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.

Hillary Clinton in Hot Seat on commencement speech

Observer

On June 8, Hillary Clinton is scheduled to serve as the Class of 2017 commencement speaker at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, where she will also be awarded an honorary degree. The announcement has incited protests from several members of the Haitian community who plan to protest the speech and are pushing the college’s president, Rudy Crew, to rescind the invitation.

“Every time the Clintons get in a bind, they run to the black community to whitewash their tarnished image,” said Komokoda, the Haitian group protesting the speech, in a statement.

http://observer.com/2017/05/haitians-protest-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-medgar-evers-college/

No, don’t rescind the invitation. Please, allow Hillary to be protested and shamed. (not that she has any) Pay them. She’s made enough money on it all, hold her accountable.

Maybe students will come equipped with some nice stiletto heels.

Exploiting people, particularly poor people, is the Clinton’s expertise. In office or out makes no difference. Perhaps she will get some long overdue ridicule? Furthermore, why should Obama be off the hook either?

Trump would beat Clinton on popular vote

Daily Wire [excerpt]

The one consolation Hillary Clinton continues to cling to after her stunning upset at the hands of Donald Trump in November is the fact that she won the popular vote, by about 2 percent (48 – 46), which though ultimately meaningless in the electoral college system, Democrats have attempted to hold up as “proof” that Trump is “not their president.” But buried within a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll is the delicious little nugget that if a rematch were to be held today, Clinton would apparently be stripped of even that moral victory.

The new WashPost/ABC News poll found that while 46 percent of those surveyed said they voted for Clinton and 43 percent said they voted for Trump, asked how they would vote if given a second chance, respondents ended up giving Trump the popular vote win in the hypothetical rematch, 43 – 40.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12265/obama-admits-trump-caught-him-guard-blames-bubble-james-barrett

So instead of wondering why Trump’s support has not weakened, the winner of the election, why don’t they ask where Hillary’s support has gone? It’s melting, at the time she clearly is  plotting a rematch for 2020.  Where have all the Clinton flowers gone?

Meanwhile, Obama told ABC News that he blamed “the bubble,” or the job itself, for the reason he underestimated Trump and his popularity.

“[T]he bubble is the bubble,” he told Stephanopoulos. “And, I think we’ve done a pretty good job staying in touch with the American people. But at a certain point you can’t help but lose some feel for what’s on the ground because you’re not on the ground.”

The problem was not the job, but the person in that job.

No, Obama, its not losing touch with the American people if you never were in touch with the people to begin with. Yet at the same time, he was clearly delusional in his support for Hillary. He used his job “in the bubble” as the predicate to elect Hillary Clinton — who seems to have her own “bubble” of disconnect.

Of course, Obama has yet to admit that in effect he lost to Trump, because Obama was so invested in his legacy and Hillary’s win. Instead, “the bubble did it”.

But the media all carps about Trump’s low numbers? Yet the Dems have still not realized elections do have consequences.

2008: Obama campaign talks to Iran — and ghost of Ted Kennedy

Get ready for a short trip in the way-back machine to 2008.
Obama’s campaign had a series of communications with both Iran and Syria.

Obama Held Secret Talks With Iran, Syria Weeks Before Election

Malkah Fleisher, 02/02/09 | Arutz Sheva
U.S. President Barack Obama employed representatives to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president.

United States President Barack Obama employed representatives and experts to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president, organizers of the meetings told Agence France Presse on Monday.

Over the past few months, Obama campaign and election officials, as well as nuclear non-proliferation experts, had several “very, very high-level” contacts with Iranian leaders, according to Jeffrey Boutwell, executive director for the U.S. branch of the Pugwash group, a Nobel Prize-winning international organization of scientists. Former defense secretary William Perry, who served in Obama’s election campaign, also participated in some of the meetings, which included discussions on Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli conflict. …/

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed the reports Monday that Obama officials had repeated contact with his country for some time prior to the U.S. elections. “Dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration,” Assad said. ../ Read more

So guess who was talking to Iran months before taking office? I don’t even want to get on the Iranian Valerie Jarrett off-ramp. No SNL skits, only a “thrill up the leg” to media.

Hearings, investigations, wire taps, outrage, Independent Counsel…. don’t be silly.

While we are in the way back machine, let us go a few decades back to 1983. Good ol’ lion of the Senate, Mary Jo Kopechne killer, Ted Kennedy made his grand invitation to the Soviet’s Communist Party, and Yuri Andropov, to come intervene in our election. A quid pro quo. Senator Kennedy was trying to challenge Reagan and needed an edge.

