Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Sebelius: The Clinton White House doubled down on ‘abusive behavior’ and it’s fair to criticize Hillary Clinton, by Pete Jones

When Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, and CNN start ganging up on the Clintons, you know things have changed for the worse for the former first couple. From Pete Jones at cnn.com:

Kathleen Sebelius testifies as HHS Secretary before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2013.

As a wave of stories unfold about sexual harassment and assault by men in power, a senior Democratic leader says her party should reflect on how it handled such charges when they were leveled against former President Bill Clinton.

“Not only did people look the other way, but they went after the women who came forward and accused him,” says Kathleen Sebelius, the former secretary of Health and Human Services and Kansas governor. “And so it doubled down on not only bad behavior but abusive behavior. And then people attacked the victims.”
Sebelius extended her criticism to Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton White House for what she called a strategy of dismissing and besmirching the women who stepped forward—a pattern she said is being repeated today by alleged perpetrators of sexual assault—saying that the criticism of the former first lady and Secretary of State was “absolutely” fair. Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration’s response was being imitated, adding that “you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over.”
The comments came during a conversation with David Axelrod on the latest episode of “The Axe Files,” a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN.
While Sebelius was critical of both Clintons, she questioned whether the impeachment pursued by Republicans in Congress was the appropriate vehicle for addressing his transgressions.
Advertisements

More Hillary Chronicles, by Andrew P. Napolitano

There is no way that Hillary Clinton should not be investigated. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

The Department of Justice will soon commence an investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation (you read that nonsense correctly) of a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation and a company called Uranium One. It appears that FBI decisions made during the time that Hillary Clinton was being investigated for espionage will also be investigated to see whether there should be an investigation to determine whether she was properly investigated. (Again, you read that nonsense correctly.)

Only the government can relate nonsense with a straight face. Here is the back story.

When President Donald Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey last spring, the attorney general’s stated purpose for recommending the firing was Comey’s dropping the ball in the investigation of Clinton’s email when she was secretary of state. After a year of investigating her use of her own computer servers to transmit and store classified materials instead of using a government server to do so — and notwithstanding a mountain of evidence of her grossly negligent exposure of secret and top-secret materials, which constitutes the crime of espionage — the FBI director decided that because no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, it should be dropped. Weeks later, the DOJ ratified Comey’s decision.

At the same time that Clinton was failing to safeguard state secrets, she was granting official State Department favors to donors to her family’s charitable foundation. There are dozens of examples of this so-called “pay to play,” the most egregious of which is the Uranium One case. This involved a Canadian businessman and friend of former President Bill Clinton’s, Frank Giustra, who bundled donations from various sources that totaled $148 million, all of which Giustra gave to the Clinton Foundation.

To continue reading: More Hillary Chronicles

Down the Memory Hole: Obama Stole the 2008 Primary with Help of DNC, by KarIn McQuillan

Did Barack Obama screw Hillary Clinton in 2008 worse than Hillary Clinton screwed Bernie Sanders in 2016? From Karin McQuillan at americanthinker.com:

The country is shocked, shocked that the DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign to anoint her as their nominee. In her 2015 caper, Clinton made a backroom deal with the DNC. In 2008, Barack Obama used outright election fraud and thuggery, the tried and true Chicago methods. to steal the nomination directly from the voters.  When he got far enough, the DNC pressured Hillary’s pledged superdelegates to violate their voters’ wishes and award Obama an unearned victory.

Obama’s illegal shenanigans in the 2008 Democrat primaries were far worse than Clinton’s – and will never be widely reported.  

It’s an odd experience to dig this information out of the memory hole.  No Democrat cares: no party leaders, no members of Congress, no journalists, and no ordinary people.  Democrats do not care about  rule of law or fair elections.  All of them feel morally entitled to win.  That is the corrupting influence of their identity politics that tars political opponents as moral reprobates.

Democrat primaries show us who they are: their will to power trumps every other value.  Progressives want permanent power, not a functioning republic.    They don’t accept fair and free elections – witness their dirty attempts to overturn the last one and deprive Trump voters of their victory.

As Hillary might say, Democrat corruption, Hollywood corruption – it takes a village.

