Brilliant Mueller Takeaways

So it was a giant wind up before the delivery pitch Wednesday on the Mueller hearings. But in the end, what big thing did I learn? A few things.

Well, after a 2 and a half year investigation, it turns out they were investigating the wrong person all along. The Democrats agreed with Mueller at least 3 times that “it would be a crime” to do exactly what Hillary Clinton did. He said that would be a crime. Plus she could have been indicted immediately and there are no rules against it.

So now I am waiting to see and wondering why she has not been charged yet? They better get busy now with that investigation though. No time to waste, and we cannot allow crime(s) like that to stand. I expect the Democrats will be all over it the same way.

Another thing occurred to me: the only people who do know the whole ordeal about this investigation and the facts of it, from the beginning, would be Fox News viewers or a few very competent, resourceful people on the Internet with critical thinking skills.

That’s because the Democrats and media have not talked about any of those things. So there should be a whole bunch of people who did learn some things they didn’t know. Anyone who watches CNN or MSNBC for starters. They must have been shocked.

In other words, all that stuff Democrats called conspiracy theories. I do give media credit for doing such a job blocking that information from the public. It must have been very hard. Only enlightened people who have been watching Fox knew any of that.

I’ll be waiting, especially for the no-knock raids part on Hillary’s inner circle. I think media needs to stake out their homes. Any day now.

Right Ring | Bullright

Open Letter To The Mainstream Media

I write in sympathy to your current predicament. I know you have an extreme lack of credibility and standing with the public. Or maybe you are still in denial? You offend them and they offend you. I know it upsets you.

I feel your pain; but I cannot validate it.

The problem is that it is not Trump’s fault. That must be hard for you to accept, too. Yet it is the truth. Just repeat the words: “our credibility deficit is not Trump’s fault.”

It was not Trump’s fault that before the 2016 election you jumped on the Hillary bandwagon, with no reservations. You were doing her bidding well before the primaries.

When the election did come, by then you had set the perception that she was the winner by all standards and could not lose. Trump had nothing to do with your willful bias. He was not whispering in your ear to give favorable treatment to Hillary, forcing you to do her cleanup and dirty work.

He did not tell you to make things up about him and his supporters just like you all did about Tea Parties. He didn’t choose all your negative coverage of himself and positive coverage for Hillary. That was not in his power or within his influence to do.

He didn’t make you into card-carrying members of the resistance. He didn’t tell you to brand his supporters as racists, bigots, or even domestic terrorists. But you implied they were dumb, uneducated grievance hustlers who were generations out of step with the times. (talk about projection)

We came to the party only to take our part. You came to blacklist us. Sure, you couldn’t quite get the job done, but you expected it to take a toll. To some degree it did. Though you couldn’t defeat or destroy us. After all, you had been trying more subtly to do that for years. But we were not going away. In fact, we were the original resistance. So you fully embraced the banner of resistance after the election. Trump did not make you do that. He only pointed it out. You demurred any criticism because that is the kind of people you are.

We don’t matter. When you ran the daily 24/7 hate Trump media for his first two years, hyping the resistance movement and impeachment, you dug in your heels of sedition. With every leak and anonymous source you could muster, you blazed an historical trail, aligning yourselves with a coup well under way from the first day of Trump’s presidency.

Yes, I can sympathize with your pain and agony of it all. Well, I can because we have felt that prejudice against us from the public for decades. Your part in that campaign against us has not gone unrecognized. We are well aware of it and your attitude against we the people. We know how you feel about the people and flyover country.

We know how you despise the people’s mindset… and their choice.

So when Donald Trump said some members of the mainstream media – not all — were enemies of the people, he was right. We already knew that. You just confirmed it. When you were offended by that comment, it was not our fault. You did it. When you tried to spin yourselves into victims of that remark, it fell on deaf ears because we have always been the real victims of your schemes.

We get to vote, and were determined to vote regardless what you thought of us. See, you get to cast your vote everyday, as the elitists you are. You want to control dialogue and you couldn’t. The conversation went on around you, even factoring in your heavy hand at the ballot. But you could not control the discussion or the election results. So I can really identify with how you must feel. We’ve felt that way for years and you never cared.

