HRC Is Back With Hoof in Mouth

Back by unpopular demand, Hillary is out Monday-morning quarterbacking the investigation report and piling on Trump. Smell the revenge!

She just can’t sit down and shut up having inflicted the nation with scandals and injustice.

Hillary Clinton urges public hearings on Mueller report

By Liam Quinn | Fox News

Hillary Clinton is calling for public hearings on Robert Mueller’s Russia report while slamming Congress for not taking stronger action based on already-known information.

The defeated 2016 presidential candidate gave a wide-ranging interview on Wondery’s “TBD with Tina Brown” in which she discussed Mueller’s Russia investigation, President Trump’s North Korea talks, and the unique challenges facing women running in 2020.

Speaking about the Russia investigation, Clinton said: “There hasn’t really been that kind of solemn, somber laying of facts and information before the public and the press that should happen in our democracy.

“There is enough grounds in what has already been made public for the government for Congress, in particular, to be doing more with [the Mueller report]. I’m pleased that under Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats are beginning to hold hearings and try to connect some of these dots.”

The former secretary of state also offered up some insight into her campaign, describing it as “kind of Obama 2.0,” and pointed the finger at Trump and the Russians for that campaign ultimately coming up short.

“I mean I obviously had hired a lot of Obama’s people. They were incredibly able, they did a great job, but Trump, the Russians, Cambridge Analytica, all of his assorted allies, were running a campaign in an entirely different arena,” Clinton told Tina Brown.

“I don’t think I or my people understood that, you know, we would see a little pop-up story that some idiot says that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump. Who is going to believe that, how ridiculous.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-hearings-mueller-report

So says the woman who started it all with her scandals. Why are they not investigating her? Why is she not indicted? Oops, I know, because she lost the election. Duh. Ha ha ha

Hillary, you have the problem as coming off not likeable because, in the words of AOC,  “’cause you’re not!”

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

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.

She walks, she talks, she fundraises

Hillary now looks to shore up support(pardon the pun) in the wake of the server seizure. So she is going on a fundraiser vacation, renting a 12 million dollar mansion in “the Hamptons” where they plan to raise lots of cash. The high style of the 1%-ers.

The cost is 100,000 for two weeks…or is that called an investment? Funny how they go on vacation and the money rolls in. That’s not how it works with most people, unfortunately. But nothing Clintons do is like normal people. Going on a fundraiser vacation just makes lots of sense(cents). Even impressive by the “lifestyles of rich and famous” standards.

But nothing with them is normal. They prefer the absurd, extreme, eccentric and extravagant even in politics. They should look around and ask themselves, “how did we become 1%-ers? The prior video was a perfect example. There are times when we occasionally get to see exactly how liberals think — flawed as it is.

There you see media liberals grieving and prognosticating on the political fallout over Hillary’s self-created servergate. Not unexpected but then listen to co-host Mika Brzezinski and let it sink in. There is a transparency and brutal honesty to it.

Mika sounds disgusted sighing in the background. She wonders to the others about how candidates can pretend things(scandals) don’t exist? That might be a good question for Hillary. So after Hillary candidates tell you those things don’t exist, you are supposed to believe them. Then she asks “do they really think the American public is that stupid?” She says “that is very insulting.”

Well, Mika does have some real points. People must accept their denials or excuses. They really do think the public is that stupid. Mika explains the way it works for Dems and leftists. With a sigh she admits that in spite of these problems if Hillary can get the nomination, “I will [still] vote for her.” See, that’s how it is supposed to work for Hillary and Obama. So the only question then is how does she get there?

Hillary Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote that it’s all nonsense.

“The bottom line: This kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president. We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.”

And according to NY Post, 52% of people polled say Hillary’s email ordeal “should be subject to a criminal investigation.”

So the only objective is for Hillary to get the nomination, however she can. Then, Democrats will still vote for her. That makes the nomination, by any means, the only objective. That’s how it worked so far. She asserted herself as the anointed one, early and often, as the heir apparent. For so long that they all believed her and no formidable challenger came. She locked up support.

But it was also based on stalling along the way. Stall investigations, stall opposition to the point where they finally have no other choice but her. Even if these problems surface, by then she’ll be their only choice. That’s what she wants and got. Obama built his election on the same inevitability premise.(belief) Make the thing, or person, so inevitable there’s no choice. Basically, the theory goes, people do not want to not believe.

The strategy is stall to prevail. After that it becomes only a series of events granting her the prize. Then, nothing that led up to it matters at all. In the end, people will have no choice. The beauty is Democrats fully admit they will still vote for her, no matter what truth outs. It is only a matter of means, just as Hillary believes it is only a matter of getting to the White House. Once there, the means shall matter not one bit. If it takes coming down with a nasty case of lies.(as Islamists justify jihad) After all, she expects Democrats to lie to themselves in order to support her.

Meanwhile, Hillary does the Hamptons. And any means necessary to nimination. Once achieved all the means suddenly become irrelevant. Just like the va-k in the Hamptons.

RightRing | Bullright

Here today gone tomorrow

That’s something Christie should have thought about, say about 2 months ago when he seemed to be riding high after his second gubernatorial win in NJ.

Yep, that euphoria then probably feels like a distant memory to him now, on the heels of not one but two investigations cranking up in a midterm year. Even the optimistic Christie has to say “wait a minute, it was only a few short months… I’m just being sworn in to my 2nd term.” Yep, and that’s the way it works.

He pulled no punches in criticizing conservatives and Libertarians even in his election year bid. He went out of his way to cast stones. He claimed to have friends all over. Now he has two mounting investigations strapped to his back and no one is rushing to his defense. He might ask “how did all this happen?” And he might also ask “why me?”

If it were others like Ted Cruz or Paul under fire, I doubt the well-rounded Jersey boy would have time to run to their aid. But since it is him, “oh pity me.” At least he can count on GOP central who helped prop him up among the establishment. Those others can’t!

PS, update: Karl Rove thinks Christie’s crisis will build “street-cred” with Tea Party folks.

RightRing | Bullright