Like the revelations of Harvey Weinstein’s abuses, one big dog gets punished, while the even bigger dog – Bill Clinton for sexual abuse, Barack Obama for political abuse – remains untouchable.

A documentary by Hillary supporters on Obama’s cheating and abuse was reported on Fox & Friends only in 2010; at the time of the election, no one would cover their complaints. Read about it here.

In one documentary interview, civil rights activist Helene Latimer recounts seeing an elderly woman being intimidated at the polls. “As she approached the entrance way to go into the building, one of the young men said to her, ‘If you’re not voting for Obama, go home because you’re not voting here today.'”

“It’s our right as Americans to be able to vote and everybody was alerted, we went to press, we went to Fox, we went to CNN, nobody wanted to hear the story (in 2008),” Gaston told Fox’s Alisyn Camerota. “Nobody wants to deal with this.”

To continue reading: Down the Memory Hole: Obama Stole the 2008 Primary with Help of DNC

Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates, by Robert Parry

People do not want “new and improved” versions of the same old thing. They’re looking for something different from politicians. From Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com:

Exclusive: Neither the Democrats nor President Trump learned the right lessons from the 2016 election, leaving the nation divided at home and bogged down in wars abroad, writes Robert Parry.

One year ago, the American electorate delivered a confused but shocking result, the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, a quirky outcome in the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House even though Clinton got three million more votes nationally. But neither party appears to have absorbed the right lessons from that surprise ending.

President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

The Democrats might have taken away from their defeat the warning that they had forgotten how to speak to the white working class, which had suffered from job losses via “free trade” and felt willfully neglected as Democrats looked toward the “browning of America.”

The choice of Clinton had compounded this problem because she came across as elitist and uncaring toward this still important voting bloc with her memorable description of half of Trump’s voters as “deplorables,” an insult that stung many lower-income whites and helped deliver Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump.

For more than a decade, some Democratic strategists had promoted the notion that “demography is destiny,” i.e., that the relative growth of Latino, Asian and African-American populations in comparison to whites would ensure a future Democratic majority. That prediction seemed to have been validated by Barack Obama’s winning coalition in 2008 and 2012, but it also had the predictable effect of alienating many whites who felt disrespected and resentful.

So, while the Democrats and Clinton looked to a multicultural future, Trump used his experience in reality TV to communicate with this overlooked demographic group. Trump sold himself as a populist and treated the white working class with respect. He spoke to their fears about economic decline and gave voice to their grievances. He vowed to put “America First” and pull back from foreign military adventures that often used working-class kids as cannon fodder.

But much of Trump’s message, like the real-estate mogul himself, was phony. He really didn’t have policies that would address the needs of working-class Americans. Still, his promises of a massive infrastructure plan, good health-care for all, and rejection of unfair trade deals rang the right bells with enough voters to flip some traditionally Democratic blue-collar states to Republican red.

To continue reading: Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates

Hillary Is America, by Robert Gore

National Review

Psychologically, there’s nothing out of the ordinary about Hillary in contemporary America.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky would have been the right author to illuminate the inner world of Hillary Clinton. He had the imaginative power to show the psychological deterioration—the rickety castle of lies she’s built to shut out threatening realities and the truth.

For all of Dostoyevsky’s skill, it probably would have been beyond him to dramatically render America’s degenerate descent. Hillary’s supporters believe she’s extraordinary; her detractors believe she’s a tragic anomaly. They’re both wrong. The real tragedy is that in contemporary America, there’s nothing exceptional about her other than her criminality, and how exceptional is that? Shutting out reality and the truth are national pastimes. She’s not psychologically differentiated in any way from the crowd, and her access to platforms allows her to peddle what it wants to hear.

Many people’s first impression of Hillary came from her and Bill’s famous 60 Minutes interview after the 1992 Super Bowl. She said she wasn’t Tammy Wynette, standing by her man, as she stood by her man despite allegations of a 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers. She may have saved her man’s presidential campaign. Hillary’s 60 Minutes performance garnered a consensus 5-star rating. Only later would it be reconsidered.