Yes, we all know exactly what it is like to be outcast by the public as troublemakers and crazies. But we were not looking to validate our victimhood. We didn’t have to. It is prima facie in any honest assessment. Along comes media now claiming to be the righteous victims of slander, smear or character assassination to vindicate their cause. It is dishonest. It is self-serving, it is agenda driven and, finally, it is very political.

Now you have laid the record bare for all to see. Only you want your trashed credibility back on a golden platter. That’s just not how any of this works.

Worse than all that, you have also lost credibility with the Left, your handlers and allies. You promised and built up their hopes that you would assist in taking down this president.

When the Mueller report came out and didn’t declare the collusion you promised, your radical base of consumers recoiled. Their hearts and trust were broken. So you have lost on both sides, with your enemies and your allies. Hurts, doesn’t it?

That should have taught you something. But it was your stubborn choices you made every step of the way that are to blame, not Trump. We didn’t destroy your credibility. You did that yourself. We only supplied the means. Remember reporters demanding apologies from Trump? By the way, did you ever apologize for the way you treated the Tea Parties? No, it’s all part of the long record now. It lives on to prove to anyone honestly looking.

You are the victims of your own bias and hatred. Thursday will only validate what we all knew. It will expose you for the liars you were all along. But Trump didn’t do it to you.

It might be time to take some stock and dust off that first amendment to see what is really in it. There is more there than your beloved freedom. And last I checked, you weren’t.

Right Ring | Bullright

Crooked Hillary and the Cabal

Well, someone is doing some writing and reporting of the accumulative events.

2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

By Lee Smith, RealClearInvestigations
August 13, 2018

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between high-ranking members of the Republican presidential campaign staff and a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties remains the cornerstone of claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia. …/

Continue Reading the damning evidence: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

 

But Mueller could never stumble across that pertinent information. Or the fact that Fusion was working with the Kremlin to overturn sanctions — against the Magnitsky Act. It would be too damning to the Democrats and DNC. ‘Quick, we need a diversion’….. this week if possible. After all, Mueller is tied to this cabal.

In case anyone is still keeping Russia collusion score: that puts intel ops, FBI, DOJ, Mueller, Clinton, GPS, Steele, DNC et al on the same side as …..the Kremlin and Putin. Collusion Party anyone? 😎 And I’ll just leave out McCain for now.

With all this known, just what would Hillary have done had she won the election? I don’t think there is much of a question about it, given her character and past.

This was never a Trump issue or scandal, but is yet another Hillary Clinton scandal that she had a whole lot of help with.

Hillary and Obama employed the same strategic tactic

What do Hillary and Obama have in common? Among other things, they both used the heck out of Trump. How?

Well, seems Hillary was lucky enough to have her server scandal investigation turned into a Trump counterintelligence investigation, at the urging of her op-research team. That must have made her very happy to substitute a Trump investigation for her own. No wonder she was so confident in those latter days. She knew she had lots of help.

Obama, well, he found use for Trump as a scapegoat for his lack of doing anything about the Russia meddling. (as I said in May) Finally he found use for Trump as the blame for a Russian problem. He used the Russian problem for a pretext against Trump, for an investigation. Redirect the blame on Trump, for what was a problem since at least 2014.

It worked better than could be expected. No one was asking why he did nothing for years or about Susan Rice telling cybersecurity to stand down on any response to Russia. To which media sighed and ignored with Obama’s failure to act. Just pin Obama’s Russia problem on Trump to avoid accountability. A made to order investigation did that.

Both were using Trump for political expedience to cover their own scandalous records.

Right Ring | Bullright

Fusion, FBI, Steele, Money and a Dirty Dossier

It turns out, as no surprise, that just a few days before Comey’s infamous press conference to clear Hilary’s server scandal, a top DOJ official was in touch with Christopher Steele and laying the groundwork for a counterintelligence investigation against Trump.

Well, that is the sequence of events when you look at it objectively and plug in the facts. So this strongly suggests that while the same people who worked on the Hillary server investigation (or lack of one) had the impetus to ditch it and go after Trump in a full blown counterintelligence investigation. A project that led to working not only with Steele but also with Fusion, the subcontractor for Hillary’s dirt-digging operation on Trump.

See John Solomon’s article on the tie of FBI to Fusion and Steele. What a tangled web.
Opinion: How a senior DOJ official helped Dem researchers on Trump-Russia case — The Hill

This is not a Trump scandal, and never was. It is yet another Hillary Clinton and DOJ scandal. How does Mueller ignore it all? Better yet, how can he write a report void of all the pertinent facts? But see how the Hillary Obama lapdog media ignore this story while chatting up the old Manafort trial. A case which could have been handled by US attorneys, not a Special Counsel.

