Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

She’s Back, by Andrew P. Napolitano

It’s escaped widespread public notice, but new information has surfaced about 300 Hillary Clinton emails that fell into the hands of at least three foreign governments, two of them hostile. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

The criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is back front and center now that the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill.

Even though the case against her — which was closed and then reopened and then closed again — is old news and she obviously is no longer a candidate to become president of the United States and has been staying below the radar for the past two months, recent developments have regenerated the case.

Here is the back story.

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced publicly that the FBI would recommend against seeking an indictment of Clinton for espionage — the failure to safeguard state secrets that had been entrusted to her. He argued that though the case against her was strong — as secretary of state, she had been extremely careless with secrets; exposed hundreds of materials that were confidential, secret and top-secret; and used non-secure mobile devices while in the territory of hostile governments — no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.

Why was the decision of whether to prosecute Clinton left to Comey?

The FBI’s job is to gather evidence of federal crimes and to present that evidence to career prosecutors in the Department of Justice for evaluation. The FBI has numerous investigative tools available to it. One of those tools is presenting evidence to a grand jury and requesting subpoenas from it. Another is presenting evidence to a federal judge and requesting search warrants from the judge. A third is obtaining the indictment of someone who is in the inner circle of the person who is the true target of the investigation and then persuading that indicted person to become a government witness.

None of those tools was used in the Clinton case.

To continue reading: She’s Back

Advertisements

From Russia, With Karma, by Jack Perry

If you yell “Russian hackers!” long and loudly enough, maybe people will forget what it is they supposedly hacked. That’s the whole point of this exercise. From Jack Perry at lewrockwell.com:

Let me begin this article with a parable: Little Billy came crying home one day, went right up to his mother and cried out, “Mommy, mommy! Timmy punched me in the eye in front of the whole class! And now I’ve got a black eye! Do something, mommy! Do something!” But Billy’s mother said unto him, “Billy! What did YOU do to him to cause him to risk suspension from school by punching you in front of everyone like that?!”

Now, here we go again with the latest Election Gate scam from the Democrats and Establishment Republicans. Right, Russia must have hacked the election! They broke into the Democrats’ computers and revealed secrets. Because, gosh, that’s the only way Hillary could have lost the election, right? This smells suspiciously like the time the United States government hectored and badgered the Palestinians to hold elections and so they finally gave in and had elections. Then they elected Hamas and the United States sat there and bawled like five-year-olds that stubbed their toes and insisted the election was a fraud.

I have three things to say to the United States government: Karma, you reap what you sow, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How many times have you, U.S. government, boasted of toppling other governments through regime change? How many times have you demanded other countries bend to your will or risk being overthrown and having a U.S. puppet government installed? What, and if the regime change here is on the other foot through an election, now you want to sit and whine about it like babies that lost their pacifiers? No bedtime story for you!

The Mainstream Media is Asking for a Government Bailout Via Censorship, by Michael Krieger

Having fully revealed itself during the election as irretriveably corrupt and untrustworthy, the mainstream media wants to go after the mostly Internet media that had the temerity to question the party line. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate over Wikileaks — not because the email were untrue but because they proved what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to combat what will be declared “fake” news or propaganda. It is only the latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually embrace censorship.

– From Jonathan Turley’s: Washington Post Issues Correction To “Fake News” Story

Watching Hillary Clinton attack “fake news” and calling for legislative action against free speech she doesn’t like got me thinking. Why is she doing this? Yes, it’s obviously related to her notorious personality trait of never taking responsibility for anything and attaching herself to an invented controversy in order to deflect blame for her monumentally embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. But there’s more going on here. A lot more.

To set the stage, we need to examine the types of people who are most jumping on the “fake news” meme. What you’ll find is that it’s a who’s who of the most contemptible and corrupt people in America. As Glenn Greenwald so accurately noted in his piece published earlier today:

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

To continue reading: The Mainstream Media is Asking for a Government Bailout Via Censorship

Hillary Reemerges, Slams “Dangerous Epidemic” Of Fake News, by Tyler Durden

Unfortunately Hillary Clinton, as the headline notes, has reemerged from whatever isolated but luxurious retreat to which she had repaired. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Having disappeared from the public scene for almost a month (with the occasional backwood spotting thrown in for dramatic effect), today Hillary Clinton reemerged from a self-imposed social quarantine, and in a exquisitely choreographed Podesta special, addressed the nation from Capitol Hill. What was first and foremost on the mind of person who the “impartial” media declared had a 90% chance of being America’s next president: was it some intense introspection; perhaps it was some idea of how to reform and fix the imploding Democratic party; or maybe it was her finally accepting responsibility for her actions and her loss?