In 10 minutes of television, she projected a set of complicated, even conflicting images—forthright but defensive, feisty but dutiful—triggering the mix of skeptical, antagonistic feelings that have defined her with a share of the American public ever since.

The TV Interview That Haunts Hillary Clinton,” Politico, 9/23/16 (LINK)).

At the time, Bill’s philandering wasn’t widely documented. The Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey allegations and revelations would surface during his presidency. Nevertheless, Hillary had to have numerous clues, if not outright knowledge, of Bill’s relaxed attitude towards his marriage vows. Was she in denial?

That relatively charitable explanation became less plausible as accusations about Bill’s liaisons, attempted liaisons, and sexual assaults filled the alternative media and even on occasion the mainstream media, where they were usually dismissed. The accusations fueled Hillary’s fury…against the accusers. She spearheaded the effort to discredit them, contrary to her claim that women don’t lie about sexual harassment.

By the end of Bill’s presidency, it was clear that Hillary’s support was not rooted in love or denial, but crass opportunism at the cost of self-respect. She kept her wagon hitched to her husband’s star because he was her ticket. A woman of modest gifts and almost no political skill, everything she had achieved had been through Bill. She would need him to launch her political career.

How do you account for the American people’s long infatuation with government? Is it love coupled with denial? How many are like the cuckold who repeatedly finds his wife in bed with other men? They remain smitten even as the government goes from lie to lie, betrayal to betrayal. Consider a list of political prevarications, by no means exhaustive.

A “modest” income tax will only be levied on the very rich. A central bank will smooth out economic fluctuations, stop financial crises, and maintain the value of the dollar. President Wilson will keep us out of Europe’s War. World War I will be the war to end all wars and make the world safe for democracy. The New Deal will end the Great Depression. President Roosevelt will keep us out of Europe’s war. World War II will be the war to end all wars and make the world safe for democracy. Dropping atomic bombs on Japan is necessary to save a million American lives. The Communists want to rule the world. The president was killed by a lone gunman. There is light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. “I am not a crook.” Whip Inflation Now. Wars against poverty, drugs, and terrorism will eradicate poverty, drugs, and terrorism. Legally mandated racial, ethnic, and gender preferences are not discriminatory. The Muslims want to rule the world. Invading foreign countries, fighting undeclared wars, and regime changes will make the world safe for democracy. Spying on you full-time will make you safer and preserve your freedom. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

Yet, faith in government runs deep, there’s still that substantial segment who believes whatever it tells them.

However, like Hillary’s support of Bill, most of those who now back the government do so opportunistically, a nice way of saying they’ve been bought off…at the cost of self-respect. The millions receiving redistributed and vote-buying largess are told they have more right to it than the people from whom it was taken. The string-pullers at the top of the lucrative military-industrial-intelligence complex, the medical, education, and welfare rackets, the government debt and central bank swindles, and other sundry scams abandoned morality in their formative years. Bill boinks bimbos; the government is organized crime, so what? A juxtaposition of The Godfather, Part 2 and an infamous Hillary quote offers what passes as rationalization: We’re all part of the same hypocrisy, what difference does it make?

Besides such opportunism and rationalization, Hillary is the template for another psychological dodge: escape into fantasy. Up to her eyeballs in charges of illicit and illegal Russian collusion, her oft-repeated claims that Russia stole the election sound like the bizarre ravings of a street-corner crazy.

Aren’t the unshakeable tenets of American denial just as crazy, if not more so? We can continuously spend more than we earn. In stocks, bonds, debt, and central banks we trust. Underfunded pensions and medical funds will take care of the elderly, even as their numbers steadily increase relative to the number of younger workers who will supposedly support them. The US must maintain global order. The rest of the world likes it when the indispensable nation tells it what to do. Invading foreign countries and instituting a police state at home make us safer. Terrorism and refugee migration are not blowback from our own policies. People’s race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preferences are more important than their merits as individuals. And so on and so on and so on.

It’s tragic when a drunk hits bottom, in a gutter somewhere covered in his own vomit. If, when he regains consciousness his disgust and self-loathing prompt him to acknowledge and address his alcoholism, something good can come from something bad. America has a looming rendezvous with a brick wall. Afterwards, those who have feasted on government will find there’s little to scavenge. Those who denied the impending crash won’t emerge from the wreckage.

