Bitter Hillary Clinton suggests to audience in Mumbai, India that voters who supported Trump in 2016 did so because they “didn’t like black people getting rights,” or women getting jobs. pic.twitter.com/bJGkvMhEHS
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) March 12, 2018
Via Wombat-socho’s “In The Mailbox: 01.11.18” Powerline Reports “FBI used Dossier to Obtain FISA Warrant”.
Sara Carter reports that the unverified dossier alleging connections between President Trump’s campaign and the Russians was used as evidence by the FBI to gain approval from the FISA court to monitor members of Trump’s team. Carter cites “multiple sources.”
Carter also notes that Sean Hannity says he has independently confirmed the dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant. Hannity relies on three sources.
Meanwhile, Byron York reports that representatives of four congressional committees — the House Intelligence Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and Senate Judiciary Committee — have seen the documents the FBI submitted with its request for a FISA warrant. Thus, these members know whether dossier material was used to obtain the warrant.
So far, says Byron, the members and any staffers in the know have not leaked word as to whether such material was used. (As I understand it, this information is classified). Sara Carter appears to be relying on leaks from sources in the executive branch, whom she describes as “senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the dossier.”
At the end of the day, I suspect we’ll learn conclusively that unverified dossier information was indeed used to obtain the FISA warrant. And we already know the dossier information was obtained at the behest of, and with financing from, the Clinton campaign. And I think we know that at least some of the FBI agents and officials involved in the process were anti-Trump partisans alarmed at the prospect of Trump defeating Clinton
Fritz sums this up if it turns out to be true
To summarize, the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm to pay Steele, to pay the Russians for almost entirely unverified salacious material, paid journolists to report it, and passed it to the FBI, who used it to break the 4th amendment protections on the people in the Trump campaign at the hand of anti-Trump, pro-Clinton hacks in the FBI.
And the Trump campaign is being subjected to a Special “Counsel” investigation regarding collusion with the Russians in the election, for which there is essentially zero evidence. Go figure.
I wonder if Chris Cuomo will get his Whiteboard of Outrage out and go all “journalist” over this story? Yeah fat chance
Oh goody, Hillary is back, and speaking “truth to Power” on guns. Allow me to share her words, and what she really means
She has thought a lot I bet. Thought about how to best exploit the evil act to push for more gun control. Tragedy Pimping Hillary. Note what she did not mention
The man who shot the evil shooter, nor the man who helped chase the shooter. No mention of their bravery. No mention of better security at churches, and other soft targets. And no mention of why this evil son of a bitch was not serving a lengthy prison sentence for committing violent acts?
NEW BRAUNFELS, Tex. — He beat his wife, cracked his toddler stepson’s skull and was kicked out of the military. He drove away friends, drew attention from the police and abused his dog. Before ——— entered a rural Texaschurch with a military-style rifle, killing at least 26 people on Sunday, he led a deeply troubled life in which few in his path escaped unscathed.
In 2012, while stationed at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, ——- was charged with assault, according to Air Force records, which said he had repeatedly struck, kicked and choked his first wife beginning just months into their marriage, and hit his stepson’s head with what the Air Force described as “a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm.”
“He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull,” said Don Christensen, a retired colonel who was the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, adding, “He pled to intentionally doing it.”
Shouldn’t such a person receive a lengthy prison stay for such barbarity? Isn’t that the most basic job of government? To protect the innocent from people who are convicted of violent felonies? Did Hillary mention that? Frankly, is anyone mentioning that? Why did Hillary say we ought to stop prosecutors that allow violent people to plead down so that they barely serve any time?
Prosecutors withdrew several other charges as part of their plea agreement with ——–, including allegations that he repeatedly pointed a loaded gun at his wife.
He was ultimately sentenced in November that year to 12 months’ confinement and reduction to the lowest possible rank. His final duty title was “prisoner.”
Sorry, there is no excuse for such as this. Prosecutors should care about putting such evil people away, legislature ought to care about making mandatory sentences, lengthy, sentences, for such violent acts. Again, let me ask what prison sentence this deserves (emphasis mine)
In 2012, while stationed at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, ——— was charged with assault, according to Air Force records, which said he had repeatedly struck, kicked and choked his first wife beginning just months into their marriage, and hit his stepson’s head with what the Air Force described as “a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm.”
