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 "Bill Clinton"

Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-pointing-harvard-620x317 Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons white people Politics media bias lynch mob lynch Jerry Nadler impeachment Hillary Clinton Harry Reid Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats CNN Bill Clinton bias Allow Media Exception

Hillary Clinton points to the audience as she is introduced at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., Friday, May 25, 2018. Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute honored Clinton with the 2018 Radcliffe Medal. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

While it’s hard to keep up with all the freak-outs constantly percolating within our media establishment, one of the latest involves Donald Trump using the term “lynch” to describe the secret impeachment investigation they are carrying out. This came as part of his frustration with the Democrats refusing to take a vote and shutting off all minority rights for Republicans, something that’s unprecedented.

My colleague streiff wrote on it earlier today. Here’s the tweet in question.

This of course led to all manner of gnashing of teeth. How could the President use such a historically charged word!

Of course, a little digging has turned up the reality that Democrats have used the term “lynch” in its various forms (lynch mob, lynching, etc.) many times. It’s pretty laughable just how prevalent their use of the word has been throughout the years. Worse, they did so specifically decrying impeachment, the very thing Trump is decrying. You can’t make this stuff up.

Check it out.

Here’s Joe Biden in all his double talking glory.

And while it wasn’t specifically on impeachment, this hilarious shot and chaser also exists for your viewing pleasure.

That’s CNN’s Brian Stelter clone fretting at the use of the word lynching to describe a Congressional proceeding. The only problem is that CNN called the Benghazi hearings…a lynching.

I think you could call this hypocrisy, right?

————————————————

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 Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-red-AP-300x200 Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons white people Politics media bias lynch mob lynch Jerry Nadler impeachment Hillary Clinton Harry Reid Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats CNN Bill Clinton bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Random Thoughts On Rep. Katie Hill And Her Thrupple

Westlake Legal Group Katie-Hill-300x141 Random Thoughts On Rep. Katie Hill And Her Thrupple white house washington D.C. TMZ Live Social Media republicans Politics Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media leaks Hollywood Harvey Levin Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats corruption Conservatives Congress comedy Campaigns California Brett Bair Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019

I was involved in a Thupple? Is that on Google?

Ahhhhhh just when you think that you have seen it all in the world of entertainment and politics, along comes a freshman Congresswoman from California and her “Thrupple” that says “I can do better, hold my hairbrush.”

Miracles truly, never do cease.

After reading the excellent work done by my colleague Jennifer Van Laar on Rep. Katie Hill D-CA and her inappropriate relationship with her staffers CA Rep. Katie Hill Allegedly Involved Female Staffer In 2-Yr ‘Throuple’ Relationship, I sat down and jotted a few random thoughts down about this story.

Here they are…

*According to Jenn’s story, Katie Hill was married for 15 years and had a female staffer that she and the hubby were involved with.

Photographs and text messages obtained by RedState show that Rep. Hill was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer. The woman, whose name is not being released, was hired by Hill in late 2017 and quickly became involved in a “throuple” relationship with Hill and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep.

Heslep and the staffer, according to text messages provided to RedState, believed the polyamorous arrangement to be a long-term, committed relationship. The trio took multiple vacations together, including to Alaska, where this photograph was taken.

So Katie and the hubby start off as a couple and then bring the third girl into the mix. So this part I understand being I watch HBO shows based in California and have seen crazier things. However, being I am not steeped in the rules for “Thrupples” my first questions are these.

Now that Hill has jumped ship to her finance director, do the hubby and the female staffer continue on? Do they find a third wheel to replace Hill? Do they maybe include the finance director and would that be a quadruple?

I’m a newbie and I have questions people.

* In this EXCLUSIVE photo (listed below) from Jenn’s article, it is shown that Rep. Hill is naked while brushing the third wheels hair while sitting on a chair in what looks to be a hotel room.