Hillary does UK the wrong way

If you thought you had heard everything before, this will make you question that. Hillary said a lot of things that were wrong. Now she compares herself to Winston Churchill.

Yes, this will remain about her worst attempt at relevancy. Whopper Alert!

Clinton on being a polarizing figure: ‘I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars’

By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a British newspaper this week, appeared to compare herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill while responding to a question about being a polarizing figure.

“I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn’t they?” she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee then immediately claimed she wasn’t actually comparing herself to Churchill, before going on to elaborate on the analogy.

Churchill went into the political wilderness between the two World Wars and during that time was a key voice criticizing then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement toward Adolf Hitler. He would go on to become prime minister himself and help lead the Allies to victory in World War II.

The Guardian report notes that Clinton made the Churchill reference “a fraction too quickly for the line to sound spontaneous.”

Clinton continued: “I mean, I’m not comparing myself, but I’m just saying people said that, but he was right about Hitler, and a lot of people in England were wrong. And Churchill was a pain. He kept popping up all the time.”

Clinton indeed has remained a polarizing figure, with her popularity falling since the election, as she has stayed in the public eye with her book tour and media interviews.
She told the Guardian she is not going to “call it a day” anytime soon.

“It feels like a duty. It feels like patriotism, and it feels necessary. I’m not going anywhere,” she said.

Clinton also used the Guardian interview to comment on the separation of families at the border in the wake of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” that ordered that all illegal border crossers be prosecuted. Trump has ordered the separations to be stopped, but critics are still fighting the prosecutions and other detentions.

Clinton said that she is worried that some of the minors may never be reunited, saying that that question is “keeping me up at night.”

“Absolutely I worry about that. I’m worried that some children will not be reunited,” she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/29/clinton-on-being-polarizing-figure-im-sure-said-that-about-churchill-between-wars.html

 

There are some things you can do; some things you can barely get away with passing off. And some things you ought never to have a logical reason for even thinking about trying to pull off. She’s strong on the 3rd one.

Then there are times when you should be laughed off the stage in a straight jacket, never to be heard from again. Why is that not happening, you may ask?

Secondly, she is a like Madonna. Remember her protest bombshell?

The problem is the amount of forethought she gave that comment. They questioned the spontaneity, You know she plotted out the comparison, practiced it, and tried it out on her staff. They said “that’s good”.

Just how she did the Deplorables comment, then bounced it off people in the Hamptons. Maybe what happens in the Hamptons should stay the hell in the Hamptons. Or at least get buried in the darkest crevices of one’s last fleeting brain cell. This is one.

Let me paraphrase and sum up Hillary’s message: ‘I’m not done pissing off the last person, even people who voted for me, yet. I will not be stopped because there is an unlimited potential for hatred of me out there.’ Face it, now that she cannot demand huge amounts of money for influence anymore, that is her only motivation left.

The only thing that keeps Hillary up at night, after all that Chardonnay, is thinking up a new crazy excuse or comparison for her loss to tell people. Even if there is no market. What she is really worried about being reunited is her candidacy. Relevancy is not her friend.

In November, what will we remember?

The strategy for Republicans to win in November amounts to one thing at the top of everything. National issues win. On the fly in less than 800 words.

What the public cares most about are the national issues, which is why Trump won the way he did. That didn’t change. The big picture is now optimistic but needs more clarity.

National issues simply means broad popular issues. The same as 2016. This is not to say that local issues are irrelevant, but the same national issues do affect people locally. It is like a template: budgets, tax cuts, strong military, security, illegal immigration, border enforcement, the wall, jobs and a cadre of others as part of the local mix. Add to that the rise of Sanctuary Cities, pols who support them, and Leftists’ attempts to usurp power.

But face it, local school budgets and zoning ordinances are not the stuff of a national election. Though notice how Democrats try to nationalize them? No, voters go to polls to vote on their congressional reps and, yes, now senators. (17th amend did that) See, Democrats try to nationalize everything to suit their agenda.

We, on the other hand, as conservatives and Republicans, have a great basket of issues people care about, including the blue collar workforce. The fact that unions haven’t caught on should not effect it. There is no one else standing up for people. And those people are still fed up, and now at all the Democrats’ obstruction.