“He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull,” said Don Christensen, a retired colonel who was the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, adding, “He pled to intentionally doing it.”
Why would such a person ever get out frankly? Shouldn’t such violent people be sent away, permanently? Argue all the gun laws, background checks you like, and yes, the background checks need to be improved, especially the reporting part of it. But the ONLY way the evil bottom feeder in Sutherland Springs does not commit that evil act was if his ass would have been in a prison cell.
Seriously, why is no one mentioning this?
Note! I do not print the names of cowardly evil people who comit such acts of barbarity.
A number of observers have noted how Hillary appears to have totally misinterpreted 1984, saying how we should have faith in our elite overlords, who clearly have our best interests at heart, while gathering all the money and power to themselves, but Stacy McCain catches her doing it again: Hillary’s Delusional Reading of Classics
Everyone is stunned by the self-deceptions and blame-shifting in Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir What Happened, and Ace of Spades aggregates several of the most mind-blowing excerpts.
Most notably, as British socialist writer James Heartfield observes, Hillary claims that George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is about the importance of trusting “our leaders, the press, experts” — a 180-degree reversal of Orwell’s actual meaning. A free society requires a citizenry distrustful of power, and not predisposed to accept whatever beliefs officially-approved “experts” advocate. Independent minds must be skeptical, for example, of the suggestion that we should reorganize our healthcare system according to what “leaders” and “experts” tell us.
Only her arrogance — imagining herself as the expert leader who deserves our unquestioning trust — could lead Hillary to reverse the lesson of a classic anti-totalitarian novel like Nineteen Eighty-Four.
However, Hillary also misinterprets Eric Hoffer’s 1951 classic The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. This is a book that I have repeatedly recommended as a guide to understanding the kind of people who are attracted to radical ideologies like feminism:
. . . especially Part 2 (“Potential Converts”) and sections IV (“The Role of the Undesirables in Human Affairs”) and VI (“Misfits”). What Hoffer writes about the influence of “the inferior elements in a nation” (p. 24) and the “incurably frustrated” who have “an unfulfilled craving for creative work” (p 47) applies to many of the angry young men and unhappy young women who rush to join the mob of disgruntled “progressives.”
Being familiar with Hoffer’s ideas — The True Believer is sitting on my desk even now — it was mind-boggling to read Hillary’s warped view:
During the campaign, Bill and I both went back and reread The True Believer, Eric Hoffer’s 1951 explanation of the psychology behind fanaticism and mass movements, and I shared it with my senior staff. On the campaign trail, I offered ideas that I believed would address many of the underlying causes of discontent and help make life better for all Americans. But I couldn’t — and wouldn’t — compete to stoke people’s rage and resentment. I think that’s dangerous. It helps leaders who want to take advantage of that rage to hurt people rather than help them. Besides, it’s just not how I’m wired.
Really? A campaign that denounced Republican voters as “deplorables,” led by a candidate who promised among other things to destroy the jobs of coal miners (helping “make life better,” you see), who irresponsibly incited a phony campus “rape culture” hysteria and endorsed the racial violence of “Black Lives Matters,” was not about stoking rage?
An evil woman? I believe so, imagine the damage she would have done through executive orders.
In her campaign tell-all book set to be released next week, Hillary Clinton adds to the litany of excuses of why she lost the 2016 election
In her new memoir, “What Happened,” Clinton pointed to the feminist anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington to bemoan this lack of “passion” for her campaign.
“I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election,” she wrote, according to the Daily Mail.
The failed presidential candidate also named NBC’s ‘Today Show’ host Matt Lauer in her book.
Pointing to his focus on her email scandal at the presidential forum at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in Manhattan, Clinton wrote that she was “ticked off” and “almost physically sick” by the NBC host’s actions.
Oh no! He dared question Miss It is My Turn!
The list of reasons Hillary lost is long, really long. And all of them can be credited to no one but Hillary Clinton!
In response to questions from AARP Bulletin, Hillary Clinton made clear her position that to be successful, policies for ending terrorism must include gun control for all Americans.
AARP Bulletin asked, “What would you do to address terrorism?”
Hillary offered several talking points on fighting actual terrorism, then she went there!