American Thinker

The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.

So he promised Soviets wide access to the American media to make their case. But how would he assure Soviets of such unprecedented access? Well, Ted won’t be talking, nor anyone else either. Maybe we could ask his media friends? Investigations? FBI probe? Logan Act? Surely you jest.

Stuff A Sock In It Media

One basic rule for Trump should be: if a question is on a matter pending further investigation, then NO comment or answer should be given. When in Rome….

Don’t like that? Then take it up with Obama. No comment was the widely accepted and understood gold standard for the last 8 yrs. Why change policy now?

Since they have most of Trump’s first three weeks and campaign under investigation, well, suck an egg media. You want investigations? Fine, then you cannot have both.

While we are on the subject, Supreme Court nominees do not have to answer a question on something that may come before the High Court in the future. It’s the standard, stupid.

So all those questions about Russia and Russophobia, take a hike media. Besides the narrative is getting a little old. And questions relating to Trump’s campaign? That was the campaign, we’ve all moved on. We’re past the campaign now, do try to keep up.

I actually heard a CNN anchor say that Trump should never reply to something with “I won the election.” Wasn’t that Obama’s popular tag line? They didn’t complain then. Let’s face it, they don’t want Trump to have any answers to questions because they will fill in all the blanks just fine by themselves. They already do anyway.

RightRing | Bullright

Rantzilla on having a new President

Buckle up I have a rant for you, if you are interested. What a difference a few long months makes?

The National Coalition of Trolls (DNC et al) has kicked off their newest operation, fashioning itself as a Tea Party type movement. Hey, I’m not writing their script, only commenting about it.

Seven years after the popular Tea Party rise, Democrats are imitating the movement. Wait, they spent all that time mocking, attacking, ignoring, and calling them racists etc.; but now say they are following in their footsteps. Media spent 7 years attacking it, trying to marginalize and discredit them.

Whatever they say.

Wait, the Tea Party was set off by government intervention in healthcare, bailouts, stimulus, arrogance of power, and taxagedon to grow government and its control by dolling out goodies to people. Yet Liberals and Democrats say they are following Tea Party’s lead? The original call for Tea Parties was led by Rick Santelli on CNBC saying enough is enough, announcing the idea of Tea Party, hearkening back to the days of patriots dumping tea in Boston Harbor to protest taxes and the King’s control schemes. Everything about that is contrary to the modern Left, and any movement it started.

Tea Parties also had strong overtones about freedom of speech, religion, the Founders and the Constitution. Not necessarily what we see in today’s left. They do call themselves progressives but the new term, coined by others, is regressive. They are about shutting down speech of others or labeling different views hate speech. Still, they continue their imitation narrative.

Never mind that the left is also caught up in their civil disobedience and violence agenda. It is basically nothing like what conservatives or Republicans did. Tea Parties had a respect for law enforcement and kept the demonstrations neat — even though they were grassroots organized. Not the Left. Tea Parties were bottom up grass roots, even resisting the intervention of some Republicans who wanted to commandeer it. The Left is always organized top down, by those in power, or close to its power center. (George Soros et al) But it is staged to seem grassroots — Move On. It’s their business model.

Here is an interesting tangent to liberals.

I have a theory involving market forces and the Left’s willing gullibility to believe in all these things they do, so easily. I figure if you can find a way to target that segment of people, it would be a goldmine. How so? Just think about it. Obama ran on a faith-based message and they all bought it: lock, stock and barrel.

I mean if you have people who are that easy to sell anything you want, then you have a powerful market of buyers or consumers. They demonstrate a willingness to believe in things based on little proof. And once they do, believe in it, you can hardly even talk them out of it. That, my friends, is gold to any marketing agenda. That’s the utopia salesman have searched for. Think about that slogan, change you can believe in. Then think about Obamacare and all the lies. You couldn’t even tell them they were lies, even after Gruber came out admitting it. Even after it was proven to be lies, they still believed it.

So that is the secret, getting them to believe it. That isn’t hard, they are an easy pitch. But once they do, they remain loyal even if results are not what they expected. Now that is the kind of people any marketer wants to find.

Whether this quote is from James Carville or not, it is true from the standpoint of reality. And Obama constantly proved it.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd. — credited to James Carville.

So couple their mentality with the herd mindset and you have a powerful consumer base. You could sell them anything. And they create the demand all by themselves. What could be wrong with that? And then, once sold on it, you could not talk them out of it.