And Democrats are flush with cultural and divisive issues which are not the people’s agenda. Of course, their identity politics requires they play that game. But it is a huge turnoff to voters. Why favor a segment of people when you can appeal to all people?

When people look at their finances, of course they are concerned about jobs, growth, the GDP and spending. Promising someone a free college education doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. Appealing to black lives matter rhetoric doesn’t help anyone. They are identity issues. Screaming racism solves what? Notice how Democrats, to their credit, try to identify with what are now Trump voters. They can’t, yet want to sound Trumpian. But that is the guy they want to impeach as soon as they get their chance.

Republicans cannot be naval gazing, just fighting with themselves, handing Democrats ammunition. Bob Corker went off his little rocker, again, to attack any Trump supporters. He called them “cult-like.” I have a real cult to introduce Corker to. The mirror.

Recently, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote a column explaining the threat this election poses to Republicans and Trump. Impeachment was a big part of it. Understanding that, and impeachment itself, should be a part of this election process. He said much the same thing about national issues. A clarion warning, it offers some inspiration.

Here is the only conclusion I come to: just take all those big, important issues people care about and put them up against the only major issue to Democrats, impeachment.

After all, what would Democrats say, if they were honestly nuanced: (for a sampler)

1) We are going to make you less safe.
2)We’ll make the border less secure — open it up to everyone!
3)We’re going to raise your taxes and explode the budget, at the same time.
4)We are going to tar and feather Trump, first, then Impeach him.
5)We want to roll back your tax cuts and the last election.
6)We want to make America sorry for electing Trump — revenge, payback.
7)We want more sanctuary cities, more ‘sanctuary dances’ like the Philly Mayor’s.
8)We want your guns too, what good is a majority if we can’t take people’s freedoms?
9)We want to stop investigating DOJ, and cover up the Deep State agenda.
10)We will take the abuse of power and obstruction to a whole new level.
11)We will ram our Obamacare back onto the front burner for the 11th year.
12)We would like to turn California into about 5 new Liberal states too — like the way we gerrymander districts. Eric Holder probably has a plan for that.

 Yet that is only for starters. We will just be rehearsing and warming up for phase two, our 2020 takeover. I think we’ve proven our electioneering prowess and capabilities.

 

Not much of a choice when you look at it that way.
We need to finish what we started. Let the Red Tide roll.

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary’s train wreck of excuses

Once again, Hillary’s ship of lies sailed abroad to promote her, well, stolen victory.

Townhall

“And his whole campaign — ‘Make America Great Again’ — was looking backward. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights; you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs; you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian American succeeding more than you are — you know, whatever your problem is, I’m gonna solve it.”

Hillary muses that many white women were prepared to do the “right” thing until that dastardly James Comey intervened:

‘What happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until former director of the FBI Jim Comey dropped that very ill-advised letter on Oct. the 28th and my numbers just went down… All of a sudden white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their work places were being told, “She’s going to jail, you don’t want to vote for her. It’s going to be terrible you can’t vote for that.” It stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough. Because I was ahead and I was winning and I thought I had fought my way back,’ she concluded.

Okay, this needs a translation so allow me. What she meant is this:

‘I had a full-blown revolution going on among women bullied by men and others, long intimidated to vote otherwise. (I should be commended for that accomplishment)  This was real progress for the weaker women who were iberated to vote for me. That is until Jim Comey put the kibosh on that by dropping the investigation hammer on me. That hammer was to be used on Trump. How dare he?

Well, my vast lead, and these liberated vaginas, were halted in their tracks. I tried to almost fight my way back from that, unsuccessfully of course. It totally overcame those newly liberated women with weak knees. They believed this fraudulent bunk about me. After their years of abuse and victimization from powerful men and interests, they succumbed to the plot. My lead evaporated. We tried to correct the record.

It didn’t work, there wasn’t enough time.

But that distrust should have all gone on Trump. I spent a lot of money, as did the DNC, to make sure the voters got the message. They blew it. I mean those incompetent boobs who were paid to arrange this whole investigation into Donald Trump, the dossier and all, with the intelligence community and Obama’s fledglings, were supposed to stop him earlier. They clearly were not up to the challenge he presented. The kicker is Obama used the same vendors in 2012. I even paid them more money. What’s that tell you?