But I’m looking at violence broadly. … It’s also why I’ve advocated gun-safety reform, like comprehensive background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, closing the online loophole—because, you know, it’s not only terrorists we need to be worried about. Terrorism is part of it, but gun violence kills 33,000 Americans a year. … We’ve got to get serious about stemming violence and terrorism in every way we can.
Oh here we go again. First of all we have background checks, yes, even at gun shows. The only “loop-hole” is private sales. And are we not free to sell our property? Further, such “comprehensive” background checks would likely end up making loaning a relative or friend a firearm, or even allowing you to allow a friend to shoot your gun, or you theirs at a gun range. I would like Hillary to explain how that will reduce crime or stop terrorism.
Secondly, there is no online loophole. Yes, you can buy a firearm online. Yes it will be shipped to an FFL where you, again, federal law, must pass a background check. Several Democrats have made the false claim that you can buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house, that is simply untrue.
Thirdly, the majority, more than two-thirds of “gun violence” deaths each year are suicides. And murder rates, murder by firearm rates, violent crime rates, and accidental firearm deaths have been dropping steadily. In short Hillary is lying. And you must ponder why she is lying when she knows the facts I laid out as well as I do. You have to ask what her true motives are.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will participate in their first joint event as presidential candidates Wednesday night.
NBC News and MSNBC – along with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America – will host the the Commander-in-Chief Forum in New York City. It will be a one-hour forum where Clinton and Trump will answer questions about national security, military affairs and veterans issues in front of an audience mainly made up of 300 or so members of the military.
Matt Lauer – who is listed as a “notable past member” on the Clinton Global Initiative’s website – is moderating the forum. During an interview on MSNBC Wednesday, Lauer said he will not ask Trump and Clinton the same questions.
“I’m not going to be repeating the same questions, though some will overlap,” Lauer said. “The veterans will get a chance to ask these candidates their own questions.”
Lauer said that when he takes questions from the audience, he expects most of them to revolve around the system-wide failure of the Veterans Affairs program.
“Lack of treatment – that’s where I think they will focus their questions.”
Clinton will be asked questions first for approximately 30 minutes, then Trump will go on stage next.
I would remind you that this is the system Hillary and the Left would seek to implement when ObamaCare fails. These are the types of things Americans will have to endure. Just wait till the central planners really control our health care
A Canadian couple of 62 years hoped to spend the rest of their lives together. Unfortunately, they can now only see each other every other day due to being admitted into separate nursing homes.
For the last eight months, Wolf and Anita Gottschalk of Surrey, B.C have been forced to live apart. On top of their heartbreaking situation, the Gottschalks must endear tear-jerking goodbyes multiple times a week.
What could cause such a heartbreaking situation you ask? Well, just wait
A family member, usually their granddaughter Ashley Bartyik, drives the nearly one hour commute multiple times a week so that her 81-year-old grandmother Anita can see her 83-year-old grandfather Wolf, who has now been diagnosed with lymphoma in addition to his dementia.
“This is the saddest photo I have ever taken. As you can see they are both wiping away tears! But why? It was taken in Surrey at Yale road, a transitional facility for people waiting to get into nursing homes, that’s where my Opi is!” Bartyik, 29, began her Facebook post on Thursday, that’s been shared over 3,000 times.
“After 62 years together in marriage they have been separated for 8 months due to backlogs and delays by our health care system, whom have the power to have my grandpa moved to the same care facility as my grandmother. They cry every time they see each other, and it is heartbreaking,” she continued.
Got that? Canada’s health care system, which the Left raves about is causing this anguish because, central planning. This is where Collectivism will take us. This is what happens when we reject individualism and individual liberty. This is what happens when people become numbers, which is exactly what the Left dreams about. This is what Hillary will implement if she possibly can.
Still think it does not matter if you do not vote? Think again!
Sorry, I was on Twitter. I felt it was necessary to dispel the widely-held myth, adored by #NeverTrumpers, that somehow attacking Trump relentlessly does not aid Hillary Clinton, and that they are not choosing Hillary Clinton by choosing to be NeverTrump.
All choices have consequences. By supporting Trump, I am responsible for the consequences of a Trump victory – and those consequences could indeed be dire.
But a childish morally-unserious fantasy has infected the #NeverTrump not-so-intellgentsia, that they can agitate for Hillary Clinton – by relentlessly disparaging Trump – and somehow, they are not responsible for the consequences of the Hillary presidency they are bucking for.
