially Hillary Clinton:

These are people who’ve been swamp critters the vast majority of their careers. Hillary’s career is the personification of the Swamp and the pay-to-play plan. Biden’s story is more about stumbling into corruption. Meanwhile, another corrupt Democrat, Adam Schiff, got protected by the corrupt Democrats in the House when 217 Democrats voted to protect him for lying to Congress. Afterward, Schiff tweeted this:


Friend of LFR Jeff Dunetz replied perfectly with this tweet:


Follow the entire chain of tweets Jeff unleashed on the House Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman. They’re so worth it.

Speaker Pelosi’s office issued a Fact Sheet Monday that’s utterly dishonest. Here’s the opening page:

Notice what Pelosi’s document omits. Under the heading of “In President Trump’s own words”, Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Fact Sheet’ says “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

This is what the White House official transcript says:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you.do it if that’s possible.

Let’s call this the ‘Favor’ paragraph. In the official White House transcript, which was put together by career White House security personnel, there isn’t a mention of the Bidens in the Favor paragraph.

That’s proof that Ms. Pelosi’s ‘Fact Sheet’ is as dishonest as the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, Adam Schiff. It’s fair to say that Ms. Pelosi doesn’t have integrity. If she had integrity, she wouldn’t have merged 2 paragraphs together that were a page apart. This wasn’t accidental. It was intentional so that the dishonest Fact Sheet would send the message that President Trump called Ukraine’s president and asked him to dig up “lots of dirt” (Schiff’s phrase from the Maguire hearing opening statement).

Most of the information in Ms. Pelosi’s Fact Sheet is distortion or outright lies. She accused Secretary of State Pompeo and Vice President Pence of being part of President Trump’s coverup. Read the Fact Sheet for yourself. Then read the Trump-Zelensky transcript and notice the differences. Then remind yourself that the transcript was put together by career White House security personnel. Ms. Pelosi’s Fact Sheet was put together by the 2 most dishonest Democrats on Capitol Hill.

I won’t dispute that President Trump has made mistakes. Pulling the troops out of Syria by itself wasn’t a mistake. Pulling out without consultations with the Kurds was a mistake.

Mick Mulvaney’s Friday afternoon press conference wasn’t a mistake. Mick Mulvaney’s Friday afternoon press conference was an in-your-face-things-have-changed masterpiece. That’s the gospel of Kevin McCullough:

I know that the mouth breathers mixed amongst the White House press corps acted as though acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney committed some set of cardinal sins on Friday. Excuse me if I disagree. It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration’s part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi’s faux impeachment.

Since Pelosi and Schiff aren’t conducting a lawful impeachment nor observing the long held practices of past impeachments, there is absolutely zero rationale in participating in their charade. They want to interrogate everyone in secret and not make the exculpatory testimony (of nearly everyone they speak with) available to the people. They want to undo lawful elections and remove the overwhelming winner of those contests via illegitimate and fraudulent means. Hence the president should reserve the right of using his press briefings to more or less call his own witnesses and let them blister the media with testimony exactly the way Mulvaney did on Friday.

The first rule of dealing with schoolyard bullies is to punch them hard so they know that there’s a price to pay for being a bully. If there isn’t a price for bullying, the bullying will continue. Democrats in the media aren’t used to having the person from the podium punch back. Based on their reactions, those Democrats aren’t handling it that well.

I’m not sure what bothered the press more: that Mulvaney made it clear that he wouldn’t play their semantic word games or that he unloaded facts to the public with such force. He also irritated them to no end in blatantly explaining that the aid America gives to any group of people that are not American will be on a basis that is assessed on a primary consideration of how they cooperate with the interests of America!

In other words, President Trump is insisting that money is spent wisely. The Democrats’ media accomplices acted like Mulvaney committed multiple mortal sins. The vast majority of the White House press corps are a bunch of sniveling ninnies. It’s time for them to grow up.

Likewise, it’s time for Republicans to start standing up to the Democrats’ enablers.

Earlier tonight, Democrat ‘moderates’ Angie Craig, Collin Peterson and Dean Phillips voted against censuring Democrat Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff for lying to the American people while delivering his opening statement in the Maguire hearing. For those who don’t remember that hearing by that name, it’s the one where Democrat Impeachment Chairman opened with this speech:

Here’s the heart of Schiff’s speech:

horn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.