So I did not fail. The village failed to deliver for me. And well, those foolish women who succumbed to bullying tactics should have known better. But I did everything I could do. That torpedo on the 28th came out of nowhere. Now here I am. I didn’t lose, I was prevented from victory. I was well on my way to winning. They stole it from me.

Everyone with a brain knows that. I even had a huge excess of voters in California who still did their duty to elect the first woman. Those backwards areas listening to Trump double crossed me in the end. They kowtowed under the pressure. The bullies — who were always after me and Bill — screwed me over, in a race that mattered for women’s liberation. Those vast right-wing bastards. And I won’t stop talking about it.’

There’s her whole unfiltered story.

Right Ring | Bullright

Media are World’s Apart

The dogs of war are now the media, mainstream media, and they are foaming at the mouth. They don’t even want to wait till the midterms this year, they are functioning like the activated base. On one side are a couple conservative media channels with a handful of conservative news outlets. On the other is mainstream media’s bullhorn bleating out their script, daily. (feign shock, outrage, mention unfit & impeachment & craziness a lot)

Let me back up a little. We’ve now evolved away from the election cycle. We have gone into the permanent presidential cycle. Far from the way it was with Obama. The next campaign started the day after Trump was elected — more like it just continued. We see it unfolding before our eyes. It is now a perpetual campaign. To deny that would be naive.

I think Trump knows that but how much the rest of the GOP does, I don’t know. The Democrats certainly know it. That’s what they want. And there are not really any Congressional campaigns, everything is based on and a referendum of the presidential election. Reps are only cogs in that wheel. I sort of regret we didn’t make it that way with Obama. None of the Republicans wanted to hear that. Now that we can all see how bad Obama really was, why didn’t they do more to run against and stop him?

However, today it is different. There is no end to election cycles. Perpetual politics is campaigning everyday, 24/7 and it never stops. We are in a world where you can win an election but the race never stops. This year, again, the black caucus is lining up to protest (boycott) the State of the Union Address. For the first time, maybe we won’t see Sheila Jackson Lee jockeying for her prestigious isle spot for the camera.

And of course Dems will be instructed not to applaud or stand, or show any agreement, during the speech. So if they aren’t actively campaigning in this never-ending (2016) election, then they are in protest or boycott mode. All Democrats are radicals now or, as I said, reps are Pelosi-bots, Senators are the clerics.

But back to the media. It follows the Dems lead. They do the same thing in MSM every day: beat the drum and keep the narrative alive. No other news matters, the only thing to talk about is Trump. Any congressional races will be weighted the same way. Conservative media covers that and all the rest. On the good side, Trump owns the media air, even if it is focused against him. But the people can only tolerate crap for so long. It’s already been a year since election. The left has a habit of wearing out their narrative. It is now 24/7 overreach and overkill, with no other message. The two media sides have never been farther apart than now. No separation of media and campaign politics, but big separation between both types of media’s messages.

Right Ring | Bullright

If not Trump

From the barge of media opinion comes one for Trump. Anyone keeping score? It comes from NY Post. Give the man a cigar.

We’re still better off with Trump than Clinton

By Michael Goodwin — NY Post — January 6, 2017 (excerpt)

The economic boom is the most obvious difference voters got by electing him. The tax law he campaigned on, fought for and signed promises to add new dimensions to the boom and should fuel growth and new opportunities for millions of people.

Generations of families will lead better lives as a result, while a Clinton presidency would have been an orgy of regulations aimed at strangling capitalism’s last animal spirits. How many thousands of points lower would the Dow be?

But the Trump effect is not limited to the economy. Think of the difference between Neil Gorsuch and a Supreme Court justice Clinton would have picked; now multiply that difference throughout the judicial food chain. …/

https://nypost.com/2018/01/06/were-still-better-off-with-trump-than-clinton/

Low and behold someone with a level-headed view, not much of that in the media. All the ugliness would be traded for phony gloating, and the dumbstruck media could continue their way of the dinosaur without passing go. They could go to sleep for another…8 years. (it pains me to say that) They would run interference for both messiahs of misery, with academia in tow. And we wouldn’t be doing anything that we’re doing now. SCOTUS would be on a glide path to doom. It would be the far left even Bill could not be, with no regrets.

