I Know Nothing Defense

DNC Debbie is doing her best impersonation of Sgt Schultz about the dossier funding.

DNC, Wasserman Schultz say they were unaware of dossier payments

By Jonathan Easley – 10/25/17 | The Hill

Current and past leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) say they had no knowledge that the national party was helping to fund a dossier compiled by a British spy that contained scandalous accusations about President Trump.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paid millions to the law firm Perkins Coie, where Democratic lawyer Marc Elias worked with the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to construct the memo, which was compiled by British spy Christopher Steele.

John Podesta has a similar memory black hole.

Former Clinton, DNC aides largely silent on funding of Trump-Russia dossier

Washington Post

Hillary Clinton and top officials of her presidential campaign were largely silent Wednesday in response to the revelation that the campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid for research that resulted in a dossier alleging Russian interference on behalf of Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Neither Clinton nor her campaign manager, Robby Mook, responded to requests for comment Wednesday. Campaign chair John Podesta declined to comment beyond referring reporters to a statement issued the previous day by the campaign’s law firm saying officials had not been aware of the arrangement.

Brian Fallon, the former campaign spokesman, said he didn’t know about the research at the time but called it “money well spent” if it provided information useful to the special counsel now investigating Russia’s involvement.

 

So 6 million dollars just flowed into the law firm and went out to fund a dirty dossier, somehow or other, but I know nothing about that. Hell, we don’t even know where all the 2 billion (plus or minus) in the campaign went. We ordered pizza a lot.

Let me get this straight: if Russians wanted to help Trump get elected so much, why were Russian operatives working with the opposition to Trump?

Dumb and dumber have agreed on a ‘too dumb to know’ defense. After all, both were working for the ‘too dumb to prosecute’ candidate.

War on Christians is real… coming to your neighborhood

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty

By Marc A. Thiessen — Washington Post

Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

This is the context in which we must read a recently released trove of emails — which, according to WikiLeaks, come from the accounts of Clinton staff — showing the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that permeates Clinton World.

In a 2012 email that WikiLeaks says was sent to John Podesta, now chairman of the Clinton campaign, Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman writes that “there needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church” and proposed that the Clinton team “plant the seeds of the revolution” to change Catholic teaching. Podesta replies, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . Likewise Catholics United.” He adds, “I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”

So members of the Clinton’s inner circle created front groups to foment a “Catholic Spring” — because, as their dear leader had announced, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” […/]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html/

Yes, folks, the war on Christians and there faith is on but hardly new. Podesta seemed to validate that, they are working within the RCC to change their views.

Of course we knew that. So ending up with Pople Francis, then the press touting his liberal views, is right on schedule. We’re well aware of that. When have the press and media been absolutely giddy about a Pope?

It’s Just what the doctor ordered, if you are in the Posesta or Hillary camp.

Couple that with a past statement of Chuck Schumer during a confirmation hearing about people with “deeply held beliefs” — i.e. religious beliefs. (can you say dog whistle?)

Catholic League — in 2003

At the hearing on his nomination held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, [nominee William Pryor] was sharply questioned, notably by New York Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer, about whether his “deeply held beliefs” would not prevent him from impartially upholding the laws. The word “Catholic” was never mentioned, just his “deeply held beliefs.” But the implication in all this questioning was strong and clear that any Catholic who took seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church would necessarily have to be pro-life, against so-called “gay marriage,” and so on; and thus in the opinion of these hostile senators would be unable to uphold the law as they expect to see it upheld, i.e., by affirming such court-imposed jurisprudence as legalized abortion.

And that was despite Pryor giving a defense for his positions based on the law.

Yet it is those recent bold admissions that should light your hair on fire about where the front is in the war on Christians. The boldness that Hillary declares it is just as insulting.

Townhall.com reports

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic. /…

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.

While not new, it is the culmination of years of work. But of course the thought of any such war on Christians, and their beliefs, is roundly ridiculed from their secularist silos.

Poo-pooed as ‘crazy talk’ and we’re crazy.

That is nothing but just another baseless denial. … coming to a ‘spring’ near you.

Camp Hillary’s offensive on Trump

Wasting no time after Trump emerged from Indiana as the presumptive nominee, John Podesta realeased a statement of what they think of Donald Trump.

Podesta: Trump is too divisive, risky to be president

By POLITICO Staff | 05/03/16 | Politico

Hillary Clinton’s campaign signaled on Tuesday that it will paint Donald Trump as an unstable, dangerous bully with no interest in helping ordinary Americans, judging from comments made by campaign chairman John Podesta.