In Schiff’s speech, it’s clear that he’s signaling that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky with the withholding of military aid. According to Schiff’s fake phone call transcript, that military aid would be withheld from Ukraine if President Zelensky didn’t “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it.”

The bottom line is this — Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, lied to Congress and the American people. This isn’t just a silly prank. Schiff’s speech is permanently part of the Congressional Record. Minnesota’s ‘moderate Democrats’ didn’t think Schiff’s dishonest speech was worthy of official criticism. These ‘moderate Democrats’ thought that the man leading an investigation to remove the president of the United States shouldn’t be officially criticized. Perhaps, it’s because they bought Schiff’s BS that this was a parody. If that’s a parody, how do Phillips, Peterson and Craig explain this paragraph from Schiff’s speech?

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff said it with his own words that “this is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine.” That’s a pretty fanciful interpretation of the transcript. Here’s what President Trump actually told President Zelensky:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation … I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Nothing in Schiff’s speech sounds like anything from Trump’s phone call. It’s appalling that Minnesota’s supposedly moderate Democrats bought Schiff’s BS and voted the way that Pelosi wanted them to vote. They aren’t moderates. They’re just gullible Democrats.

Democrats can’t pretend that they’re moderates because they’re doing things that are historically unprecedented. Recently, Schiff said that he’s essentially doing the work of a special counsel. I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was officially employed by the DOJ. Schiff’s biggest problem is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch. Impeachment chairs are fixtures of the legislative branch.

The Constitution matters

This says everything:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller led the Russia probe, but no new prosecutor has been tapped by Attorney General William Barr for the Ukraine matter. That leaves House Democrats with only a whistleblower’s complaint rather than boxes of investigators’ evidence to guide them. “Congress has to do that,” Schiff said, because the Justice Department believes “there’s nothing to see here.”

Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, is leading the probe at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and proceeding like the prosecutor he once was, staging a grand jury-like process that has been pilloried by Republicans. As Schiff works behind closed doors to build the case, Republicans accuse Democrats of waging an unfair, and according to the White House, illegitimate, investigation. But Schiff says the House has few other choices than to build the case on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that members of the legislative branch have the authority to impanel investigative grand juries. If the DOJ tells the legislative branch to pound sand if the House refers cases to the DOJ, that’s what happens when you lose elections. When Republicans made criminal referrals to Eric Holder’s DOJ about the IRS scandal and Holder rejected those referrals, Trey Gowdy couldn’t impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder. That was it. If the DOJ says no, then the answer is no. Period.

The thing is that Schiff didn’t bother trying to hide his attempt to be an investigator/prosecutor. He said this right out in the open.

Republicans, led by Andy Biggs, the new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, have gone on the offensive against the Democrats’ weakest link, aka Adam Schiff. Schiff’s tactics have been unfair, unconstitutional and totally partisan. If the goal of this impeachment process is to win people over and hold them there, it’s failing.

Newt Gingrich knows a thing or two about impeachment. He said “Schiff is an embarrassingly dishonest person. Pelosi has become an embarrassingly dishonest person.” He’s right, albeit a bit gentle. He said that to Fox & Friends. When he appeared on Outnumbered, Newt said “I think he’s lost his mind”, which is true, though not in the clinical sense.

Schiff isn’t interested in being fair. Further, his statements are further out there than Hillary’s latest statements. Hillary’s statements about Tulsi Gabbard are out there beyond the edge of the solar system. Schiff’s statements are out there beyond the edge of the galaxy.

This information should frighten Democrats:

In the six closest states carried by the president in 2016, registered voters support the impeachment inquiry by a five-point margin, 50 percent to 45 percent. The same voters oppose impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, 53 percent to 43 percent.

In other words, Democrats are pushing something that’s underwater in the polls. Support for an impeachment inquiry isn’t that popular. Support for impeaching and removing President Trump is far less popular. If Pelosi and Schiff push forward on impeachment and removal, 2 things can’t be avoided. First, those vulnerable freshman Democrats will have to vote for impeachment for it to pass. Their other option is voting against impeachment, which hangs out their far leftist Democrats to dry.