Hillary’s Hallucination On Power

Hillary cries fowl at the idea of government investigating a political opponent, as an abuse of power. It would “rip at the fabric of the contract” of “trust in our justice system.”

Real Clear Politics

HILLARY CLINTON: I regret deeply that this appears to be the politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system. This Uranium One story has been debunked countless times by members of the press, by independent experts. …./

It is personally offensive that they would do this. But taking myself out of it, this is such an abuse of power, and it goes right at the rule of law. … And if they sent a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have that we can trust our justice system.

While government IS investigating her political opponent — has been for months — in let’s count how many places, along with the Dep of Justice. Interesting. Is she serious?

Politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system“… surely you are laughing after 8 years of the most politicized government and Justice Dep in our history.

Such blatantly arrogant hypocrisy but you aren’t done.

Weaponized false information” … Odd claim for a candidate who spent 9+ million dollars to author a dirty dossier on her opponent. Which caused government authorities to back feed it into our system of government. Interesting concern, isn’t it? Very interesting. Video

Seems “What Happened” is still happening. Yeah, Abuse of Power is your issue, Hillary!

Just “rips at the fabric,” doesn’t it?

Hillary finds the worm in the election apple

Last week, I heard Hillary say that big Russia influence operation turned women against her. This weekend she told us that men cost her votes with women.

I figure that now proves Putin and Moscow and men had greater influence with women than she did. It seems Hillary doesn’t speak for women as much as she thought she did.

That piece is from Glamour magazine:
Hillary recounted:

“Sheryl [Sandberg] ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure—and I’m talking principally about white women—they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl,'” she said. “And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me; as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way.” [read]

That is Hillary using what Sandberg told her as validation for why women voted against her the way they did. Hillary must have missed all those nasty, vile attacks against women who supported Trump. Attacks on Trump were justified. What a one way Diva in Denial.

See in Hillary’s world, women may get to vote themselves but Hillary gets to explain why they voted the way they did. If it were Trump or anyone else, there would be demands for proof. Not for Hillary, her blanket assertions are more than enough evidence.

Note to Hillary

So Hillary, here’s an exercise for you. Sit down with a glass of your imported wine and contemplate out of all those votes you lost by… how many of those votes did you lose because of Trump? I’m pretty sure it was the overwhelming number. In reality, he cost you the election. You lost votes to Trump. I think you need to let that sink in.

Come to think of it: Putin, Trump, and now men cost you votes with women. What’s that say about your influence with women? Then why don’t you just blame those women, too, for costing you the election? Go ahead. You already blamed the people that had influence over them. Don’t let women get away with it. Hold their feet to the fire, Hillary.

Of course after her servergate, deleted emails and Benghazi, anyone who buys Hillary’s explanation on anything should have their head examined.

Or maybe you just had one of those delayed “bimbo eruptions” of your own, Hillary.

We Aren’t Open, Hillary

Clinton won’t rule out questioning legitimacy of election

By Jordan Fabian – 09/18/17 | The Hill

Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t rule out challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election if Russian interference turned out to be deeper than previously thought.

“No, I wouldn’t rule it out,” she said in an interview with NPR published Monday.

The defeated Democratic nominee stressed, however, that she does not believe there is a means to officially challenge the election’s outcome.

“I don’t know if there’s any legal, constitutional way to do that,” Clinton said. “I think you can raise questions.”

Clinton has repeatedly blamed Russia’s efforts to intervene in last year’s election for her loss to Donald Trump, but her latest comments reflect the depth of her frustration with the Kremlin’s efforts.

More: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351189-clinton-wont-rule-out-questioning-legitimacy-of-election

 

Is there any reality she won’t question? I can see, it is never going to be over with Hillary. Hey Hill, remember when you also told us that one about not questioning the legitimate results of the election? A year later and still going. We voted. I know you don’t like how we voted but stick a fork in it. You are now recorded in history as the loser. One and done.

CNN had a navel-gazing moment

A moment of ironic revelation? You decide.

Something remotely interesting happened last night on CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Stars must have been allighned in just the right way.

Anderson had Dana Loesh and posed this question to her:

That was a great setup for Dana to put her foot in the door and push it open.

She did a good job telling him how people don’t share media’s obsession with the Russia story. Dana said they don’t care about it the way the media cares. People care about other things, she said: the jobs agenda, taxes, healthcare. “Show me something actionable…show me some evidence!” They want to know, where are the other stories?