None of the above.

Instead, the one thing that appears to have preoccupied the former Secretary of State is the proliferation of so-called “fake news”, a phenomenon she called an “epidemic.” It was not immediately clear if she also lumped in the Washington Post into that bucket: recall that last night, in an editorial note to the WaPo’s fake, slanderous story about “Russian Propaganda Fake News”, the newspaper distanced itself from its primary source, PropOrNot, itself a source of propaganda, when the WaPo admitted it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.”

Speaking on Capitol Hill, Clinton said that “the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences.” Like, perhaps, poring through thousands of emails which the co=opted and captured mainstream press – especially those who had dinner with John Podesta to offer their PR services to the Clinton campaign – would not touch, revealing the crony and illicit dealings of the Clinton Family foundation, leading to – among other things – Clinton losing the presidency?

To continue reading: Hillary Reemerges, Slams “Dangerous Epidemic” Of Fake News

Why America Called ‘Bullshit’ On The Cult Of Clinton, by Brandon O’Neill

SLL has long maintained that all varieties of statism amount to religions, since statist faith has been so repeatedly contradicted by the often horrifying performance of governments throughout history. Liberalism and progressivism are statist sects, and the Clintons have had their own creepy little cult. From Brandon O’Neill at reason.com:

The one good thing about Trump’s win? It shows a willingness among Americans to blaspheme against saints and reject the religion of hollow progressiveness.

If you want to see politics based on emotionalism over reason and a borderline-religious devotion to an iconic figure, forget the Trump Army; look instead to the Cult of Clinton.

Ever since Donald Trump won the presidential election, all eyes, and wringing hands, have been on the white blob who voted for him. These “loud, illiterate and credulous people,” as a sap at Salon brands them, think on an “emotional level.” Bill Moyers warned that ours is a “dark age of unreason,” in which “low information” folks are lining up behind “The Trump Emotion Machine.” Andrew Sullivan said Trump supporters relate to him as a “cult leader fused with the idea of the nation.”

What’s funny about this is not simply that it’s the biggest chattering-class hissy fit of the 21st century so far — and chattering-class hissy fits are always funny. It’s that whatever you think of Trump (I’m not a fan) or his supporters (I think they’re mostly normal, good people), the fact is they’ve got nothing on the Clinton cult when it comes to creepy, pious worship of a politician.

By the Cult of Hillary Clinton, I don’t mean the nearly 62 million Americans who voted for her. I have not one doubt that they are as mixed and normal a bag of people as the Trumpites are. No, I mean the Hillary machine—the celebs and activists and hacks who were so devoted to getting her elected and who have spent the past week sobbing and moaning over her loss. These people exhibit cult-like behavior far more than any Trump cheerer I’ve come across.

Trump supporters view their man as a leader “fused with the idea of the nation”? Perhaps some do, but at least they don’t see him as “light itself.” That’s how Clinton was described in the subhead of a piece for Lena Dunham’s Lenny Letter. “Maybe [Clinton] is more than a president,” gushed writer Virginia Heffernan. “Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself,” Nothing this nutty has been said by any of Trump’s media fanboys.

“Hillary is Athena,” Heffernan continued, adding that “Hillary did everything right in this campaign… She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second.”

That’s a key cry of the Cult of Hillary (as it is among followers of L. Ron Hubbard or devotees of Christ): our gal is beyond criticism, beyond the sober and technical analysis of mere humans. Michael Moore, in his movie Trumpland, looked out at his audience and, with voice breaking, said: “Maybe Hillary could be our Pope Francis.”

To continue reading: Why America Called ‘Bullshit’ On The Cult Of Clinton

 

They Said That? 11/18/16

Two letters to the editor from today’s Wall Street Journal:

It appears liberal elites have learned nothing from Donald Trump’s victory if Democratic pollster Ann Greenberg is representative (“Groups of Women Voters Hurt Clinton,” U.S. News, Nov. 12). She concluded that there are women “who are skeptical about women’s political leadership” and that “we still live in a sexist country.”

