web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "2016"

Watch James Clapper Squirm On Live TV As He Finds Out He’s a Target of the Barr-Durham Criminal Investigation

Westlake Legal Group ap-james-clapper-620x380 Watch James Clapper Squirm On Live TV As He Finds Out He’s a Target of the Barr-Durham Criminal Investigation uh Stumbles Russia Investigation Politics Mumbles john durham James Clapper Front Page Stories Front Page FISA Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats Criminal Investigation CNN cia bill barr Anderson Cooper Allow Media Exception ag 2016

Director of National Intelligence nominee James Clapper testifies during the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on his nomination on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 20, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

A little Saturday discomfort for you.

James Clapper, who is a paid shill over at CNN now, was brought on to his own network by Anderson Cooper to comment on an investigation he’s the target off. If you think that probably doesn’t match up with journalistic ethics, you are probably right. But this is the same network that brought on Andrew McCabe the same day to talk about this topic without even disclosing he’s suing the DOJ and is also a target. So ethics aren’t much of a thing over there.

Cooper starts to toss softballs at Clapper and he becomes visibly shaken, saying he doesn’t understand why he’s under investigation. For context, Clapper had only found out about the criminal investigation 20 minutes prior to this hit.

The eyes are darting, he’s stumbling over his words. “Uh, uh, uh” can be heard multiple times. This is a guy who’s not comfortable in his own skin right now. I can imagine I wouldn’t feel too chipper commenting on national TV about the DOJ investigating me as well.

Let me point a few things out.

One, the idea that this investigation is politically timed is nonsense. Clapper makes that assertion and Cooper offers zero push back because of course he doesn’t. The reality is that the Durham investigation started long before impeachment fever 2019. And the escalation to a criminal investigation follows the finishing of a years in the making IG report, not the impeachment inquiry. If anything, the timing of the whistle-blower and Schiff’s circus seem far more politically timed than the investigations that predate it.

Two, Clapper knows exactly why he’s under investigation. He has always been suspected of leaking the classified briefing given to Donald Trump on the Steele dossier to CNN. I wrote an entire piece several months ago about Jake Tapper’s denials not adding up on the matter. There are some serious questions and inconsistencies there. There’s also the fact that Clapper probably lied about his knowledge of the investigation. The idea that he didn’t even know it existed prior to Trump taking office doesn’t begin to pass the smell test. We have texts from Peter Stzok and Lisa Page saying that everything was being run from the White House. Clapper was the ODNI in that administration. He knew.

CNN continues to be a joke by employing Clapper as an unbiased analyst, but that’s not surprise to anyone. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying seeing these guys squirm a bit now that the shoe is on the other foot.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Watch James Clapper Squirm On Live TV As He Finds Out He’s a Target of the Barr-Durham Criminal Investigation appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-300x165 Watch James Clapper Squirm On Live TV As He Finds Out He’s a Target of the Barr-Durham Criminal Investigation uh Stumbles Russia Investigation Politics Mumbles john durham James Clapper Front Page Stories Front Page FISA Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats Criminal Investigation CNN cia bill barr Anderson Cooper Allow Media Exception ag 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children

Westlake Legal Group HillaryClintonAPimage-620x317 Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children Uncategorized Hillary Clinton hacking Government Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story fake news democrats David Plouffe Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2016

Hillary Clinton speaks during the TIME 100 Summit, in New York, Tuesday, April 23, 2019. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

 

 

I don’t recall any other presidential election where the loser continued on for months and months and months claiming to not really have lost.

The reason I don’t remember could be that my memory is bad or that I’m not old enough. Another possible culprit: The fact that it would be incredibly foolish to do so, so no one does.

Hillary Clinton went her own way.

And she’s still going. Only one year away from the end of the term, she’s still expending time, effort, and the energy of her thoughts on her loss. What she doesn’t seem to understand is it only means she’s continuing to lose: Rather than doing something new and winning, she’s stuck failing in the past.

And I mean that, not critically, but empathetically.

It’s tough to watch.

And speaking of winceworthiness, Hillary recently sat down on the Campaign HQ with David Plouffe podcast to push out more explanation as to why she’s not president, none of which will likely ever be “America voted.”

And a really big one topped the pile.

As it turns out, a reason she was robbed of her rightful place at the head of the nation’s table was stinking kids.

Ten-year-olds, to be exact.

They’ve been hacking our elections.

And, apparently, fourth graders are big Trump supporters.

#ItTakesAVillain

Here’s Hil:

“You know, we don’t really know to what extent the election was interfered in because nobody will look for it. We do know that in Florida a lot more happened than has been admitted publicly.”

And on we go…

“We know we’re really vulnerable.”

Get ready for it…

“Every, you know, every Hackathon that happens, you know, 10-year-olds are hacking our voting systems and the networks that connect them.”

And the federal government likes all the elections being stolen:

“So we have four big problems, and we don’t have a government that is interested in protecting our elections.”

Well there ya go.

Oh, I just thought of this — if you want to know if that’s actually true, it ain’t.

The Daily Wire explains:

Clinton’s claim comes from an August 2018 story about a Florida hacking competition, during which a [11-year-old] boy hacked into a replica election system. The story was widely shared in the media as evidence of America’s vulnerability to hackers.

However, even Politifact rated the vote hacking claim “mostly false” after Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard repeated a similar claim over the summer.

Here’s Politifact:

First, there wasn’t hacking into a replica of the election system — but rather a website made to look like Florida’s Secretary of State website that reports preliminary election results. In other words, not the system that receives and counts actual votes.

And second, what was hacked into was not even a replica — as in an exact copy of the website — because it did not contain the proprietary security features that the Secretary of State website has.

Furthermore, this statement came from Florida’s National Association of Secretaries of State:

“While it is undeniable websites are vulnerable to hackers, election-night reporting websites are only used to publish preliminary, unofficial results for the public and the media. The sites are not connected to vote counting equipment and could never change actual election results.”

But if you’re prone to conspiracy subscription, and if Hillary’s loss is really stuck in your craw, then you should take action.

The little mongrels are probably holing up with swiped Macbooks, unbeknownst to mom or dad. They’re so small at that age — maybe they’re hiding in the cabinet while they steal all the elections.

Trump’s evil must’ve lured them away from their parents. We’ve got to shout down the devil.

If you wanna make a difference, the next time you see a decade-old dude or chick — at a restaurant, at a school, at the mall, at church, or anywhere else, confront that little deplorable.

And give ’em a little bit o’ What For.

And tell ’em Maxine sent ya:



-ALEX

 

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group HillaryClintonAPimage-300x153 Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children Uncategorized Hillary Clinton hacking Government Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story fake news democrats David Plouffe Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mick Mulvaney: Yeah, we withheld Ukraine’s military aid in part to pressure them to investigate the DNC server. Get over it.

Westlake Legal Group m-3 Mick Mulvaney: Yeah, we withheld Ukraine’s military aid in part to pressure them to investigate the DNC server. Get over it. Ukraine The Blog sondland quid pro quo mulvaney military aid CrowdStrike biden 2016

That was one of three reasons he gave for holding back the aid, the other two being Trump’s suspicion that Ukraine would spend it corruptly and his disgruntlement that Europe wasn’t matching America’s generosity. Notably, he doesn’t mention the Burisma/Biden investigation as a motive. But he does freely admit that the CrowdStrike server that Trump mentioned in his July call with Zelensky was part of the calculus too: “Did [President Trump] also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely—no question about that. That’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.”

So … you’re admitting there was a quid pro quo involving the aid and one of the president’s political hobbyhorses, asks Jonathan Karl? Yeah, says Mulvaney, that’s how politics works. Politics influences foreign policy too. Get over it.

Adam Schiff wants to hear more:

The White House will respond that Mulvaney never claimed that aid was withheld to force an investigation into the Bidens, even though that subject was important enough to Trump that he raised it himself right after mentioning CrowdStrike during his phone chat with Zelensky. And that’s what the impeachment inquiry was supposed to be about, right? It’s about the Bidens. Was the president using the leverage he enjoyed as commander-in-chief to benefit himself *personally* by damaging a political rival whom he might face in next year’s election?

Well, no, Democrats will say, the inquiry is about whether Trump was trying to damage his political rivals generally. Pushing for dirt about the DNC server falls under that heading. But beyond that, the more Trump aides admit that there was *some* sort of quid pro quo with Ukraine, the harder it is to believe that the quid pro quo didn’t include the Burisma matter too — even if Mick Mulvaney was never personally informed of it by the president. Remember, Ron Johnson claims that Gordon Sondland told him personally that there was a quid pro quo in the works with Ukraine; a few days ago, a source told WaPo that Sondland believes the deal involved an official White House visit for Zelensky in return for a statement by Zelensky that Ukraine is committed to investigating corruption, specifically naming Burisma. (That statement was ultimately never issued.) Now we have Mulvaney acknowledging that there was a separate quid pro quo involving military aid for Ukraine in return for information on the CrowdStrike server.

How likely is it, Dems will say, that a president who approached Ukraine in such starkly transactional terms *didn’t* approach the Biden/Burisma matter that way? He cared about it enough to mention it to Zelensky, and he was willing to play hardball with Ukraine to get what he wanted on other matters according to Sondland and Mulvaney. And yet, if you believe the White House, somehow there was a bright red line in his quid pro quo relationship with Ukraine that prevented him from using any official leverage to force their hand on Biden. How plausible is that?

The White House reportedly recognizes, even if Mick Mulvaney does not, that any admission involving a quid pro quo and Ukraine is “unhelpful”:

Even if Dems can’t connect the suspension of military aid to Biden/Burisma, there’s an argument that what Mulvaney admitted to is also improper. He’s right that foreign policy routinely involves leverage plays by the U.S. government, up to and including withholding U.S. aid if a country doesn’t do something we want (that’s what’s Joe Biden did when he warned Ukraine to fire its corrupt prosecutor, right?). The question is whether that leverage is being used to advance a national interest or a personal interest of the president. Is the investigation into the CrowdStrike server a national interest? Well, sure, in theory; it has to do with the 2016 election, right? The problem is that the CrowdStrike thing is a conspiracy theory which even respected former Trump natsec advisors like Tom Bossert regard as crankery. It’s probably not a line of inquiry in any of the DOJ investigations into 2016 and the origins of the Russiagate probe either:

No one within the government except Trump himself seems to view the debunked CrowdStrike matter as being of interest. But if Trump got Ukraine to look into it, he could use the fact that a probe exists on the trail next fall. “Ukraine is investigating the server! You wouldn’t believe the things they’re finding! They’re going to prove that the Russia witch hunt was a hoax from day one!” That’s of personal interest, even if it’s so far-fetched that it’s of no interest to the DOJ.

One other point to ponder about the national interest/personal interest distinction, which may be important in a Senate trial. As Philip Klein notes, Rudy Giuliani has conflated those two himself and once even seemed to suggest that Trump’s personal interest was the key motive in all this. “I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it,” he said in May of Ukraine’s investigations into CrowdStrike and Burisma, “because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.” Note: Helpful to his client, and only secondarily — maybe — to his government. Look at it this way: If the CrowdStrike and Burisma business were primarily matters of national interest rather than personal interest to Trump, he wouldn’t have made his crony personal lawyer Rudy his chief envoy on the matter, right? He would have let Mike Pompeo and his deputies take the lead.

Anyway. Thanks to Mulvaney, the White House is now defending the position that “we did have a quid pro quo with Ukraine and that’s just fine.” Doesn’t feel like progress.

The post Mick Mulvaney: Yeah, we withheld Ukraine’s military aid in part to pressure them to investigate the DNC server. Get over it. appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group m-3-300x159 Mick Mulvaney: Yeah, we withheld Ukraine’s military aid in part to pressure them to investigate the DNC server. Get over it. Ukraine The Blog sondland quid pro quo mulvaney military aid CrowdStrike biden 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016

Westlake Legal Group debate-number-21-e1350585992784 No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016 won republicans Politics Mitt Romney LOST Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page fight Featured Story Election donald trump democrats Barack Obama Bad Candidate Allow Media Exception 2016 2012

In the midst of the latest dust up between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, the latter of which went after the president over the current Ukraine mess, a common theme has popped up in the Trump-skeptical Republican circles.

It goes something like this: The only reason Trump won is because he faced a bad candidate and the only reason Mitt Romney lost is because he faced an unbeatable juggernaut, thereby Mitt Romney is actually a better candidate compared to Trump. The purpose of this argument is to assert that we need to go back in that direction post-Trump.

You see this come up anytime someone criticizes Romney’s performance in 2012, which Trump did earlier over the weekend. I suppose it makes certain people feel better to assert that Romney was actually the superior candidate, thereby reinforcing their biases against Trump. To be frank though, this analysis is total crap and relies on several false assumptions.

First, to say Romney would beat Hillary because she was a “uniquely terrible candidate” means we must assume Romney was not a terrible candidate himself. I’d confidently posit that he was. Romney was every anti-Republican stereotype wrapped into a perfectly punch-able package. You could not have created a candidate in a lab that more perfectly alienated blue collar workers in the the rust belt than Mitt Romney. While a certain segment of Republican finds him extremely endearing, most people did not. They found him to be a contrived, flip-flopping politician with neither an ability to connect with the average voter, nor the politics to satisfy the metropolitan elite.

Secondly, the idea that Barack Obama was an unbeatable, flawless candidate is a complete rewriting of history. In reality, his approval ratings languished in the low 40s for much of the campaign until Romney became the set alternative (again testifying to the fact that Romney just wasn’t a very good candidate). Obama was mired in a bad economy and numerous foreign policy blunders. While it’s hard to remember now, there was actually a time in 2016 where a lot of prognosticators weren’t favoring the former president to be re-elected. Was Obama a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? Sure. But did he present some insurmountable challenge for an otherwise awesome candidate in Mitt Romney? Hardly, and it’s just excuse making for Romney’s failures to pretend otherwise.

Lastly,  we constantly hear that Romney won more popular votes in 2012 than Trump did in 2016. But so what? We don’t elect people via the popular vote, as I think we all know. The map Romney would have needed to win is far more important. Could he have won the rust belt? Let’s talk about it.

This analysis is extremely flawed.  Yes, Romney managed a handful more votes in WI than Trump. You know where he didn’t come close to besting Trump though? In Ohio, in Michigan, and in Pennsylvania.

For example, Trump won OH by 7 points and over 200,000 votes. He put up nearly 300,000 more votes there than Romney did, who lost the state by 3 points. In fact, Trump won more votes in 2016 in OH than Obama did in 2012. The same story plays out in Michigan, where Trump won more total votes than Romney and won the state, whereas Romney lost it by 10 points. But would Romney have somehow pulled CO and NV instead? Highly unlikely given how blue those states were turning before 2016 even happened. Perhaps he’d have made it closer, but closer doesn’t win elections.

Here’s the biggest false assumption though. Trump didn’t win 2016 simply because Hillary was a terrible candidate in a vacuum. He won because he relentlessly went after her, pulling her down to his level and ultimately overtaking her. In short, Trump is the one who made her a terrible candidate. Would Romney have done that? Would he have brought Juanita Broadrick to a debate or pushed the email scandal to its limits? Of course he wouldn’t have. He’d of told us how he’s friends with Hillary but that he just doesn’t think she’s right for the job. We’d have gotten the same milquetoast, low energy campaign he gave us in 2012 and it’d have led to his defeat.

The point is this. Enough pretending that Trump didn’t do something special in 2016. Enough downplaying his unique ability to connect with Democrat leaning blue collar workers. Stop acting like actually fighting back is irrelevant in politics. It’s time to start recognizing the political lessons Trump has exposed, even if you don’t like him personally.

So no, despite what some conservatives are saying, Mitt Romney would not have won in 2016 and he was not a superior candidate to Trump.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Mitt-Romney-Real-MR-Please-Stand-Up-300x165 No, Mitt Romney Would Not Have Won In 2016 won republicans Politics Mitt Romney LOST Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page fight Featured Story Election donald trump democrats Barack Obama Bad Candidate Allow Media Exception 2016 2012   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary: Trump Knows He Really Lost. Joy Behar: ‘He Has Every Criminal Working for Him.’ Baghdad Bob: ‘Saddam Won!’

Westlake Legal Group AP_16222746506396-620x312 Hillary: Trump Knows He Really Lost. Joy Behar: ‘He Has Every Criminal Working for Him.’ Baghdad Bob: ‘Saddam Won!’ Uncategorized The View Television Russia putin joy behar Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news Entertainment donald trump democrats collusion Allow Media Exception 2020 2016

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, stops in to speak to workers at a campaign office for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., left, in Davie, Fla., Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

 

 

It’s a good thing I can type without seeing the screen. ‘Cause I’m wincing as I write this.

Yikes.

In my opinion, the worst thing you can do if you lose in a competition — the most effective way to humiliate yourself — is speak out against the person who beat you.

That’ll make you look:

  • immature
  • crazy

After a certain amount of time, if you’re still raging, “deranged” might be an appropriation addition to the list.

I’m not insisting those three characterizations apply in every situation, but I believe there are far less accurate guides.

Someone who apparently disagrees is Hillary Clinton, who went on The View Wednesday in order to illustrate that fact to the whole world.

Sheesh.

Last week, I covered the former First Lady ironically claiming President Trump is obsessed with her.

On the ABC talkfest, daughter Chelsea seconded that notion:

“He’s obsessed with her.”

Joy Behar concurred:

“He’s obsessed with you! Also, they’re chanting, ‘Lock her up.’ I mean, he has every criminal working for him and they’re worried about locking you up. What do you make of that?”

He has every criminal working for him??

What the $*@!?

In my view, at the national level, Democrats come across as unhealthily fixated on The Donald. They appear to be headed, therefore, toward a fate similar to the one Hillary’s still talkin’ about.

With barely a year to go before the election, there seems to be almost no attention to putting forth a superior candidate with superior ideas. Their most trumpeted efforts regard, rather, trying to undo 2016 goofily.

They’re even willing to lose Joe Biden as a candidate in order to push Ukraine in the attack against the President (here, here, and here).

The DNC is gonna be pushing at Trump for the next year, and then in November, he’s just gonna run between their legs and into the end zone.

And Hillary ain’t helpin’ ’em none.

Hit it, Hill:

“First, I do think that he knows that he’s an illegitimate president.”

The audience cheered.

“And because of that, he’s very insecure about it.”

Some would certainly say a man who sits on a golden toilet is insecure; others might assume he has an asstronomically high opinion of himself.

What do you think is the case?

Mrs. Bill Clinton didn’t really expound upon the idea; she was too busy saying she never really lost:

“Look what he’s trying to do now. Part of the Ukraine scandal that is slowly coming to light is he’s trying to figure out how to say, no, no, it wasn’t the Russians even though our intelligence community and everyone who has looked at this said yeah, it was the Russians. He’s trying to say no, somehow it was Obama, Hillary, whoever. So he’s obsessed with the fact that he was helped a lot in unprecedented ways.”

Still wincing.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Coocoo Coup: Elizabeth Warren Growls Impeachment – Of Kavanaugh, Too. But Craziness Won’t Make Her President

Men Are Dangerously Brutalizing Women In Rugby As Teams Are ‘Forced To Prioritize H

Woman’s Boyfriend Shoots Her In The Head, But She Forgets For Almost Two Months So They Keep Dating

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Hillary: Trump Knows He Really Lost. Joy Behar: ‘He Has Every Criminal Working for Him.’ Baghdad Bob: ‘Saddam Won!’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_16222746506396-300x151 Hillary: Trump Knows He Really Lost. Joy Behar: ‘He Has Every Criminal Working for Him.’ Baghdad Bob: ‘Saddam Won!’ Uncategorized The View Television Russia putin joy behar Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news Entertainment donald trump democrats collusion Allow Media Exception 2020 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary: Trump is obsessed with me because he has a guilty conscience over 2016

Westlake Legal Group hc Hillary: Trump is obsessed with me because he has a guilty conscience over 2016 Trump The Blog impeachment illegitimate Hillary Clinton democrats 2016

Via the Free Beacon, this reminds me of Anthony Scaramucci claiming that Trump secretly has poor self-esteem and is forever overcompensating for it.

Are we watching the same person?

He doesn’t privately fear that he’s an illegitimate president or harbor a “guilty conscience” that he won unfairly. He fears, and resents, that other people view him that way. To the extent that he remains focused on Hillary (he mentions Obama much more often than her, no?), it’s partly a product of that resentment and partly because she was such a useful foil for him in 2016. The one Democrat in the country whom we know for a fact he can beat in an election is Clinton. The whole point of the outreach to Ukraine about Joe Biden was to try to rerun the 2016 playbook against him if he made it to the general election — just like Hillary, he’s another swamp-dwelling Washington mainstay who landed a top job in the Obama administration and used his influence to benefit himself and his own. Hillary’s campaign received help from Ukrainian officials too, which explains why Trump continues to entertain the conspiracy theory involving CrowdStrike and the DNC server. At a moment when he’s not polling well head to head against any top Democrat, anything POTUS and his team can do to keep an unpopular figure like Clinton front and center is good for him.

How nice of her to lend him a hand with this latest media tour! And with buzzworthy social-media shots like this:

A tantalizing thought from Jacob Heilbrunn: Could Trump’s impeachment jam encourage her to jump into the race? My money’s on “no, no one is so lucky that they’d get to face Hillary Clinton twice,” but keep hope alive:

Clinton’s aggrievement about the 2016 election should hardly come as a surprise. The belief that the election would be rigged was originally floated by Trump, but after he triumphed it was suddenly embraced by Democrats. The inconclusive Mueller Report was supposed to represent an extensive attempt to get to the bottom of the controversies swirling around the election and Russian influence, but only ended up heightening partisan polarization.

Now it’s difficult not to wonder if Clinton is pining for another go at Trump to try and prove that she has what it takes to oust him from the Oval Office. The conventional wisdom is that Biden is too old to make a real run for it and that Elizabeth Warren is too left-wing. Wall Street hates her as much as she hates it. By contrast, Hillary comes from what used to be called the New Democrat wing of the party. Wall Street loves her as much as she loves it. If she jumped in the race now, she could argue that now more than ever Democrats need her to regain what was stolen from them in 2016. The name of her book about the race was called What Happened. Now she could declare, “It’s happening!”

She’d lose the primary in a landslide if she got in, I suspect. She’d look strong early as Biden’s voters stampeded from him to her, abandoning a candidate who’s underwhelming on his best day but now saddled with Ukraine baggage, but the name of the game in this year’s race is “electability.” Democrats aren’t rolling the dice on anyone whom they have reason to believe would underperform against Trump. And as I say, there’s only one Democrat in America whom we know for a fact is capable of doing that.

Exit question: Between Trump and Hillary, who’s more obsessed with whom? Read Miranda Devine on that subject.

The post Hillary: Trump is obsessed with me because he has a guilty conscience over 2016 appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group hc-300x159 Hillary: Trump is obsessed with me because he has a guilty conscience over 2016 Trump The Blog impeachment illegitimate Hillary Clinton democrats 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary: We should move towards impeaching this “corrupt human tornado.” Comey: No, we shouldn’t.

Westlake Legal Group c-2 Hillary: We should move towards impeaching this “corrupt human tornado.” Comey: No, we shouldn’t. zelensky Ukraine Trump The Blog james comey Hillary Clinton 2016

These two kids. Always at odds!

If you read the headline and thought, “I’m sick to death of the entire cast of characters from 2016,” bad news — we’ll be relitigating the Election Of The Damned for the rest of our miserable lives. Night and day, on and on, for decades. It’s even possible that Trump and Hillary will each live another 15 years and still be sniping at each other on Twitter or whatever hellish social-media nightmare ends up replacing that platform by 2034.

Get comfortable, is what I’m saying. This “Twilight Zone” marathon never ends.

“I’m in favor of moving toward impeachment,” [Clinton] said. “I did not come to that decision easily or quickly, but this is an emergency as I see it. … This latest behavior around Ukraine, trying to enlist the president of Ukraine in a plot to undermine former Vice President Biden or lose the military aide he needs to defend against Trump’s friend, Vladimir Putin — if that’s not an impeachable offense, I don’t know what is.”…

Calling Trump a “corrupt human tornado,” Clinton told PEOPLE it is the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings “not happily or with glee,” but in the interests of national security.

“The president of the United States is betraying our country on a daily basis,” she said, adding, “This man who is in the Oval Office right now is a clear and present danger to the future of the United States.”

You would think that the guy who may or may not have inadvertently cost her the presidency, who’s spent nearly every waking hour of the past two years pressing the case that Trump is a human wrecking ball slamming against democratic norms, would join her in wanting him out of office ASAP. Not so. James Comey was asked about the new Democratic impeachment push today and reprised a line he’s used before: American voters would be “let off the hook” if Congress intervened to cut short Trump’s presidency. The only way to undo the mistake of 2016, Comey says, is to have the people who sent him to Washington now send him home.

I’ve never understood his “let off the hook” point. It’s as if the American electorate is a naughty child that needs to sit in the corner and think about what it’s done until it’s ready to apologize. Why does he believe that a country capable of nominating and electing Trump in the first place will have some crisis of conscience about him in 2020? If Trump loses, it’ll likely be due to a combination of fatigue and his Democratic opponent this time not being quite as personally obnoxious as his last Democratic opponent. Anyone who’s casting a ballot against him on moral or ethical grounds likely already voted against him on those grounds three years ago: Say what you want about Trump, he is who voters thought he was. I don’t know why Comey’s giving the people who made him president the benefit of the doubt in implying that all of this is somehow surprising and disappointing to them.

Beyond that, if you take his point seriously that only the electorate should properly undo the mistake of the electorate, it’s a recipe for endless abuses of power by Trump. The president is a man who takes advantage of opportunities; Comey’s essentially saying that Trump shouldn’t be impeached no matter what corrupt opportunities he chooses to take advantage of. Imagine what that might look like in practice over the next 13 months. I get that his mien is “disappointed schoolteacher,” but no matter how much he might prefer to scold voters until they see the errors of their ways, there has to be *some* form of misconduct hypothetically that would properly trigger impeachment in the House. Does this Ukraine thing rise to that level? If not, what does?

He can’t really mean to imply that *nothing* would reach that level.

His point about Trumpers viewing impeachment as a “coup” is sounder, and has been made elsewhere:

The wrinkle, though, is that much of the country is likely to view a repudiation next fall at the polls that way too. Not the same number as would view impeachment as illegitimate, of course: If Trump lost decisively at the ballot box, maybe 25 percent would treat the result as some sort of scam versus the 50 percent or so who’d treat impeachment as a coup. But if the election is close, as it’s apt to be? Imagine if Trump had lost Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2016 by the same whisker-thin margins he ended up winning them by. It would be an article of faith among righties to this day, just as it’s an article of faith for many lefties, that the vote was rigged somehow. Illegal aliens voted or the Clinton machine had the numbers manipulated or what have you. Trump himself would have egged on those beliefs every day on Twitter and Fox News. And that’s what’ll happen if he loses narrowly next year — in which case how different is impeachment really from losing an election in terms of legitimacy?

In lieu of an exit question, read this short but interesting thread from David Drucker about a conversation he had with “a Republican who is measured & knowledgable.” What if Trump *and* Biden each had innocent intentions in their interactions with Ukraine?

The post Hillary: We should move towards impeaching this “corrupt human tornado.” Comey: No, we shouldn’t. appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-2-300x153 Hillary: We should move towards impeaching this “corrupt human tornado.” Comey: No, we shouldn’t. zelensky Ukraine Trump The Blog james comey Hillary Clinton 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

This Trump-Ukraine “Whistle-Blower” Story Is Ridiculous and It’s Going to Blow Up In the Media’s Face Again

Westlake Legal Group squinty-joe-biden-620x317 This Trump-Ukraine “Whistle-Blower” Story Is Ridiculous and It’s Going to Blow Up In the Media’s Face Again Ukraine right wing ridiculous republicans Politics Obama Administration media bias Joe Biden Hypocrisy hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Corruption Probe 2016

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks with reporters after a campaign stop at Lindy’s Diner in Keene N.H., Saturday, Aug. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

You want to know why conservatives hate the liberal media and have no faith in many commentators on their own side? All you have to do is look at the reactions to this stupid story.

Yesterday, a supposed “bombshell” dropped via numerous anonymous sources that the much ballyhooed “whistle-blower” complaint against Trump involved him encouraging Ukraine’s new president to continue it’s corruption investigation into Joe Biden. To this point, we actually have no specifics saying Trump promised him anything after that request and you’d be remiss to ask why it’s wrong to ask an ally to look into corruption involving U.S. citizens.

Let me quote myself responding to the most fleshed out account of what is claimed to have happened. This was posted late last night.

As per usual, the media are losing their minds. Trump was pressuring an ally to conduct an investigation! It’s unheard of and unprecedented! Who could ever do such a thing!?

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the Obama administration when they were working with UK intelligence, including using foreign assets, to target Trump in 2016? That seems like much more of a big deal given the only real allegation here is that Trump asked Ukraine to keep an already occurring corruption probe going in which we have the target on tape admitting what he did. I was assured that what happened in 2016 was above board because the Obama administration had legitimate suspicions. You know who else has legitimate suspicions? President Trump, because again, its on freaking video.

But ask yourself this. Why is the corruption Trump was asking to be probed not the actual story here? Let me refresh your memory of exactly what we are dealing with.

Yes, that’s Joe Biden, on tape admitting he threatened to withhold $1B in loan guarantees from Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor that was close to taking down the company his son worked for. Seems pretty corrupt doesn’t it? Yet, the media yawned. They didn’t care at all. It was barely reported and the “fact-checkers” rushed to deliver half-true ratings, shilling for Biden as not being aware his son was a member of the board of the company. It was all predictable.

But Trump asks Ukraine to keep looking into the issue and amazingly, the media care. Not only do they care, they want him impeached for “treason” over it. Yes, that was an actual thing said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning.

So to recap, being on video trying to extort Ukraine to protect your son is perfectly acceptable. Asking Ukraine to not drop their investigation into someone who tried to extort them to protect their son is impeachable. Does that make sense? No, it doesn’t.

And as to this “whistle-blower,” he’s not one at all.

No, what it means is that an intelligence official has no right to force declassification of presidential communications just because he disagrees with what was said. That’s not being a whistle-blower. It’s being a partisan. The constitution gives near total unanimity to the President in conducting foreign policy. That means if he wants to ask an ally to investigate corruption or risk straining cooperation, he’s entitled to do so. You can not like it and you can vote him out in 2020 in response. But the laws don’t suddenly change just because Donald Trump is president.

The hypocrisy being displayed in the mainstream reporting of this story is mind-blowing. But the hypocrisy is part of the grift.

Perhaps the only thing more frustrating though is seeing some on the right rush to Twitter to proclaim how terrible this all because that’s what a certain wing always does. And when this blows up in the media’s and their faces (again), they’ll insist it was all just an honest mistake. Rinse and repeat.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post This Trump-Ukraine “Whistle-Blower” Story Is Ridiculous and It’s Going to Blow Up In the Media’s Face Again appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-08-21-at-10.25.40-AM-300x161 This Trump-Ukraine “Whistle-Blower” Story Is Ridiculous and It’s Going to Blow Up In the Media’s Face Again Ukraine right wing ridiculous republicans Politics Obama Administration media bias Joe Biden Hypocrisy hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Corruption Probe 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google

Westlake Legal Group google-Hillary-Clinton-1067x600-620x349 Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google Social Media Robert Epstein Politics Media Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories elections Election donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2016

There’s so much evidence that Google was in the tank for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections that it’s hard to keep up with it all. As time goes on, the evidence begins to look even worse as researchers who are provenly pro-Clinton even begin to turn against her over it.

On Monday, Trump tweeted about a report that shows Google manipulated 2.6 million to 16 million votes in favor of Clinton during the election, making his victory over her even bigger. He also suggested she should be sued.

Clinton fired back by claiming that study had been “debunked.”

“The debunked study you’re referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that’s about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted,” tweeted Clinton.

Enter the study’s author and “strong” pro-Clinton supporter, psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, who wasn’t exactly keen on Clinton telling the world that his study is illegitimate.

Epstein began his own Twitter response by correcting Trump’s assertion that the study said Google was intentionally manipulating search results, but then turned his sights toward Clinton, saying it hurts him to do it but Clinton should be ashamed of herself.

Epstein noted that Clinton relied on Google for “money & votes” with the largest donor being Alphabet/Google. He also noted that people associated with Google offered to run her tech campaign and even created companies for the sole purpose of putting Clinton in office. What’s more, nearly all Google employees at the time donated to Clinton’s campaign.

Now, switching to Hillary Clinton: This is going to hurt me to write, because I & my whole extended family have been strong supporters of the Clintons for decades. I have a framed, signed letter from Bill on the wall near my desk. But Hillary should be ashamed of herself.

Hillary has long depended on Google for both money & votes. Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google. Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec. And then there’s Eric Schmidt, longtime head of Google …

A leaked email showed that in 2014 Google’s Eric Schmidt offered to run Hillary’s tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office.

About 96% of 2016 campaign donations from Google employees went to Hillary. And Elan Kriegel, Hillary’s Chief Analytics Officer, credits his 2012 tech team, informally supervised by Eric Schmidt, for half of Obama’s win margin: nearly 2.5 million votes.

After all these blows to Clinton, Epstein’s finisher came in the form of asking Clinton why his work is being quoted by prestigious venues across the globe if it’s been so debunked.

Somebody get Clinton a rag to wipe all that egg off her face.

Stories consistently emerged even before the elections that there were clues to Google rigging results in favor of Clinton, beginning with a video that went viral that showed Google’s search results offering positive results about Clinton, even when negative things were typed in.

There were also stories behind the scenes with suggested claims from YouTube personality Phillip DeFranco that he wasn’t included in that year’s YouTube rewind after refusing to make a pro-Clinton video via his channel for Google.

The post Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group google-Hillary-Clinton-1067x600-300x169 Hillary Clinton Gets Schooled by Pro-Clinton Author After She Denied Getting Election Help from Google Social Media Robert Epstein Politics Media Internet Hillary Clinton Google Front Page Stories elections Election donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Reminder: These Same “Journalists” Covering 2020 Were Coordinating With Hillary Clinton In 2016

Westlake Legal Group media-bias-620x348 Reminder: These Same “Journalists” Covering 2020 Were Coordinating With Hillary Clinton In 2016 The New York Times secret Politics Not Credible MSNBC media bias maggie haberman john harwood Hillary Clinton Glenn Thrush Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats coordination CNN 2020 2016

As the race for 2020 begins to heat up a little bit more every day, it’s worth remembering just who the people are that are shaping the coverage of our upcoming election.

Who can forget the picture of Andrea Mitchell and company smiling in delight at the mere sight of Hillary Clinton on her campaign plane? Whether they realized it at the time or not, that shot was destined to become a microcosm of just how biased the media had become. Things went far beyond just fawning photos though. As we’d later find out, a laundry list of “journalists” were directly coordinating with the Hillary Clinton campaign in an effort to beat Donald Trump.

James Hasson provides a great reminder in a recent thread of just how pervasive these relationships were between the press and Clinton.

Let’s also note that Thrush got caught up in a #metoo scandal as well. But because no one in media is every allowed to actually fail on their merits, Thrush is now back at The New York Times. Being a liberal forgives all sins in the world of the mainstream media.

What you’ll note about all of these people is that they were never punished. At no point did their publications apologize for their unethical behavior. In fact, many of them ended up with promotions in the coming years. Maggie Haberman still spouts off as if she’s a moral authority and principled journalist. John Harwood is as dishonest as ever. Glenn Thrush was temporarily sidelined over sexual harassment claims, but he’s already back in the club less than a year later.

Here’s the other thing though. While the media and the Democrats were never going to hold themselves accountable, you’d have thought the Republican party would react differently to preserve their own self interests. Instead, we’ve seen no real change in the dynamics at play. The networks and papers these people worked for still enjoy access as if nothing ever happened. The GOP still gives them interviews, invites them to conventions, and Donald Trump is still giving Maggie Haberman quotes. Notice the contrast between that and how the DNC reacted the moment they saw an opportunity to shun Fox News and ban them from hosting debates.

There’s no accountability within the halls of American journalism. There’s only narratives and if you are willing to push said narrative, you can get away with just about anything. Right now, Don Lemon is currently being sued for assault and there’s even an eye witness corroborating the accusation. Has CNN pulled him off the air, even as they’ve previously pushed far less credible allegations against Republicans? Of course not. Rules for thee but not for me might as well be their motto.

In the end, the same people who betrayed their journalist integrity in 2016 and beyond are shaping coverage of 2020. These people deserve no assumption of credibility. On the contrary, you should expect their bias and underhanded behavior to escalate to a far higher level than the previous presidential election. Getting rid of Donald Trump has become a religious tenant to the left in this country and their stenographers in the press aren’t going to play anything straight.

Republicans are going to have to get much smarter in how they combat this stuff because things are going to get much worse over the next year.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Reminder: These Same “Journalists” Covering 2020 Were Coordinating With Hillary Clinton In 2016 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-red-AP-300x200 Reminder: These Same “Journalists” Covering 2020 Were Coordinating With Hillary Clinton In 2016 The New York Times secret Politics Not Credible MSNBC media bias maggie haberman john harwood Hillary Clinton Glenn Thrush Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats coordination CNN 2020 2016   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com