All you have to do is look at the last election. Bernie scored big with Dems, some say he could have won. He promised them free healthcare, free college and a 15 per/hr minimum wage. They believed and remained loyal. Just what they wanted to hear. You couldn’t talk them out of it. They sent in their five box tops and sat there waiting for it to arrive.

Wake up and smell the crazy.

Democrats discovered a new phenomena called Voter Rage. And it is catching on in the media. They like this movement, of course. Remember all the attacks at Tea Parties? Not so with the perpetual protestors, which are nothing more than re-branded Occupiers, who re-branded themselves Bernie’s base, who re-branded themselves as the Resistance.

Something happens they don’t like, take the rage to the streets. Mix it with anarcho-commies, it gets very colorful. They weaponize rage and hate as tools.

What we have with the Left is the biggest case of projection I have ever seen. They lost the election but now think they can project themselves right back into majority power, or at least a potent minority one. Their perception is supposed to become everyone’s reality.

Democrats have that other time-worn weapon. If they don’t get their way, they take to the streets and protest. That is a powerful force for them to get more stuff, or promises. See how this cycle works? Once they believe, they’ll do anything for that cause whether they understand it or not. It makes no difference. People wonder how so many people can be self-claimed socialist? My opinion is they aren’t all socialists — many are Me-ists. As long as they think it benefits ‘Me’ they’re fine with it. If it is not, then cue the rage.

RightRing | Bullright

Dems may need “lessons” to talk to Trump voters

What else would you expect? When Dems take a whooping like they did in November, they don’t need an autopsy for what they did wrong. No, they just need to learn to talk to those Trump voters. Er, you know, the people they have worked so damn hard to ignore for oh, about a decade or more.

I’ll take more ignorance, please, as long as you’re dishing it out.

Democrats hold lessons on how to talk to real people

Gathering in Sheperdstown, W.Va., Democrats were scheduled to hear from liberal political operative David Brock on Thursday, who ran a session called “Hold Trump Accountable” with Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden and Priorities USA CEO Guy Cecil. Earlier in the day, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) moderated a “discussion with Trump voters,” according to a draft schedule obtained by POLITICO.

[topics include] “speaking to those who feel invisible in rural America,” “Listening to those feel unheard,” and “Rising America — They feel unheard too.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-real-people-lessons-234198

In other news, Tucker Carlson gets jonathan Gruber back on Fox for his pinata routine.

BizPac Review

“I think that’s a prime example of the misinformation that has been spread. I just don’t think people understand what the law has done for them,” he said.

When asked about the people the law has hurt, Gruber said, “This law was never supposed to help everybody, Tucker. That wasn’t the design. The law was actually explicitly designed first in Massachusetts and then for the nation to leave the vast majority of Americans alone.

Gruber said the belief was that people who had health insurance would eventually benefit in the “long-term” by lowering cost. The law was designed to “fix what was wrong in our system.

Problem was it was sold on lies. All lies. So when they promised it would not affect people, it did. It did not leave us alone. But that was really the design. The sales pitch was that it would leave us alone. He got the sales pitch and design mixed up.

SNL writer attacks Trump family

So SNL, ever so quick to set trends, does it again. One of their writers confused their fiction with reality on the inauguration. You know which one won.

SNL indefinitely suspends writer who joked about Barron Trump being a mass shooter

National Examiner

The “Saturday Night Live” writer who joked that Barron Trump, the 10-year-old son of the president, would grow up to be the “country’s first homeschool shooter” has been suspended indefinitely by NBC, multiple outlets reported Monday.

Katie Rich made the comment in a tweet on Friday afternoon, shortly after President Trump was sworn into office. The improv comedian, who has worked three years for the show, deleted the tweet and her account shortly after, as a result of the backlash she received.

On Monday, Rich reactivated her Twitter page and posted an apology, but did not share details about her situation with NBC, a network that is also home to Trump’s show “Celebrity Apprentice.”

“I sincerely apologize for the insensitive tweet. I deeply regret my actions & offensive words. It was inexcusable & I’m so sorry,” she wrote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2612726/

So that gives you an insight into the mental angst of Trump haters out there. SNL again setting the trend for the left. Michael Moore move over, there’s a new demagogue in town.

Where does one go if they get suspended from SNL’s staff? I’m still researching. Oh, that’s right, Clintons and Obamas are usually hiring irredeemable talents. And there is always Soros. I guess that episode qualifies as a Tweet and run.