This isn’t good news for Democrats either:

An NBC/WSJ poll, for instance, found that adults opposed impeachment and removal by a six-point margin, 49 percent to 43 percent, nearly the reverse of Fox’s result of 51 percent supporting and 43 percent opposed. Other surveys, from Marist College, Quinnipiac, CNN/SSRS and Monmouth College, also found more opposition than support for impeachment and removal. The Times/Siena results are fairly consistent with those surveys.

Any issue that consistently polls at 43% isn’t an issue I’d spend more than a few seconds on. That being said, I hope Democrats spend the next month on this. While Democrats are holding impeachment hearings in private, then leaking partial transcripts to the press, they’re reinforcing their image of being the Swamp. Meanwhile, President Trump can hold weekly rallies to tell 25,000+ people at each event that he’s still fighting for them but these Do-Nothing Democrats keep holding these hearings instead of working with him on fixing immigration or making his tax cuts permanent or doing other things.

Don’t be surprised if, a year from now, people say that they prefer a president who wants to fix things over Democrats who want to spend all of their time investigating things. Do-Nothing Democrats isn’t just a talking point. It’s the truth. This truth, though, won’t set Democrats free.

Now that Shepard Smith left FNC, it’s time to get rid of Chris Wallace and Juan Williams, in that order. This morning, Wallace interviewed Acting WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney about the confusion over his ‘admitting’ that President Trump connected military aid to Ukraine with investigating the Bidens. I get it that the media loves stirring up controversies where they don’t exist but this is ridiculous.

First, Mulvaney said that governments engage in quid pro quos all the time. While I haven’t heard him say it this way, I’m confident that Mulvaney meant that reporters are getting hung up on the phrase quid pro quo rather than asking the important follow-up question, which is ‘was the quid pro quo corrupt? Or was it innocent?’ Quid pro quo simply means “this for that.”

Imagine this: every time you buy something in a store, you’ve committed a quid pro quo. You exchanged financial considerations for a product, aka this for that. If that’s illegal or corrupt, shopping malls are filled with criminals.

Of course, everything in DC gets overhyped. That’s how this story went from being a big nothing to being the biggest story this side of the other nothing story, aka the impeachment nothing story. This is utterly predictable. Without conflict, ratings would tank. Without misleading headlines, there wouldn’t be the clicks. Conflict drives ratings and attention.

That’s why I don’t pay attention to those tricks. I want to gather information. I don’t care about the latest hot stories. Rest assured that the content that you find here is important to people and is reliable. I don’t buy into the gamesmanship that the networks employ. They’re always telling us that this or that event is super-important before turning into a non-event.

I pay attention to political rallies because they tell me whether voters are fired up. If they aren’t, that’s an automatic disadvantage to that candidate. This year thus far, Trump holds the advantage over most of the Democrats, with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren being the exceptions — sorta. Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are doing best but they still can’t match Trump’s crowds and enthusiasm.

This article highlights the difference between the Trump campaign’s cutting edge media strategy and Biden’s strategy:

One recent video from the Trump campaign said that Mr. Biden had offered Ukraine $1 billion in aid if it killed an investigation into a company tied to his son. The video’s claims had already been debunked, and CNN refused to play it. But Facebook rejected the Biden campaign’s demand to take the ad down, arguing that it did not violate its policies. At last count, the video has been viewed on the social network more than five million times.

Chris Wallace is going the way of the dinosaur. Fox Nation is a great option because it’s more of an on-demand option. Why go old-fashioned when you can customize?

The question that needs to be asked of Adam Schiff and the Democrats is what they’ll do if they’re called to testify about the faux whistleblower. Let’s stop with the euphemisms. This guy is nothing but a snitch, an anonymous informant.

Let’s lay out what will be required if President Trump is impeached. The first witness who should testify should be the snitch. Let’s find out what he/she told Schiff. Let’s lock this down under oath so there’s no wiggle room. The next witness should be Speaker Pelosi. Let’s find out what she thought of impeachment through her documents, texts and phone logs. Finally, let’s put Schiff on the stand. What was his proof that was “more than circumstantial”? Did he promise the snitch anything? Why did he hire the NSC people right before the snitch appeared.