My question and or thought here is, did anyone alert housekeeping that the cushion NEEDED TO BE CLEANED? Having congresspersons bare A$$ on a cushion in a hotel room that the next patron uses also when it was not cleaned is GROSS.

When did the Thrupple community become such savages?

Click to view image — Warning: Explicit Image

 

*When does this story become a Jeopardy question?

Question: This Freshman Congresswoman from California was married to a guy but they both had the same girlfriend and were alleged to be in a what?

Answer: What is a THRUPPLE Alex!

*When are any of the mainstream media or entertainment outlets going to pick up this excellent reporting by Jenn?

Here we have a story about an allegation of clear abuse of power. You are not supposed to be playing any type of intimate relations game with people that WORK FOR YOU ( on the taxpayers’ dime ) when you are an elected official. This is about as unethical as it gets.

How has this tale about Thrupple sex and a clear abuse of power not made Special Report With Bret Baier or even TMZ for cripes sake? Cmon Harvey, you’re better than this. I have been looking forward to you and Charles covering this for TMZ Live and then watch you shake your head while looking at the ground like you do when you’re flabbergasted.

I’m sure if it were a Republican this would be getting the same treatment of nonchalant yawns from the mainstream media. I’m sorry, I couldn’t even type that without laughing aloud.

Once again, great work by my colleague Jennifer Van Laar on this. She has been doxxed and threatened over this, which I don’t understand why. She introduced a new word to all of us non-heathens and heathens alike and you should be thankful, not ticked off.

Check out all of Jenn’s work RIGHT HERE

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Random Thoughts On Rep. Katie Hill And Her Thrupple appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Katie-Hill-300x141 Random Thoughts On Rep. Katie Hill And Her Thrupple white house washington D.C. TMZ Live Social Media republicans Politics Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media leaks Hollywood Harvey Levin Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats corruption Conservatives Congress comedy Campaigns California Brett Bair Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did Hillary Just Chicken Out Of An Event In D.C. With Tulsi Gabbard?

Westlake Legal Group Hillary-Oct.-28-300x200 Did Hillary Just Chicken Out Of An Event In D.C. With Tulsi Gabbard? white house washington D.C. Social Media Russia putin progressives kamala harris It Is Okay To Laugh Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post fake news Entertainment elections donald trump democrats Culture comedy Climate Campaigns Bill Clinton biden Bernie Sanders Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

Ahh, poor Hillary. Seems that the former star to be in the Democratic party has taken so much flack from her latest boof up ( that didn’t have anything to do with Bill) she is feeling a bit off. A week in advance.

Hillary, of course, landed in some hot water last week when she said on a podcast that she thought that Tulsi Gabbard and Clinton’s 2016 opponent, Jill Stein, were propped up by the Russians. That didn’t sit well with both ladies and they let Hilly have it on twitter and in standalone interviews.

Well, this coming Friday, Hillary had the chance to hit the reset button on this at a women’s forum on something and something else and she decided to cancel. Maybe because Tulsi was also going to be there?

According to the New York Post

A face-to-face confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard set for next Friday was averted when Clinton backed out of the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington, DC.

Clinton aides cited a scheduling conflict when she announced her withdrawal from a speaking slot at the annual event. One insider told Slate that Clinton dropped out to protest the inclusion of former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson on the schedule.

But Gabbard is on the bill, too — and Clinton’s pull-out came just hours after the former Secretary of State on Friday accused the Hawaii Democrat of being the “favorite of the Russians” on a podcast.

Oh, snap.

She had a prior engagement? Like what, getting her crying towel from 2016 dry cleaned? Have the house staff do it for cripes sake.

Contrary to what some people on the interwebs are speculating this is the end of Hillary. She is not secretly propping up Tulsi for a Hillary/Gabbard 2020 ticket. She is not going to try and hijack the party nomination from the sleepy former V.P. and the faux Indian. She is not secretly plotting anything at least in regard to the dumb comment she made.