Trump is “too divisive” and “lacks the temperament” to be president, Podesta wrote in a statement issued after the real estate mogul won the Indiana Republican presidential primary, knocking Texas Sen. Ted Cruz out of the race and claiming the GOP nomination.

“Fundamentally, our next president will need to do two things: keep our nation safe in a dangerous world and help working families get ahead here at home,” Podesta said. “Donald Trump is not prepared to do either.”

“Throughout this campaign, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he’s too divisive and lacks the temperament to lead our nation and the free world,” he continued. “With so much at stake, Donald Trump is simply too big of a risk.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/podesta-trump-is-too-divisive-risky-to-be-president-222774

Beyond their attempt to define Trump as quickly as possible, they now roll out the terms. Start with unstable, dangerous, bully and move on from there. It’s a Hillary indictment.

But Trump constructed an empire, over years, and successfully managed a corporate business employing thousands, operating internationally. Trump offers much more economically and with domestic policies than Hillary does that would benefit people — all people not just segments of voters. Progs could consider any businessman a bully.

Unstable

What is unstable is having a candidate under possible indictment as the nominee. No one in Hillary’s campaign holds that certainty in their hands. They just don’t know. She’s committed almost every infraction. She breached protocol and disgraced the [public] office she held by violating the rules of conduct that she swore to uphold. Then she makes a mockery of the entire process calling in a security review. She laughs at possible indictment saying that is not going to happen. The convenient ties of contributions to the Clinton Foundation are another issue under pending investigation. She constantly lied.

Clinton could not account for her own whereabouts during the Benghazi attack. Then she pushed the video lie, even to the victims’ grieving family members. She could not explain the lack of response to the ongoing attack. Rather she went home and slept through the 3 AM phone calls. She claimed full responsibility then never took any. Stability… not.

Keep our nation safe

Hillary champions the policy of not calling it radical Islamic terrorism. She was all aboard riding the Mo-Bro train through the Mid East and here at home, even within government. She is all for importing the refugee crisis here without concern for our safety and security. She looked the other way on Obama’s illegal executive amnesty and promised to build on it. She helped to initiate the ‘rotten to the nuclear-core’ Iran deal. She supports sanctuary cities and the other failed policies that devastated our country. Pass on safety.

Risky

What’s riskier than the author of the Benghazi adventure which led to a failed state? Or riskier than their Egypt intervention, or the arms that flowed across Libya’s shores to Syria. The entire Mid East and greater Europe is on fire, thanks to her tenure as Secretary of State. Speaking of “loose cannons.” She advocated the Libyan adventure then deserted our own ambassador who was doing her bidding, and setting up the outpost after every other embassy was fleeing the violence that followed those actions.

Hillary and the state department refused to list Boko Haram as a Terrorist group in Africa. She actually increased developmental aid instead. Only years later, after she left State, did we finally designate it a terrorist group. Of course ,with her spurious experience, imagine the divisiveness and risk inherent in her nominating judges, or other nominees.

Dangerous world

Thanks in large part to her and Obama it is a very dangerous world, more so now than when they started. Pull out of Iraq led to Isis, and possibly the fall of Iraq in the near future. But Biden was eager to claim Iraq one of their great successes at the start.

Too divisive and lacks the temperament to lead our nation

Hillary is the most divisive politician, next to Obama. She’s already talked about using executive power and rolling out gun control. Her economic and regulatory, environmental policies are as bad as Obama’s if not worse. Again, her support for sanctuary cities do not unite people. Her temperament has been highly questionable, while her distrust and dishonesty ratings are through the roof even among Democrats. A fickle leader.

Nation at risk

Our nation was never at greater risk than under Hillary’s tenure at State and in Obama’s administration. Now her advocacy for refugees and lack of concern for our border are two of the greatest risks. Then there is the budget and spending which also creates giant risk, as it did with Obama. So we already are a nation at great risk. (er greatest)

I think Hillary mitigates virtually any perceived risk of a Trump administration.

RightRing | Bullright

Live from DC …. it’s press briefing!

Now for a Ha ha — Hilarious moment:

The White House was asked Thursday how it feels about the uranium story and Clinton’s approval of the deal.

According to Washington Times, Josh Earnest responded (apparently with a straight face)

“At this point, there has not been any evidence presented that would prompt the president or anybody at the White House to be unsettled by Secretary Clinton’s conduct as secretary of state,” said Mr. Earnest. “In fact, everyone here at the White House, including the president, continues to be very proud of her service to this country.” (More)

No problem! Now that I have my laugh for today, we’ll see if this love affair lasts. Josh said his lines just as well as John Podesta, or any of the other Clintonites said them. Excellent delivery, Earnest. Of course the evidence along with Clinton’s server are probably somewhere in the Mariana Trench.

What’s their definition of “service to this country”?
Is that anything like Bergdahl serving “with honor and distinction”?

Democrats’ band of Boogeymen

Gas Attack

Column: How Democratic donors benefit financially from climate policy
BY: Matthew Continetti | Free Beacon
March 21, 2014

Some lies just won’t go away. In February the Washington Post published an article with the following headline: “Why There’s No Democratic Version of the Koch Brothers’ Organization.” It was the umpteenth attempt to explain, in a particularly simplistic manner, how the millionaires and billionaires who donate money to the Democratic Party are nothing, absolutely nothing, like those meanie cancer research philanthropists Charles and David Koch.

The author, Reid Wilson, interviewed “Democratic strategists who deal frequently with high-dollar donors,” and these Democratic strategists told him, strategically, that their high-dollar donors are better than Republican ones. “For the Koch brothers, electing the right candidate can mean a financial windfall,” Wilson wrote. “Democratic donors revolve more around social issues.” On the one hand you have petty, greedy rich men, and on the other you have committed liberals willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. The morality play writes itself.

Now, these liberals are not totally selfless, Wilson cautions. They are human beings; they have egos; they seek affirmation. “Donors like being recognized for their philanthropic gestures.” Hedge-fund billionaire and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer, for example, “cooperated with the New Yorker when it wrote a profile of him last year.” Charles and David Koch, though, “didn’t cooperate when the magazine took a look at their political activities,” presumably because “no one needs to send the message that the better-known Koch brothers are there for Republican candidates.” So that’s why the Kochs didn’t talk to Jane Mayer.

Does Reid Wilson believe in Santa Claus? His willingness to suspend disbelief when confronted with the image of a mythic creature—the un-self-interested liberal—suggests as much. The words “labor” and “union” appear nowhere in his article, despite the fact that unions are 6 of the 10 top all-time donors recently compiled by OpenSecrets.org, despite the fact that unions spent some $4.4 billion on politics between 2005 and 2011. (Incidentally, every member of the OpenSecrets.org top ten either leaned Democratic or split money evenly between the two parties. The Democrats are not hurting for money.) [A lot to ignore there]

Unions, their leadership, and their staff see political giving as “an investment,” any non-cross-eyed observer of the political scene would agree, with donations laundered back to the SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, UAW, and others in the form of generous and unsustainable pensions, wage laws benefiting closed shops over free labor, government-mandated dues and contracts, and job protections that make it difficult even for child predators to be fired from schools. That’s an ROI the hosts of the Shark Tank would envy.

Nor did Wilson see fit to mention trial lawyers and other attorneys, whose giving disproportionately favors the Democratic Party, and who are repaid for their donations with opposition to tort reform, and with increased regulations that amount to permanent employment programs for attorneys practicing regulatory, tax, M&A, antitrust, and campaign finance law. But perhaps lawyers don’t figure in Wilson’s calculus. We all know how altruistic and big-hearted they are.

“The coordination between big donors that the Koch network so ably facilitates just doesn’t exist on the Democratic side,” Wilson writes. His Democratic sources must not have been invited to the recent meetings of the Democracy Alliance, the secret organization of liberal donors that coordinates giving and builds campaign infrastructure. His sources must not be members of the Democracy Initiative, a vast coalition of liberal interest groups that meets to plan strategy, or of the Campaign for America’s Future. His sources must never have contributed to the online donation clearinghouse Act Blue. Of all of the thousands of Democratic strategists circling the D.C. waters for prey, Wilson seems to have spoken to the poorest and least connected ones available.

I thought of Wilson’s puerile article this week, as I read remarks by White House adviser John Podesta. The day before Podesta’s interview with a roundtable of journalists, several environmental groups had written to the president, urging him not to lift export bans on American liquid natural gas (LNG). Podesta dismissed the environmentalists’ request.

“If you oppose all fossil fuels and you want to turn that switch off tomorrow, that is a completely impractical way of moving toward a clean-energy future,” he said, defending the use of natural gas. The greens are “impractical.” LNG is the best available alternative to coal-fired power plants, which the White House and EPA want to shut down. “I think we remain committed to developing the resource and using it, and we think there’s an advantage, particularly in the electricity generation sector, to move it forward.”

For the Politico reporter who transcribed Podesta’s remarks, the former lobbyist, Clinton chief of staff, and president of the Center for American Progress was not “afraid to part ways with his former compatriots to make the case for the president’s climate agenda, a topic he said he spends about half his time working on.” (How does he spend the other half?) In fact the comments were nothing new. Podesta has long supported natural gas.