Of course he tried to challenge that but the important thing is he asked the question. Do you think they suddenly decided to entertain the question do Americans care? They didn’t care this far. They thrust it on us as if there were no other news to cover.

Now they wonder if Americans care? Something must have happened in their poll machine interpreter in the backroom. CNN has gotten a lot of push back from the Trump people about other news and other stories about Trump. But they pooh-poohed those complaints. Now, suddenly they pose the question and have a discussion about it.

Turns out that CNN has a a poll and only 27% are very concerned about Russia story.
And 33% are not at all concerned. (between is mixed) Yep, they’ve been polling.

My brief reply to their question is to ask a few questions: (since they asked)

1) Tell us why it is supposed to be so important? Media haven’t made the case yet. Then where is the substance or evidence? What collaboration?

2) Then why it is more important than everything else that I care about? Why is Russia more important than election results? In 8 months they haven’t told us.

3) People are practical and rational. They just want to know why the Russia story is so 5-alarm important? They don’t see it. Is it too much to explain why this is important enough to jeopardize a brand new presidency? Why does Russia trump that?

Funny it was not that long ago, just last year in fact, that Dems said they didn’t care about the 30 thousand emails. They told us people don’t care about that. Even the Media repeatedly told us, at the time, that people care about issues that effect them. Much of the time mainstream media refused to talk about it claiming “there are so many other news stories to cover.” “We only have so much time,” they said.

But stop the presses and news cycle now because no other stories matter or deserve coverage that interrupts their Trumpathon bash about Russia. 24/7 They even claim to know what is important and to hell with what people think, we decide what to cover.

Now vs. then is night and day. People just want a good reason to care about Russia.

RightRing | Bullright

Having An Emotional Fit

This would be laughable under most circumstances….except that it was the most important presidential election in decades. Well, Libs don’t disappoint in their effort to emotionalize their reactions to the election — as only they can emotionalize.

So CNN had this article, including clips of voicemails from election dissenters. Here is just one gem from a woman who complained she had to take off her Bernie bumper stickers because of fears. Afraid too, to even go back to rejoin her family. Oh the pain and humiliation of it all. She said this:

“I finally had to take the Bernie bumper sticker off my car,” Gibbens continued in her voicemail. “I almost got rear-ended at an exit coming off the freeway. I mean just harassment because I had a Bernie sticker on my car. It’s really ugly. It leaves us scared because there’s so many people who seem more emboldened to be bullies.”

Scary because so many people seem emboldened to be bullies? Could that be those bullies on the Left? No she isn’t talking about the real bullies. How about weaponized bullies?

The article goes on to apply psychoanalysis to their emotional meltdown. As I said, it would be funny, except they are serious. Of course this is just as dangerous as the psychiatrists desperately trying to diagnose Trump from their clinical armchairs. And just as fruitful.

Paula Niedenthal, a psychology professor, opined on the caller:

“There’s this anxiety about being exposed. You have a bumper sticker, it’s almost like having a Green Bay Packers sticker and being in Texas.”

Yes, it’s every bit that bad in another way. How can therapists so easily identify with these nuts? Yes they do need real psychological help, but not because of the results of the election or because Trump won and is president. But could it be because of their very deep expectations that Hillary was going to win or, indeed, that she already did win?

There was no room for doubt. Then they were crushed when their beliefs didn’t comport with actual results. ‘How could this be?’ ‘We all said she would win…what happened, what went wrong? This cannot be happening. I won’t believe it! I won’t accept it!’

You can almost hear those internal deliberations echoing in their vulnerable brain cells. Could it just be that their expectations ran so far ahead of the truth that they could not possibly handle an alternate result? Isn’t that what elections are: a verdict, a final decision from the people? How can one know in advance, or be so sure, of the election?

It seems they had so much invested in their outcome. Even Hillary was so invested, literally in the preferred outcome, along with her backers and donors that there was no room for a different outcome. The amount of money riding on it alone was huge. But of course that would be hard to accept. They did it to themselves. Republicans, on the other hand, were tasked to believe the exact opposite before the election: no way, no how was it possible to win. What with the Democrat machine, their blue wall, illegal vote and all. Now, after the fact, Republicans are supposed to be apologetic for the results. Really. The only acceptable reaction to the left is for us to apologize for winning, and to deconstruct it.