This was not a strategy but stupidity. All politicians open their mouths a bit too wide sometimes. That is all this is. I will admit to being surprised that she made this error but just like athletes, politicians can get past their prime and need to go away from the game.

Will Bill & Hill still try to influence things from behind the scenes? Sure.

However, they are not the favorite former first couple right now. Democrats much prefer Barrack Obama and Michelle to anything to do with the Clintons. That “Evening with Bill And Hillary” was a pure disaster traveling the country with lousy ticket sales. They couldn’t fill those venues with people if they paid them which they practically had to do.

No one is going to listen to a two-time loser on the national stage tell ya how to get things done.

All Hillary did here gave some more free press to Gabbard and so far she has capitalized on it. She is not going to be on the national ticket though so she will have a really fun experience to recall when all this is said and done.

So chill out Clinton conspiracy buffs, you still have the Jeffery Epstein thing to chase.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Did Hillary Just Chicken Out Of An Event In D.C. With Tulsi Gabbard? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Hillary-Oct.-28-300x200 Did Hillary Just Chicken Out Of An Event In D.C. With Tulsi Gabbard? white house washington D.C. Social Media Russia putin progressives kamala harris It Is Okay To Laugh Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Featured Story Featured Post fake news Entertainment elections donald trump democrats Culture comedy Climate Campaigns Bill Clinton biden Bernie Sanders Barack Obama Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Alan Dershowitz BLASTS The Democrats Impeachment Theory

Westlake Legal Group ali-velshi-impeachment-SCREENSHOT-300x174 Alan Dershowitz BLASTS The Democrats Impeachment Theory white house washington D.C. The Hill Social Media republicans New House investigations of Trump Morning Briefing Mitch McConnell Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump corruption Conservatives Congress communism comedy collusion Campaigns Bill Clinton biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

Occasionally you can come across someone who is a traditional liberal that you might not agree on social constructs with but does stay consistent on issues like impeachment. Professor Alan Dershowitz is one of these people in my opinion.

Dershowitz has been on occasion one of Donald Trump’s defenders in the media. He was one of the voices saying slow down on the rush to condemn on the Russia probe. His overall point was that even those that were on Trump’s orbit at one point were indicted on things, none of the indictments ever involved the reason for the investigation. Prof. Dershowitz was right on that.

He also opposed impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998 on the evidence the Congress had than.

Now he is urging caution on the Democrats rushing to impeach based on what we have seen publicly so far.

Just as a refresher, Alan Dershowitz is a lifelong Democrat and voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

In an opinion piece, Dershowitz wrote for The Hill

Many Democrats, including some constitutional law professors, now argue that President Trump can be impeached without evidence of high criminal acts. Some took the opposite view when President Clinton was being impeached. Hypocrisy aside, there are good historical reasons why the impeachment approach of the Democrats is wrong.

During the debates over the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, two differing views of our structure of government were presented. Some Framers argued that a president should be subject to removal by the legislature if he engaged in malfeasance of office or other comparable noncriminal misconduct. The other Framers took the view that giving the legislature such broad authority to remove a president would turn our country into the kind of parliamentary democracy that existed in England, rather than a republic with a strong executive branch.

That is why every advocate of impeachment should pass the “shoe on the other foot” test. Would you support impeachment against a president of your own party if she or he were accused of this conduct? Unless the answer to that question is yes, it would be unprincipled to engage in this process of impeachment taking place on Capitol Hill.

The very notion that with what has been released so far is enough to impeach is nonsensical. Dershowitz in the article correctly points out impeachment is a political process, not necessarily a legal one and should be taken up very carefully. That the Democrats running for President have all called for Trump’s impeachment is incredibly amusing in light of the “shoe on the other foot” theory.

Would any of them want such an incredibly low threshold to get impeached if they held the job?

Possibly the Democrats in their secret hearings that they refuse to let the public see will come across something that will convince America Trump has to be removed before the 2020 election. So far, they are being tight-lipped about what has been said in these hearings which leads me to believe they don’t have much and Adam Schiff once again sold Nancy Pelosi down the river.

I’m not going to hold my breath though that they find the silver bullet and Speaker Pelosi should look at getting better friends in Congress.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Alan Dershowitz BLASTS The Democrats Impeachment Theory appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ali-velshi-impeachment-SCREENSHOT-300x174 Alan Dershowitz BLASTS The Democrats Impeachment Theory white house washington D.C. The Hill Social Media republicans New House investigations of Trump Morning Briefing Mitch McConnell Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump corruption Conservatives Congress communism comedy collusion Campaigns Bill Clinton biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

On the Insufferable Hillary Clinton

Westlake Legal Group I-can-beat-him-AGAIN-2-620x392 On the Insufferable Hillary Clinton Uncategorized security clearances security Liberal Elitism Hillary Clinton exoneration Hillary Clinton enabler Hillary Clinton email investigation Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption fake news democrats Crooked Hillary Clinton crime corruption Clinton email server clinton email scandal Clinton classified emails Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton has been popping up a bit lately – on Twitter and also in carefully controlled public interviews and appearances. She told us the other day about doing another “listening tour.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton made listening tours famous, using them to build buzz for her New York Senate and presidential campaigns. Now, she’s on another. In an email to supporters, the 2008 and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said, “I’d like to hear what you’re thinking.” While she isn’t talking about running for president a third time, Clinton said that she has been talking to people about key issues, including immigration reform and electing Democrats “at all levels” in 2020.

Read the rest here.

We’re supposed to believe that the consummate narcissist and grifter isn’t contemplating a re-run against President Trump in 2020? Let’s check out a couple of her recent statements. Here’s a laughable one.

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she believes the “gutsiest” thing she ever did outside of public life was deciding to stay married to former President Bill Clinton.

Read the rest of her ridiculousness here. She’s also called President Trump an “illegitimate president” and a “corrupt human tornado.” And just the other day, she claimed during a PBS interview that she “could beat Trump again” in 2020 (plus other nonsense):

Asked about Trump’s tweet earlier in the day, which mockingly suggested she join the race and again bemoaned her missing emails, the former first lady and secretary of state expressed wonder at what she called Trump’s obsession with her. “You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me. But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my emails. We all know that. So he’s either lying or delusional, or both,” she said. “There was no subpoena, as he says in a tweet this morning. So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again,” she continued, before suggesting she was making the comment in jest.

Read the rest here.

The woman’s narcissism and hubris are insufferable, especially given that she is guilty of many crimes and has been enabled by federal law enforcement throughout her entire “career.” As a life-long grifter, she has always been about the money and has used her political station to accrue money via elaborate pay-for-play activities and/or just plain corruption. Whether it was cattle futures or foreign contributions laundered through the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State, she has always been about accumulating the wealth to which she believes she – as a typical liberal elitist – is entitled. Hers was a classic coattails career – she was elected to the US Senate in New York not on her own merits but rather solely because she was the wife of a US president. It is perhaps the biggest joke there is to think that she is actually “smart.” The reality is quite the contrary.

She used the Clintons’ accumulated wealth to corruptly leverage and control various Democrats and apparatchiks during her run for the presidency in 2008. The notion that she was “owed” the nomination because she saved Bill’s presidency is humorous to contemplate but probably exactly what she thought. She has always been cursed (or blessed from my point of view) with a political tin ear which has been evident for all to see. A horrible and boring candidate capable of only spouting poll-tested platitudes, she was easily swamped by Obama during the 2008 Democrat primary.

I have always suspected that Obama was blackmailed by the Clintons into appointing her as his first Secretary of State. The Clintons could have made much mischief for Obama had Hillary not received that sinecure. Their purpose to see her made Secretary of State was two-fold: to give her some foreign policy credentials that she lacked for her next run for the Oval Office, and more importantly to have the US State Dept serve as a nexus for their foreign pay-for-play schemes.