As an older woman, a former clerical worker, who voted for Mr. Trump, I understand why blue-collar women voted as they did. I voted for him not because I am irrationally prejudiced against female leadership, but because I examined Mr. Trump’s policy positions and compared them to Hillary Clinton’s. Mrs. Clinton is a liberal progressive and made clear she would carry forward Barack Obama’s program. This would be contrary to my principles, which are free market and conservative. Mr. Trump spoke to my own policy concerns. Hillary did not. It’s that simple. My vote was hardly based on sexism.

We live in a country where progressive elites disdain ordinary women. They just cannot believe we are anything other than biased and ignorant.

Ellen Pollack
Baltimore

Once again the experts have dropped the ball. Women aren’t skeptical about women’s political leadership. They are skeptical about Hillary Clinton’s political leadership. Do the experts regard it as remotely possible for someone, regardless of gender, to vote against a woman without being “sexist?” Who indeed is being sexist here?

Mark Quinn
Naperville, Ill.

The Quote, by Robert Gore

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Hillary Clinton, at a New York fundraiser September 9, 2016.

That quote was the election. Let if be memorialized as, “The Quote.”

Hillary Clinton wasn’t talking about a fringe of Trump supporters; she smeared half of them. Liberals have tossed their pejoratives at political rivals for so long, she thought she could lump all the old favorites into a refrain and toss with impunity. It appealed to her base and the fawning media, what could go wrong? Unfortunately for a woman who’s made deception a political art form, she couldn’t hide her own words, spoken publicly to a large group. Even if her media friends had had the sense to realize they were political dynamite and suppressed them for her benefit, there was no way to stop the Internet from lighting up.

The Quote marked a pinnacle of arrogance and an abyss of ineptitude. Hillary, the candidate of the status quo, gave voice to sentiments obviously accepted and shared by the members of her arrogant class. Never underestimate the power of a question. The question millions of Americans asked: What the hell does the arrogant class have to be so arrogant about? It has given us a sputtering economy, a steadily widening economic gap between itself and everyone else, factories and jobs fleeing the country, an unchecked immigrant flow entering the country, and a string of failed wars, which has created a maelstrom of blowback and greatly diminished the world’s respect for the United States.

FIRST IT WAS BREXIT

THEN IT WAS TRUMP

NEXT TO AFFLICT TPTB:

cropped-prime-deceit-final-cover.jpg

KICK ‘EM WHEN THEY’RE DOWN!

COMING SOON

Last night, the arrogant class got their answer: “You’re fired!” Destined to be enshrined as the epitome of political stupidity, The Quote shows how a few words can destroy a political campaign, just as Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark did in 2012. It was the locker room clipping that fired Trump’s team to victory.

The Quote galvanized and expanded his base. No way were they going to vote for the woman who labeled them “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” They stuck with him through every “outrageous” emission and tweet, and the attendant media horror, through the Access Hollywood video, through the unproven accusations, through the uneven debate performances, and through the Comey flip-flops. Towards the end of the campaign, their loyalty was rewarded in a way unnoticed and unacknowledged by his enemies. He started to sound and act like the next president of the United States (see “Trump in New Mexico”), no longer denigrating and insulting, but reaching out, appealing for the support of all Americans. It changed minds and may have been the margin of victory.

Commentators are busy highlighting the election’s winners and losers. One clear winner was mentioned in The Quote: “He has given voice to websites that used to have 11,000 people—now 11 million.” Her numbers are wrong—11 million is less than half a day’s traffic on the biggest Trump-supporting site, The Drudge Report. However, she did implicitly recognize the ascendance of the Internet. The bell tolls for the mainstream media. It will never recover from the mendacity, hypocrisy, and partisanship it demonstrated during this campaign.

All of which presents a danger. The Internet and social media have become powerful forces; Trump couldn’t have won without them. Hubris, and the same desire to cozy up to power for which the mainstream media has been justifiably excoriated, are inevitable. Once upon a time the best of the traditional press saw its role as opposition to power—afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. The alternative media must judge Trump by his fealty to his promises and his performance. He has to be held to the same standards both Clintons, both Bushes, and Obama have been held. Criticisms have to be voiced, mistakes acknowledged, hypocrisies ridiculed, scandals exposed and investigated, and injustices condemned. Bloggers and sites that fail to afflict Trump because he’s “their guy” will deservedly suffer the same fate as their mainstream counterparts.

A NOVEL SET WHEN AMERICA WAS AT ITS GREATEST

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK