Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who replaced fired former AG Jeff Sessions Thursday, has written that Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for her crimes.
The most recent ones, I’m talking about.
Whitaker wrote the following in a July 2016 response to former FBI Director James Comey’s contention that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute Hillary, his rationale for not recommending the indictment:
Of the emails either turned over or recovered by the FBI, 110 contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received, of which eight email chains contained information that was top secret at the time it was sent.
The facts also show it was gross negligence when she removed the information from State Department security. Secretary Clinton made the decision to use a personal email system, one that had inferior security to the State Department’s or even another commercial vendor’s email service.
A reasonable prosecutor may ask, if on numerous occasions, an unknown State Department employee had taken top secret information from a secured system, emailed that information on a Gmail account, and stored the information on a personal server for years, would that individual be prosecuted? I believe they would.
Will he do it? Of course not. Everybody talks a good game, but then when they get in power in Washington, it becomes a completely different story.
Hillary Clinton says she’d still like to be president and suggested a decision about whether she will run will be made after the November nidterm elections.
Hillary’s comment came in a response to a question she must have expected was made during an interview with journalist Kara Swisher in New York. This is the clearest indication I’ve heard that she is seriously thinking about getting in. Earlier this month, a former top aide floated what appeared to be a trial balloon about a potential Clinton Campaign #3, saying the chances of her running were “not zero.”
Question: We’re going to talk about 2020 in a minute. Do you want to run again?
Clinton: No. No.
Question: That was a pause…
Clinton: Well I’d like to be president. I think, hopefully, when we have a Democrat in the Oval Office in January of 2021, there’s going to be so much work to be done. I mean we have confused everybody in the world, including ourselves. We have confused our friends and our enemies. They have no idea what the United States stands for, what we’re likely to do, what we think is important, so the work would be work that I feel very well prepared for having been at the Senate for eight years, having been a diplomat in the State Department, and it’s just going to be a lot of heavy lifting.
Question: So are you going to be doing any of that lifting? Do you feel like …
Clinton: Oh I have no idea, Kara, but I’m going to … I’m not even going to even think about it ’til we get through this November 6 election about what’s going to happen after that, but I’m going to everything in my power to make sure we have a Democrat in the White House come January of 2021.
Note the usual tiresome Clinton lawyerly responses. Swisher phrased the question poorly, asking if she would “want” to run again. That gave Clinton a way to kind of deny she’s running by saying “no” – of course she doesn’t want to run for president. Who would? She wants to be president.
Clinton doesn’t want to seem too eager, which is why she is being unclear here. But she speaks carefully, and it’s very notable that she says “I’d like to be president” rather than “I wanted to be president.”
Honestly. People talked about moving to Canada if President Trump were elected. Of course, they all stayed and are now enjoying the benefit of his fantastic economy.
But if Hillary Clinton ran again, I might have to move to Canada. And not just Canada. I’m talking Saskatchewan.
Forget that she’d ruin the country. I just couldn’t stand to listen to her – to her, Bill and yes, the increasingly annoying Chelsea – for a whole 18 months.
Her former top press aide and senior strategist Philippe Reines floated what looks a lot like a trial balloon, commenting to Politico that she could run again and her name should be “in the mix.” Look, given the quality of the prospective Democratic field, I’d say, yes, she could get the nomination. But if someone reasonably strong emerges, then definitely not.
Because Hillary Clinton is the consummate has-been.
“It’s curious why Hillary Clinton’s name isn’t in the mix—either conversationally or in formal polling—as a 2020 candidate,” said Philippe Reines, her longtime gatekeeper in the Senate and at the State Department. “She’s younger than Donald Trump by a year. She’s younger than Joe Biden by four years. Is it that she’s run before? This would be Bernie Sanders’ second time, and Biden’s third time. Is it lack of support? She had 65 million people vote for her.”
Even if half of those people would no longer support Clinton in another election, Reines argued, “there’s no one in the Democratic Party who has anywhere near a base of 32 million people. That’s multiples of what a Sanders or a Warren have.”
Reines said his biggest fear for the Democratic Party is that they realize, only in hindsight, that dismissing Clinton for the errors she made in 2016 was a mistake.
“Chalking the loss up to her being a failed candidate is an oversimplification,” Reines said. “She is smarter than most, tougher than most, she could raise money easier than most, and it was an absolute fight to the death.”
Does Reines plugging Clinton as a viable 2020 candidate mean that she’s running?
“It’s somewhere between highly unlikely and zero,” he said, “but it’s not zero.”
You almost have to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. Not only did she lose two presidential elections she was supposed to win, but she’s now on the wrong side of the #MeToo movement, and even her place as a pioneer for women in politics is in jeopardy.
That’s because her husband is a serial abuser of women, and possibly even a rapist, and she’s enabled him and stood by him the whole time.
Sunday, she told CBS that he didn’t abuse his power during his affair with Monica Lewinsky, saying she “was an adult.”