Democrats are so far in denial that they have no options but to dissent from reality. Of course there is nothing acceptable to the left with what has happened since election.

It is worth looking at the piece (here) and listen to the voicemails.

RightRing | Bullright

Dems lose on a champagne, caviar budget

One of the strangest, and funniest, things I witnessed was Van Jones prosecuting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Never mind that 8 months later, Dems never had a real autopsy over the death of Hillary’s campaign.

He gave a speech in Chicago with just that subject on the docket.

The Hill — People’s Summit in Chicago.

“The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color. They spent it on themselves,” Jones told a packed house at McCormick Place in Chicago. “They spent it on themselves, let’s be honest.”

“Let’s be honest,” Jones continued. “They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!”

“That wasn’t a campaign. That’s not a campaign.”

Jones continued, attacking the Clinton campaign’s reliance on consultants and polling data that proved to be wrong.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337253-van-jones-rips-clinton-campaign-they-spent-money-on-themselves

It could be the case that she spent more money than anyone in history to not get elected.

Now, despite all the money flowing into the Georgia-6th District, once again their expensive scorched earth strategy ended in ashes, with Ossoff losing by 6 points.

It is not what pundits expected and it wasn’t what Ossoff hoped. And he was beat by a woman…with a real vagina rather than a Planned Parenthoody imposter.

Elections have consequences, for sure….. they empty bank accounts. So while Republicans want to Drain the Swamp, the Democrats just want to drain bank accounts.

Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Where, what “Matter”?

noun (Dictionary.com)
1. – the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. – physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. – something that occupies space.

4. -particular kind of substance: matter

5. -situation, state, affair, or business: trivial matter

6. -an amount or extent reckoned approximately: a matter of 10 miles.

7. – consequence for serious thought.

Wikipedia – “In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space; this includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound. More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually.”

Now that I have looked, it seems nowhere can I find that “matter” is a criminal investigation. Or maybe it is close to #5 or #7? Well, if Loretta Lynch told Comey to call the Hillary “criminal investigation” a matter, and he did, I expected to find a proper notation or legal definition somewhere. But no.

Legal dictionary says Matter is “a substantial, essential thing, opposed to form; facts.”  — Substantial, essential “thing“? – keep looking.

According to Science: (Live Science), there are five stages of matter: Solids, liquids, gases, plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates. Yet I see nowhere any stage morphs into a criminal investigation.

Or maybe we have discovered a brand new type of matter that has been so far elusive for millennia? I’d like to be first to name it “Lynch matter”: i.e the criminal investigation of a corrupt politico or politician. Elusive, slippery, evasive by nature.

But I still sort of like the term “criminal investigation,”… that’s just me.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary Clinton comes clean…. I mean dirty

If you are Hillary Clinton, then this makes an excellent opener for any conversation about the 2016 election.

Enter the ‘Responsibility Ruse’: a lesson in how not to take responsibility (set @ 8 min)

“I take full responsibility for every decision I made … but that is not why I lost.” – {of course it isn’t… you ignorant people, it wasn’t my falut…get it?]

So I think it’s important that we learn the real lessons of this last campaign. Because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they’re going after our economy, they’re going after our unity as a nation. …

Host: So you weren’t going to lie, good for you.
Hillary: right, well…yeah (gestures with hands in air).
Host: “Well”… I see you are rethinking that.

Hillary: Well, I’m not rethinking it, but everybody else better rethink it because we have to figure out how to combat this. [hint, hint…. people get the message]

Host: But that’s my point. My impression is that the Left, the Democrats, the liberals… whatever you want to call them, including Bernie Sanders folks, everybody on the Democratic side… which at one time maybe 12-15 years ago was ahead of Republicans on tech as it existed then is way behind now. And there’s a way to weaponize tech that doesn’t involve lying, or having Russians help you, just that its a political weapon, it’s a fact of life now . How do you.. how do we do it going forward?

Hillary: let me just do a comparison for you. So, I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation, I get the nomination, so I’m now the nominee of the Democratic party: I inherit nothing from the Democratic party.

Host: what do you mean, “nothing”?

Hillary: I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong…. I had to inject money into it to keep it going.

I’m Hillary, I can strain the hell out of a gnat, but take responsibility? That’s not my bag!
But I do like saying the word though, it makes me feel so, you know, responsible and all.