Lost among the dross of the “muh Russia hoax” over the past 2.5 years is the fact that the Clintons received MILLIONS from….wait for it….the RUSSIANS courtesy of the Uranium One deal. And we’re supposed to just ‘fuhgeddaboudit” because “Orange Man Bad”? It’s one thing for her to have gotten away scot free with her pay-for-play schemes while supposedly “serving the people” while Secretary of State (she probably got a good laugh about twisting that phrase into “serving herself”). It’s quite another to have almost certainly traded some of the nation’s most precious secrets for some of that foreign cash. (They’ve been doing that for years. How do you think the Chinese jumpstarted their satellite and nuclear first strike capabilities?)

Even the Obama-appointed IC IG at the time (who now just happens to be a lawyer for the Ukraine leaker!) disclosed that Hillary’s server contained at least 22 Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) emails on it, as well as dozens of lesser-classified emails – and that doesn’t include who knows how many other highly classified emails conveniently “destroyed” by her team of crooks in the early stages of the Mid-Year Examination (the FBI’s name for their faux investigation of her server).

While Loretta Lynch and James Comey effectively squelched the investigation of her server in 2016, largely thanks to Judicial Watch, there have been periodic new revelations that have cracked the façade carefully constructed by the Clinton Democrats and their media allies. For example, we learned some weeks ago that nearly 130 State Dept employees are likely to lose their security clearances (and may be subject to other well-deserved disciplinary actions?) because they knew about that illegal server and didn’t report it. Here is a report by RedState’s “streiff” toward that end. And the latest revelation is that Judicial Watch is likely to finally force depositions under oath by Hillary Clinton and her trusted aides after all this time:

On August 22, 2019, the court then ruled that Clinton and Mills had 30 days to oppose being questioned in person under oath by Judicial Watch related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Additionally, Judicial Watch was granted seven new depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests. In granting the additional discovery, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth commented: “I’ll tell you everything they’ve discovered in this period raises serious questions about what the hell the State Department’s doing here.”

Read the rest here.

What makes me most furious about her crimes is not that she’s a life-long grifter and has been enabled throughout her grifting career by federal law enforcement who have looked the other way at every step of her journey. What is possibly even worse are her periodic in-your-face comments about her various crimes, e.g., the infamous “what difference at this point does it make” comment when under questioning during the Benghazi hearings. Or that the destroyed 30K+ emails only contained “yoga and wedding plans for Chelsea.” Or that she didn’t have any classified information on her email server at all! Let’s face it: the woman is a bald-faced liar – and is not very good at it, given her tin ear and body language.

Judicial Watch has been peeling back the onion that is Hillary’s shifting defense against going to jail for violating the Espionage Act and the statutes governing mishandling classified information. The tortured excuse offered by Comey to let her off the hook, i.e., there was no “intent” to disclose the classified information was a double lie, in my opinion. First of all, “intent” is nowhere in the statute; simple negligence resulting in the compromise of TS/SCI information is entirely actionable – there is no defense or escape (for average people). Second, I believe there was in fact intent on the part of Hillary and her minions, as some of those classified emails were purposely sold to our adversaries as part of her pay-for-play scheme. The woman had access to advanced technology secrets, information about US spies operating overseas, and other highly classified information, and we’re supposed to believe that someone who sold American uranium to the Russians would somehow not also sell those secrets? I suspect that what has been covered up about her pay-for-play scheme would shock the nation if all of the details were ever made public. The fact that – so far – only a few administrative acts have been taken against all of the perps is a travesty!

What also galls me, as a recently-retired long-time national security professional, is the insistence by her supporters – including those in the legacy media such as the Democrat hacks that now infest Fox News Channel – that she was thoroughly investigated and “exonerated” by Comey. First of all, they don’t understand the personal obligations of ANYONE with access to TS/SCI information. Second, they don’t understand that those accessing that information were required to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDA) that incur lifelong obligations. Third, each disclosure of a classified email is a separate instance that is punishable. The felonious actions don’t just get bundled together as a single felony. Fourth, anyone granted access (which means being cleared and also determined to have the “need to know” the specific info) is trained in the handling of – and the penalties for mishandling – classified information. Fifth, that training and the signed NDA obligate to report any known compromises of classified information, whether inadvertent or purposeful, including by anyone else. By the way, this is precisely why those State Department employees are losing their clearances; they did NOT report known/observed violations by Hillary and her immediate staff.