What she was, was a 22-year-old intern when Bill Clinton began an affair with her. He was 49. Any corporate executive that did this would have immediately been fired and would never have been able to get another similar job, even before the #MeToo movement.
Monica Lewinsky is spending the rest of her life being “Monica Lewinsky.” She has never married and is childless. One wonders what her life would have been like if Bill hadn’t stepped into it.
It’s nice to see a journalist ask about this. But he’s not so brave, because now she’s even disliked by the Left. Where were questions like these during the campaign?
Hillary lives in an alternate universe. She has to, because it would be much too painful for her to live in the one the rest of us do.
Hillary Clinton thinks Democrats are about civility. Just a little more evidence that of the two major party candidates, it was the one with the pantsuits who was delusional, not the one with the orange circus peanut hairdo.
Anyway, here’s Hillary talking a lotta nonsense in Oxford, England.
You know, like these people.
Waaaaiiiit a second. I GET IT. Its backwards day! Everything you say today is backwards. Okay, now this makes sense.
BTW, Hill and Bill are headed out on tour. According to the Daily Wire:
Get ready! Washington power couple, Bill and Hillary Clinton, announced Monday that they’re embarking on a nationwide “stadium tour,” bringing their stage show to 13 cities this fall.
“An Evening with President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton” will feature the pair sharing “stories and inspiring anecdotes that shaped their historic careers in public service, while also discussing issues of the day and looking toward the future,” a publicity statement read.
The tour, sponsored by Live Nation (which is also hosting a stadium tour for former First Lady Michelle Obama), begins in Las Vegas on Sunday, November 18 — after the midterm elections — and criss-crosses the country, ending in Los Angeles next April . . .
Where the pair are more in demand, like Boston, seats start at $120 and can cost as much as $745.50.
It’s not just a great show. It’s a worthy cause. She’s still healing from 2016, and bottles of good chardonnay start at $120. And I mean, it was just a few short years ago they left the White House broke.
Carefull backstage groupies! Although, Hillary won’t let him out of her site, so maybe, no worries.
I guess they’ll talk about the good ‘ole days throwing lamps at each other and covering up Bill’s indiscretions. Maybe Bubba will even whip out his saxophone.
Oh Jeez, you’ve got such dirty minds. I mean his instrument.
Former Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr writes in a new book that he nearly charged Hillary Clinton with perjury for her answers to prosecutors’ questions during a 1995 a deposition.
“I was upset over Mrs. Clinton’s performance, and was even considering bringing the matter before the Washington grand jury for possible indictment on perjury,” Starr wrote in “Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation,” which is being released Tuesday.
“In the space of three hours, she claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall’ or ‘did not remember,’” Starr wrote, according to an advance copy of the book obtained by Fox News. “This suggested outright mendacity. To be sure, human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous.”
Starr indicated he did not charge Clinton because it would be to hard to prove she lied when claiming she couldn’t recall events. During the same interview with prosecutors, Bill Clinton performed better, according to Starr, who said the then-president “bobbed and weaved, but was always pleasant as he avoided answering.”
Clinton would later be accused by Republicans – though again not criminally charged – with lying to Congress about her private email server. She allegedly falsely testified that she never received emails marked classified, that she had provided all her work-related emails, and that her lawyers had read every email to determine what was work-related.
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had “reviewed all of the communications” discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the “hundreds of thousands” of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later told Congress that “thanks to the wizardry of our technology,” the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as “duplicates” of emails they’d previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked “night after night after night” to scrutinize the remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
But don’t worry, everything was being handled by the agent in charge . . . Peter Strzok.
Although the FBI’s New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.
As former House Oversgith Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz suggests in the video below, does this not indicate Comey committed perjury?
Here is some video of Hillary Clinton at something called the OZY Fest, which I imagine is where a group of elitists get together and congratulate each other on their profundity and discuss what an idiot President Trump is and how they must somehow deprogram the deplorables. Your best views of this are at the beginning… Continue Reading
Philippe Reines, the aggressive longtime senior aide to Hillary Clinton, tweeted out the address of a Richmond, Virginia bookstore whose owner called the police when a woman would not stop harassing former Trump aide Steve Bannon. Bannon, as he often does, was browsing a bookstore in his hometown when he became the latest victim of… Continue Reading
Democrats like to talk about dog whistles. Well, here’s one for you, by the defeated presidential candidate, no less. Continuing her quest to prove she is bigggest sore loser and least classy presidential candidate of all time – even eclipsing, possibly her husband – Hillary Clinton told the Guardian newspaper the civility is no longer… Continue Reading
Sorry, I know I’ve run a few of these, but it’s kind of morbidly fascinating, don’t you think? It’s getting to the point where I feel sorry for her. An 18-month public cry for help. Nah, I don’t feel the least bit sorry for her, because if there were some way for her to subvert… Continue Reading