They’ve dreamed up this self-pleasing, responsibility-evading dreamscape in which those who plump for Trump are responsible for the outcomes of a Trump presidency, but, for no explanation thusfar discoverable, they are not responsible for the outcomes of the Hillary presidency they’re agitating for.
I tried to explain to them that there is no such thing as a consequence-free choice – all choices have consequences, both on the upside and the downside – and both the upside and downswide consequences must be considered by any adult, intellectually-serious person in making his choice.
But they like this idea that, like little children, they are free to gambol and play in the fields and this does not even perturb the leading edge of a butterfly’s wing, and so they just keep teling me “No you’re wrong” without saying why I’m wrong.
Which, seriously, is a rather important part of any argument beginning with the words “You’re wrong.”
I ask people: When you knocked Obama in 2012, and wrote posts and comments noting his flaws, did you think you were doing nothing to improve Mitt Romney’s chances of winning the presidency?
If so– why the fuck did you bother?
Of course, this is silly; everyone knows that when one buys ads attacking a candidate, one is helping that candidate’s opponent win.
The #NeverTrumpers are filling their blogs, magazines, and Twitter timelines with nonstop political advertising (free) against Trump, and maintain, just because they say so and because it pleases them to think so, this does exactly nothing to help Hillary, and they are therefore not responsibe for her election.
Or let me put it this way: I am not hoping for Trump to get into some serious international snafu by supporting him. Yet I know that is a very real possibility if he’s president.
Should this happen, I can’t just say “But I didn’t want trump to screw up so badly.”
People would say – no, but you knew the risks in supporting him, and you supported him anyway; you are therefore morally responsible for this.
Yet the #NeverTrumpers claim that the obvious, inescapable outcome of their position – that Hillary Clinton will be the president – is not their responsibility, just because they didn’t intend that as a pirmary matter.
No, but they were completely aware it was the natural and inevitable consequence of their position.
So why would a Trump supporter be responsible for a foreign policy catastrophe he didn’t even know for a fact would happen, when a #NeverTrumper claims to be innocent of the Hillary Presidency they know beyond a shadow of any doubt is the direct and inescapable consequence of the NeverTrump posiition?
They’re responsible for it. They don’t want to be, but they are.
I don’t particularly want to be on the hook for a Trump presidency, but, being a morally serious person who has not yet delegated my thinking to the Twitter Hivemind, I recognize that by taking the action of lending him my support, I am responsible for the conseqyences of that act.
Why do the childish #NeverTrumpers mewl that they, alone in the universe, are not responsiblee for the consequences of their own choices?
I understand the #NeverTrump impulse. I’ve expressed it myself. After Trump’s boorish, vulgar, half-insane attack on Cruz’s wife, I announced “I’m done” with Trump and vowed to never vote for him.
I understand #NeverTrump, emotionally. I think there’s merit in the position.
However, we have difficult choices to make. And difficult choices should be treated as what they are – difficult, hard choices requiring moral seriousness and rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
They should not be made – artificially and falsely – into easy-breezy decisions where one just says “I will do everything I can to make sure Trump is defeated, and I shall never give a thought to the prospect of a Hillary presidency, and I should never allow my shoulders to feel the burden of the consequences of the choice I am making.”
Real men – and tough-minded women – do not go fleeing tough choices by simply hallucinating an “Officer Dimes, please come and save me” miracle solution.
Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be president in November.
If you think Hillary would be a better president – or if Trump is so repulsive to you you cannot support him even if you think Hillary would be worse – fine. I respect your opinion.
We all have different brains. We all have different priorities.
But what I must insist you cannot do – what i will not permit you to do – is fantasize that while a Trump supporter is resonsible for the gaffes and disasters of a President Trump, you are somehow innocent of the purges and witchhunts of a President Hillary.
Trump supporters will own the consequences of a Trump presidency – and Hillary supporters, both those who declare it proudly and those who wish it secretly – own the consequences of a Hillary presidency.
Adults accept the consequences of their choices.
Only children run from them, or cross their fingers behind their backs and claim that’s a charm insulating them from the consequences of their choices.
Some decisions are hard. They should be respected as being hard.
And no, Officer Dimes is not coming to save you from the dilemma you face.