Media Showdown and conventional history meets metaphor

CNN runs a special called “The End” as Fox starts a daily show called “first 100 days.” Does anything highlight the contrast more than that? The beginning and the end.

On one hand Liberals are in mourning. They look back at radical nostalgia ending while the rest of us, thinking people, are in mourning for what Obama has done to this country.

Conservatives, Republicans, and normal people look forward to Trump coming in to fix some of the many problems — created or magnified by Obama, called accomplishments.

This brings up another thought nicely illustrated by that photo of Obama visiting the Henry Ford Museum, sitting on the bus Rosa Parks rode on. (look it up here )

The picture shows Obama sitting alone on an empty bus from a bygone era, which was famous for what took place on it. Namely Rosa Parks making her stand for civil rights and changing or challenging culture. That was the picture. But it is also a powerful metaphor for Obama and his legacy. Let’s see how much mileage I can get out of it? None of this applies to Rosa Parks but to Obama, who is caught in the nostalgia of it all.

In the end, Obama seems to be alone, surrounded by his failed legacy, staring out a window seemingly oblivious to what all took place. He wanted a coveted spot in the public and he got it. He started off wanting to “fundamentally change” America and our perception of it, only to himself become the chief symbol for what is rotten in Washington. In effect, there was a backfire, like those old buses were prone to do.

Then the big one. Obama’s finale of two terms and his legacy gets derailed and replaced by the newer Trump Train — a popular uprising of disgust from the people. They have had enough, finally, and sent a messenger to demonstrate their conviction. They beat back the status quo rules and establishment to get there. A David vs. Goliath story.

Obama argued that this movement, or man now leading it, was unqualified and ill-suited for the job, and not to be trusted. Trump deserved no seat and his movement was to be blacklisted by putting every label on it the left could, including racist. That further fueled resentment and resistance to the self-serving establishment — government run amuck.

After it all, there sits Obama alone on an empty bus staring outward. Alone on his own bus. He will now have to single-handedly defend his legacy, with help from his allies. But he is the only one who could make the case for his radical legacy. All the others will be just cheerleaders. He now leads his parade of one to secure and protect his legacy.

A moment of history illustrated, metaphorically, by a simple photo of Obama sitting on Rosa Parks’ bus in a dated backdrop. Obama rode on the past racial history to propel himself. He extorted every circumstance to usher in his radicalism as America’s cure, rather than the disease. How’s that for milking a metaphor? (more could be said)

RightRing | Bullright

Boycotting America: the infertile resistance breeds

The week of hypocrisy and double standards, and here we go.

The hearings were one thing, emphasis on race and Russia – not necessarily in that order — but dialogue and media are another which got progressively worse, right on script.

We finished the week by having the self-anointed civil rights leader, John Lewis call Trump’s election and his presidency illegitimate. Anyone NOT see that coming? These people certainly are predictable, if nothing else.

“I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis told NBC News Friday. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” – NBC

No, unfortunately, Lewis was not a lone voice. Predictable. He did it intentionally on Friday before MLK Day — which I guess is now ensconced as the day of hate.

Now you would think that Lewis making this statement would be like a bomb going off, and the shock of it from a sitting senior Congressman would outrage people. You would think immediately people would distance themselves from his remarks, en masse. The condemnation would be fierce. And you would think a media outcry would demand every single Democrat condemn his remarks or be condemned. Nope.

Actually, Michelle Obama kicked it off on Oprah saying “we’re feeling what not having hope feels like.” She was praised for saying we have no hope. They cheered her on.

One Democrat pundit said on Sunday, “this is the resistance; this is just what it looks like now.” Ah, “what it looks like now” is short for this is the way it’s going to be. No, it’s actually going to be worse. They know it and so do we. And then their shadow Obama government will be adding to the resistance.

What you would think should be a normal response, in their racist political correctness, now is reversed. Rather than blanket condemnation, the praises for John Lewis came from everywhere: media, Congress, the black community, the public. Hard to find anyone who does condemn his statements.

Remember Joe Wilson, the SOTUS “heckler”? He had the audacity to make a public disagreement with Obama. He got a good talking to from the Republican leadership. And Mitch McConnell, all he said was that job #1 was to make Obama a one-term president. Democrats turned that into a giant insult and classic racism. Justice Alito shook his head. People were called racists for asking questions about Obama’s birth certificate or records — since he really had no trail. Just questioning Obama was blatant racism.