For all of these reasons, it should be remembered that ANYONE who claims that Hillary was “exonerated” is a bald-faced liar who either has no understanding of the governance, statutes, and obligations surrounding the handling of classified information or else actually understands the requirements and is simply lying for political purposes. Either way, that person is a complete liar on the subject.

I remain convinced that those 30K+ “lost” emails are in fact still available for analysis and subsequent legal action. The fact that Judicial Watch may finally force a real deposition under oath from Hillary and her lawyers is a promising sign that justice – although delayed – may finally be served. Believe me when I tell you this: Hillary, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, and the rest KNOW they’re guilty as sin and have to be sweating bullets about being forced to testify before officers of the court who haven’t been bought and paid for by the Clintons.

I have always wondered how the Clintons were seemingly always able to escape the hoosegow when the evidence of their corruption in the public record alone would have been more than enough to convict “regular people.” Given the corruption uncovered in DoJ and the FBI since President Trump was inaugurated, we know exactly how they have avoided the hangman over the years: they bought and paid for DoJ/FBI insiders to hijack and falsify investigations. They also bought and paid for a virtual army of media sycophants to spin things favorably to the Clintons and undermine investigations. True, some of these people, as sympathetic ideological allies to the Clintons, worked for “free.” Or rather for future consideration for jobs in a Hillary White House or elsewhere in a new Clinton administration). Until Hillary’s email server was uncovered by Judicial Watch and others, Loretta Lynch was on the path to becoming a USSC judge. Sally Yates was likely to become Hillary’s Attorney General for “services rendered,” and “Andy” McCabe would have probably relieved Comey as the FBI director. Just imagine the damage these lying corrupt-ocrats would have done in a Hillary administration!

I can assure you that the ONLY way Hillary and the others were let off the hook was through corruption, as they are all guilty of multiple counts of violating classified information handling statutes, as well as breaking their life-long NDAs. Those of us who have held TS/SCI clearances and understand the consequences of mishandling classified information are NOT going to let this subject go away until Hillary and the others are in jail. I pray that that smug look of that supremely insufferable woman will one day be wiped off her evil face!

The end.

[Note: a future article here at Red State will be a short tutorial on classified information that explains what classified information is, how it is to be protected, the obligations of everyone granted access to classified information, and the rules governing its handling under all circumstances.]

The post On the Insufferable Hillary Clinton appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group i-can-again-preview-300x162 On the Insufferable Hillary Clinton Uncategorized security clearances security Liberal Elitism Hillary Clinton exoneration Hillary Clinton enabler Hillary Clinton email investigation Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption fake news democrats Crooked Hillary Clinton crime corruption Clinton email server clinton email scandal Clinton classified emails Bill Clinton   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

While Promoting Their Book Praising a Transgender Woman, Hillary and Chelsea are Asked: Can a Woman Have Male Genitals?

Westlake Legal Group hillary-red-AP-620x413 While Promoting Their Book Praising a Transgender Woman, Hillary and Chelsea are Asked: Can a Woman Have Male Genitals? Uncategorized transgender The Sexes LGBT Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture Chelsea Clinton Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets supporters as former President Bill Clinton applauds during the presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

 

 

Can someone with a beard be a woman?

How about if they’re sportin’ the macho part that guys have “down there”?

These are questions recently asked, and not on an elementary school science test. Rather, they were put to Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea — at an event supporting their book in praise of chicks with intestinal fortitude.

One of the people championed in The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience is Danica Roem — the first man identifying as a woman to be elected to an American state legislature.