He’s not alone. His 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed making the case for natural gas was coauthored with Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire who is quickly becoming one of the most powerful men in the Democratic Party. Steyer is known mainly for his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, and for his recent pledge to raise and spend $100 million on behalf of Democrats in this year’s elections. According to Reid Wilson, liberal donors such as Steyer “aren’t going to realize a profit if their chosen candidates win.” This is not true.

Steyer pledged to remove himself from the operations of his hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, in the waning days of 2012, when he was being considered as a possible secretary of Energy in the second Obama administration. But he remains an “outside limited partner” with the firm, and the “bulk” of his billion-dollar fortune is parked there. As of 2012, when Steyer was supporting Democrats, donating millions to Podesta’s Center for American Progress, and otherwise championing natural gas over other forms of energy, Farallon held more than $7 million in shares of gas technology company Fuel Systems Solutions. He was making plenty of money from the Obama administration’s championing of natural gas.

As of the end of 2013, Farallon also held close to $40 million in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone Pipeline. When Farallon’s position in Kinder Morgan was exposed last summer—after the Keystone debate had been raging for years—Steyer pledged to sell his share of the stock and donate the profits to charity. Last September, it was revealed that Steyer had backed a UT study on hydraulic fracturing, which showed that the process does not result in dangerous methane emissions. As far as I can determine, Steyer remains an adviser to and backer of EFW Partners, a “global investor in the basic resources critical for economic growth: energy, food, and water.” I wonder whether EFW is short or long on LNG.

Just as Politico was publishing its write-up of Podesta’s defense of natural gas, George Soros, another ultraliberal billionaire hedge-fund manager, was increasing his stake in oil and gas company Penn Virginia Corporation. Shares of Penn Virginia spiked on the news that Soros’s fund would take a more active role in restructuring the company, which extracts both shale oil and natural gas. Soros of course is one of the most famous Democratic donors in the world, an architect of the Democracy Alliance, a founder of the Center for American Progress, and a backer of Priorities USA, the Obama Super PAC that, under the leadership of Democratic empire-builder Jim Messina, is shifting its allegiance to Hillary Clinton. George Soros’s net worth is some $23 billion. And we are supposed to pretend that he is not benefiting financially from the energy policies of the Democrats he puts into office.

Pretense and make-believe are thick in the air in Barack Obama’s Washington, where one’s alignment with the regnant values and priorities—one’s allegiance to, or at the very least one’s acquiescence in, the programs of the environmental lobby, the union lobby, the abortion lobby—acts as a sort of baptism, cleansing the ethical and intellectual impurities associated with conservatism, and elevating one to a higher stage of moral development, of righteousness, to a place of clean living and pure intentions where one’s motivations must not be questioned. If only we could capture and export Washington’s emissions of self-deception and gullibility, of media naïveté and partisanship, of the hot air we produce as we convince ourselves that all parties are equal but some parties are more equal than others. That would be a true energy revolution, a genuine “financial windfall.” *

Its hard for me to believe that Democrats or their media water carriers can even expect to be taken seriously on this, especially on organization and networking which they pride themselves on. If you want the hypocrisy angle, there it is in 3D. Just mentioning the list of exhaustive connections takes an awful lot of ink. But then who would deny it? (they call the right deniers)

Look at all the things Sorros has been connected to including Air America, that leftist radio mouthpiece. Or look at media matters and all the interconnected progressive operatives, just as that whole ‘shadow government’ network installed after Clinton left office. Then to say there is no equivalent to the Koch brothers? Surely you jest. But when the Democrats read such postured tripe, they take it as fact. Then it is merely repeated — the debate is over — through their vast echo chamber of mouthpieces. (Aka. daily mentions)

Why there’s no Democratic version of the Koch brothers organization –WaPo

But for the Democratic professionals who actually run campaigns, the thing that frustrates them most about the Koch brothers network is that there’s no real equivalent on their side.

There are, to be sure, groups of Democratic donors who raise big bucks just like Republicans — the Majority PAC, the House Majority PAC, EMILY’s List, the Democracy Alliance. There are just as many individual Democratic donors who cut seven-figure checks, and who become boogeymen for Republicans, from Tim Gill to Tom Steyer to George Soros. But the coordination between big donors that the Koch network so ably facilitates just doesn’t exist on the Democratic side.

Its the old tactic: accuse others of what you yourself are doing. They are very practiced at it. They thought that just mentioning a few of the well-known operators on the left, and dismissing interconnections, would mitigate what is really their central strategy.

Congratulations to Matthew Continetti for connecting the dots.

RightRing | Bullright