So it was way more than Obama ever received, even before Trump takes office. Now resistance is celebrated. Calls for obstruction ring from every corner of the Left. Respect is out, Resistance is in.(lockstep of course) In fact, the Left even says, proudly, it is following the model that worked so well for Republicans. (choke, gag) Get that, they even blame us for their radical resistance. They blame Russia for the election results. And they blame Trump for the condition of America which preceded any thought of his to run. Now they are trying to even make us own Obamacare.

Well, the total fallout of John Lewis is wide agreement with him. In fact, 23 members of Congress are boycotting the inauguration. It’s the cool thing now to join the resistance. They will institutionalize it, celebrate it, take it into schools and claim it as righteous.

All this deception won’t work. The people have been awakened and are not going to take their eyes off this, We survived their decade of decadence and aren’t happy. Sorry, Dems, don’t even try to out anger us. It ain’t happening. The blame projection won’t work. But they have the towers of media carrying their water, and soon will have every one of their shadow operatives opposing Trump. Exactly the way they did in the general election. Almost as if the election never happened because, to them, it didn’t.

Protests are highly overrated. Respectful protests were fashionable toward Obama, disrespectful protests toward Trump are now in. When Tea Party protests were born, the IRS and media assailed “speaking truth to power” using their big-gov firehouses, under a black president. It was Democrats in the sixties who opposed Lewis and their ‘civil rights’ agenda. Now they blame Republicans but no one is supposed to know the truth.

Now their resistance stuff is all the rage. Resisting what? – doesn’t matter. On the IRS Tea Party scandal, blacks and Democrats stood on the side of big government fire hoses. They stood up and walked out. Eric Holder was in contempt and they stood up for him, who was standing up for Obama. But now they see illegitimacy as the cause de jure.

So the answer, my friend, ain’t blowing in the wind. No, their answer to nothing is to boycott Trump and whatever he does. Take that Mitch McConnell. He let them beat him up for eight years for a benign statement. Then people bent over backwards for Obama. Republicans stood there like deer in the headlights, as radicals ruled the White House and administration. That really worked?

The boycott of Trump takes full shape before the parade or swearing in. What will they do when he’s in office? I think we know. (whatever was not done to Obama) Can’t you smell what the boycott is cooking? It means de facto protesting America and what it stands for, the rule of law. So civil rights or justice are excuses, the real boycott is against America.

And happy MLK Day, for what that’s worth.

RightRing | Bullright

Little people’s info doesn’t matter

This is to all the people who have had their personal information hacked, stolen, pilfered or used by foreign state hackers. My sympathies to you. (including anyone who worked for the federal government.) You’ve been used and abused in more than one way.

Now we know the real truth. Your privacy, security and personal information mean nothing to Obama’s administration or even Congress. Let’s be honest, you are not Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, or the DNC. Your shit doesn’t matter — only theirs does.

They proved this with the hacking narrative they and the media have elevated to the top national security issue. Obama called for an investigation of Russia on the election.

When did they call for an investigation, let alone consequences, for those who did the hacking of all that government and personal information? Where is that national debate and outrage? Where is all the media coverage about it? Where are the demands to do something? They didn’t want to acknowledge the story or comment on it when the hacks happened. Where is the CIA and FBI reports, and 17 intelligence agencies? — MIA

RightRing | Bullright

Negative Impact On The Election

Okay, which one had more negative effects and impact on the election:

(A) hacks and wikilleaks’ dumps of a couple email accounts connected to Hillary Clinton
(and so-called Russian intervention in the election via influencing voters) OR

(B)the hyper-radicalized media coverage attacking Trump 24/7 for over 9 months ?
(while dumbing down coverage by ignoring criticisms / record of Hillary Clinton)
 

You decide. Shall we examine the headlines and press pages, too? Mo’ investigation!

RightRing | Bullright

Dear Jeh Johnson

You bitch and moan about the Russian hacking threat while saying nothing about countless death threats to electors around the country. Or all the assassination threats aimed at Trump, or the hyperbolic fake stories on Islamophobia, or the cop-hating agenda. Very selective outrage.

Jeh, you’re colder and more calculated than a Russian bear. Who needs a Russian threat when we got you? There’s a bear in the woods alright, closer to home than we’re told.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

Where are they now, Never Trumpers

Any cursory review of the election would leave many unanswered questions about those who absorbed the spotlight as the many, the proud… the anti-Trumpers.