This lays out the case against Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and the House Democrats:


That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of Ms. Pelosi’s and Mr. Schiff’s charade. First, Ms. Pelosi declared an impeachment inquiry. Courts have consistently ruled that the only time that the House of Representatives does something official is when it votes. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It doesn’t say that the Speaker will have the sole power of impeachment. It says “the House of Representatives” shall have that authority.

Initially, Mr. Schiff and the Democrats insisted that the snitch would bring President Trump to his knees. This time, though, the snitch is likely to bring Democrats to their knees.

Leader McCarthy’s statement is important for another reason. He highlights the fact that Schiff is acting as a full-fledged investigator, which he isn’t. Criminal investigators are found in agencies like the DEA, the FBI, ICE, the BATFE, etc. Those agencies are found exclusively in the executive branch. The only time that the legislative branch has truly investigative authority is after a vote of the whole House of Representatives authorizing an impeachment investigation. That vote must include the rules for calling witnesses, whether the President’s counsel can be in the room, who can subpoena witnesses, whether both sides can cross-examine witnesses, etc.

The point behind it is to show that impeachment isn’t getting weaponized to take out political opponents. At this point, Democrats are proving the Republicans’ case that this is just the political weaponization of impeachment.

Presidents that don’t attempt to stop international corruption are derelict in their duties. That’s what President Trump fought against when he held up military aid to the Ukraine. Further, there’s nothing wrong with a president investigating a political opponent who was investigating his political opponent’s son. That’s what Joe Biden did when he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

That wasn’t an attempt to eliminate corruption. VP Biden tried preventing the prosecutor from identifying Hunter Biden as being corrupt. Hunter wasn’t serving on Burisma’s board because he was an expert on natural gas or the Ukraine. He was there as an insurance policy to protect Burisma from investigations.

After articles of impeachment are approved by Democrats only, those articles of impeachment go to the Senate for trial. By that time, Pelosi’s vulnerable freshmen will have already voted for impeachment. Once Pelosi’s freshman Democrats cast that vote, the ‘moderate’ sticker gets ripped off their resume. Impeaching a president for something this trivial isn’t the definition of moderation. Once this moves to the Senate, Pelosi’s ability to protect her freshman Democrats flies out the window.

At this point, the only person nuttier than Schiff is Hillary Clinton. To think that she was once only 38 electoral votes short of the Oval Office is frightening.

I can’t say that Marc Thiessen is President Trump’s most diehard supporter. What I’ve known for quite awhile, though, is that he’s a fair-minded man who’s written some good stuff that supports President Trump. For instance, this article is outstanding.

Thiessen opens the article by saying “With three polls showing her in the lead, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., may soon eclipse former Vice President Joe Biden as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That’s great news for Republicans, because Warren has a problem: The central message of her campaign is that the economy is working for the very wealthy but it is not working for ordinary Americans. Unfortunately for her, ordinary Americans disagree.

Next, Thiessen empties both barrels of the heaviest artillery:

A Marist poll asked voters whether “the economy is working well for you personally.” Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Call me crazy but that sounds like an economy that’s working for tons of people. That doesn’t sound like an economy that’s just benefiting millionaires and billionaires. That sounds like an economy that’s benefiting pretty much everybody in pretty much every geographic part of the US. Then there’s this:

The only groups who disagree, Marist found, are progressives (59 percent), Democratic women (55 percent) and those who are liberal or very liberal (55 percent.

That figures. Those groups are filled with sourpusses.

There is a good reason for that. Unemployment is near a record low, and the United States has about 1.6 million more job openings than unemployed people to fill them. Not only are jobs plentiful, but wages are rising. And The New York Times reported in May that “over the past year, low-wage workers have experienced the fastest pay increases.”

It isn’t surprising that Democrats opened their debate talking impeachment:

Old-fashioned Democrats had an economic agenda that appealed to people from time-to-time. Today’s Democrats aren’t persuasive because their ideas sound like they’re from outer space. They couldn’t sell ice-cold Gatorade in a desert if their lives depended on it. Bernie Sanders brags that he’ll raise everyone’s taxes. Elizabeth Warren’s evasive replies prove that she’d raise taxes, too, though not as much as Bernie. Think of Elizabeth Warren as ‘Bernie Lite.’

The other way to think of Crazy Bernie and Pocahontas is to think of them as destructive to this fantastic economy. Their policies wouldn’t make life better for families. Their policies are just plain stupid.

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.