The few who do emerge will do so with psychological defenses breached and illusions shattered. Awakened, they’ll offer a hope of recovery and redemption. As with the chastened drunk in the gutter, however, it will be a long, slow slog and there are no guarantees.

You’ll Wish It Was Longer

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

 

How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier’, by George Szamuely

This is a very good account of the down and dirty of the Trump dossier, and there was a lot of down and a lot of dirty. From George Szamuely at ronpaulinstitute.org:

undefined

The Trump-Russia collusion story was a joint invention of the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign. It enabled the Obama administration to make use of the nation’s security and intelligence services to spy on Trump and his associates and to use whatever information they thereby gleaned to try to get Hillary into the White House. The failure of the scheme didn’t stop either Obama or the Clintons. Following the election debacle, an enraged Obama administration sought vengeance by disseminating the dossier as widely as possible with a view to undermining the incoming Trump administration and to ensuring that no rapprochement with Russia would be possible. In doing so, Obama and Clinton have thrown American politics into turmoil and have perhaps pushed the United States and Russia toward armed confrontation.

We have known the basic outlines of the Steele dossier story since January. The Steele dossier, we have been told, started off as a piece of opposition research prepared by Fusion GPS and financed by a Republican rival of Trump’s or perhaps a GOP NeverTrumper. Following Trump’s victory in the GOP primaries, the Democrats took over its funding. Fusion hired Christopher Steele, a former head of the Russia desk at MI6 who now ran his own corporate intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence. Using the leads Steele had developed during his years at MI6, he reported back to his paymasters his shocking discovery: The Russians had been cultivating Trump for years in preparation for his run for the presidency. So shocked was Steele by this that he rushed to alert the FBI, MI6 and even select reporters.

Most of this story is pure fiction. Neither the GOP nor a primary rival of Trump’s had any involvement with the dossier. To be sure, in October 2015, the Washington Free Beacon, a neo-conservative Web site funded by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, did hire Fusion to undertake opposition research on Trump. However, money for this undertaking dried up by May 2016.

To continue reading: How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier’

 

Swamp-O-Rama, by James Howard Kunstler

When do Hillary Clinton’s legal problems begin? From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

What America might want to know right now is: how come Hillary Clinton doesn’t have any legal problems? Why aren’t DOJ investigators examining the financial records of the Clinton Foundation? You would think somebody would want to find out how over $120 million of Russian “charitable donations” ended up on its ledgers around the time that Secretary of State HRC approved the Uranium One deal — compared to which, Bill Clinton’s $500,000 payment from a Russian bank for giving a speech around the same time just looks like walking-around money.

This is not to mention (well, I will) the flow of donations from Saudi Arabia pending approval of a major arms deal by HRC. Or of myriad other donations from foreign nationals tendered simply for face-time with the Secretary. Has any other cabinet officer in US history run a money-gathering org while serving? I don’t think so. Maybe the arrant selling of influence right out-front strains the credulity of government auditors. And while we’re at this, I would like to know how then-FBI director Robert Mueller and President Obama might have been informed about these activities. Or not?

Mr. Mueller also needs to answer about his relationship with former FBI director James Comey — he was apparently Mr. Comey’s mentor — while Mr. Comey needs to answer for his peculiar and probably lawless behavior in dismissing the investigation around HRC’s private email server — that was not his decision to make — and the notorious meeting at the Phoenix airport of former president Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch around the same time the email investigation under Mr. Comey came to a head.

Now comes the news from Donna Brazille, on-again-off-again Democrat Party chair, that the primary elections were elaborately rigged by HRC functionaries to buy control of her nomination. Let’s not even go into the bidding for the Christopher Steele “dossier” alleging kinky sexual romps in Moscow by Donald Trump, or the activities in Ukraine of Tony Podesta’s DC lobbying company — that’s Tony, brother of John Podesta, Clinton campaign chief, whose emails remain a truffle cache for the rooting dogs of the DOJ, if they were actually on-the-task.

To continue reading: Swamp-O-Rama