What happened to them and where are they now? Well, I just saw that the prominent Never-Trump leader Bill Kristol will be stepping back, or down, in his career. Now Stephen Hayes is stepping up to be editor-in-chief of the failing Weekly Standard. Hayes is another anti-Trumper. They are calling the shakeup lots of things, but Kristol is out.

Hayes will certainly continue in the legacy of denial, after Kristol, while the Weekly Standard seeks to rebuild its once-lucrative brand. Put some lipstick on that pig.
The Hill

Bill Kristol is stepping down as editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, more than two decades after he co-founded the conservative publication.

“It’s good,” Kristol told CNN on Monday. “Here at The Weekly Standard, we’ve always been for regime change.”

Steve Hayes, the publication’s senior editor, will take over for Kristol.

But Kristol won’t be leaving the stage, just stepping away from Weekly Standard. We know he can’t leave the limelight. His condescending elitism won’t allow it.

Mitt Romney, what’s left to say about him? He was in the running for Secretary of State, then the unthinkable loss of not getting picked. After all he did to oppose Trump every public way he could, he tried to shift his hatred in a few tweets.

First, were all the attack(s)… plenty of them:

What he “knows?”

There was the one after election:

Then there was the one after failing to get the nomination he wanted:

But no apology or thanks to Trump for considering him — with all his many warts.

Then there is this reversal from staunch anti-Trumper, Erick Erickson. His radio show must be in a nose dive lately. But never fear, he now says we should give Trump a chance. A little late, don’t you think you waited long enough?

Erick Erickson: I’m gonna give Trump a chance (no, I’m not a sellout)

During the 2016 election, I was adamantly opposed to Donald Trump. Much of the media cited a piece I wrote in mid-February planting my flag against Trump as one of the major pieces to spark the #NeverTrump movement.

I wrote in that piece that if the GOP went with Trump that the party was not only going to lose the White House, but see devastation down ballot. All the polling showed it. The polling had been right during the primaries. Trump was the one guy consistently ahead in the polls and the one guy who consistently could not beat Hillary. The general election polling showed the same.

I, and the polling, were completely wrong. So were a lot of other people. After the election I wrote that those of us who were so completely wrong about the election should exercise some humility. If we got that much wrong, the odds are we got a lot of other stuff wrong, too. Consequently, I thought the day after the election and still think that we owe Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt.

This does not mean I am now on the Trump team. I still have concerns about Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/14/erick-erickson-im-gonna-give-trump-chance-no-im-not-sellout.html?refresh=true

How generous of Erick to give Trump “the benefit of the doubt” now…..when all other opposition has failed. He tries to blame his rabid, anti-Trump stance on earlier polls.

Count Erick as “not selling out”….
he’s selling up, to anyone who still believes anything he says.

Then there are the Obamas, those priceless gems of slobbering elitism. Michelle says she may be leaving the White House but not the public stage. Surprise! Right after she tells us we have no hope. Barack Obama plans to go nowhere. He told us that.

In fact, they rented a mansion down the street from the White House where he will continue his radical activism by running a shadow government, according to insider reports. I’m sure any Obama residence will have plenty of room for his Iranian adviser, Valerie Jarrett. I give Obama the award to represent the anti-Trump opposition.

You don’t believe Hillary Clinton is going anywhere either, do you? She’ll have her own oppositional organization. And when stars align, some spectacular things will happen.

Does this mean that Erickson along with Hayes, Kristol, Obama, Hillary and all those outspoken others will be on the same page at some point opposing Trump? Look for that; but how they parse their active roles in the coalition will stand reason on its head.

It would seem all the anti-Trumpers are not really going away, just lining up to posture themselves in public and media. But their opposition doesn’t change. They are just finding more creative ways to channel it.

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Awaiting Mitt Romney’s apology tour

After campaigning against and trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign/election, even his Republican nomination, Romney now contemplates the real consequences of issuing an apology to try to seal his Secretary of State bid. How far can he go?

I do hope he likes groveling but is it enough — after all he has done?

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Transition Team sources told Ed Henry from FOX News that Mitt Romney is preparing a public apology.

Mitt Romney is reportedly very interested in the Secretary of State job. (See)

But is it enough to apologize? And I don’t mean only to Trump but to all the people who supported or voted for Trump. He owes them plenty — whether he gets the job or not.

Remember he wrote a book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Ironic now that his appointment requires an apology just as a precursor.

Has anyone out there in Rightville considered what a Mitt Romney confirmation hearing would look like? I think I’d call it a smorgasbord for Democrats. They’ll eat it up.