And while speaking with British reporter Decca Aitkenhead for a piece to be published in The Sunday Times, the two were quizzed on the aforementioned female adornments.

As noted by the Daily Mail, 39-year-old Chelsea didn’t have to think about it for even a sec:

“Yes.”

71-year-old Hillary, according to the DM, looked “uneasy.”

Here’s how Hil climbed it:

“Errr. I’m just learning about this. It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.”

I’m just spitballin’ here, but I believe that was a genuine answer.

Here’s an interesting bit about female and male from the Mail:

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’
That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea also expressed delight at the National Health Service’s new policy of assigning single-sex wards according to gender identity rather than biology:

“How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?”

She also Amen’d the entrance of men into women’s athletics:

“And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity. I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.”

In the world of wokeness, Hillary’s no slouch herself — she recently explained her decision to say with Bill amid his exposed romps with Monica Lewinsky thusly:

“Sometimes, when your child has an issue — I had a friend a few years ago who called up and said ‘I don’t know who to talk to about this, but my little girl wants to be a boy. What do I do?’ And, you know, several of us kind of — we didn’t know what to do, we never had a friend who’d faced that before. Several of us kind of read everything and talked to people and gave her advice and it was really gutsy for her to say, ‘Okay, I’m going to respect the feelings of my child, as hard as it is for me to understand this.’”

But she seemed to slip with The Sunday Times, and I’d expect there to be a backlash to her response:

“I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is. There are women who’d say [to a man identifying as a woman], ‘You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.’ I hear that conversation all the time.”

It’s dicy territory, but maybe she’s actually right — she does believe in being “gutsy.”

-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 While Promoting Their Book Praising a Transgender Woman, Hillary and Chelsea are Asked: Can a Woman Have Male Genitals? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-red-AP-300x200 While Promoting Their Book Praising a Transgender Woman, Hillary and Chelsea are Asked: Can a Woman Have Male Genitals? Uncategorized transgender The Sexes LGBT Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture Chelsea Clinton Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016?

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019

The year 2016 was a doozy of an election on the national level. Donald Trump surprised a lot of people ( including myself) when he won the Presidency and made Hillary a two-time loser in POTUS runs. The reason why Trump was able to pull off this feat was because of two simple words.

Electoral College.

I have written here at Red State before about this…READ  Yuck: Colorado Decides To Bypass The Electoral College With National Popular Vote and the reason why it needs to be preserved.

Now a new challenge is possibly facing a showdown in the United States Supreme Court and it could radically alter how we have done elections in this country for over 240 years.

According to…CNN

Three presidential electors in Washington state who voted for Colin Powell in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton and were fined under state law, are asking the US Supreme Court to take up their appeal and decide whether a state can bind an elector to vote for the state’s popular vote winner.

“The original text of the Constitution,” their lawyers argued in court papers filed Monday afternoon, “secures to electors the freedom to vote as they choose.”

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal of the so-called “faithless electors,” it could thrust the justices into yet another high-passion political fight in the heat of the 2020 presidential election. It comes as some predict that the volatile political atmosphere and disputes over redistricting could further emphasize the role of the Electoral College in the upcoming election.

The states have always run federal elections. However, with this new wrinkle, the states would pick people who then do not have to abide by the state’s very own rules if the faithless electors are ruled constitutional on a federal level.

The 10th amendment to the United States Consitution declares that…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even though people have argued that the 12th amendment was passed to deal with some complications in the process of federal elections it does not specifically say how states were to deal with the rules for selecting electors. That, at least in my mind would mean that the states get to pick the process.

However, can you imagine a scenario where 10 or 12 states have a different processes to pick and allow electors to do what they want? That would be an epic mess.

I am fascinated about this whole process and will keep an eye on what SCOTUS decides to do. I don’t think they have much choice to take it up and we will see soon enough.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary: Sticking with Bill was the “gutsiest thing I’ve ever done”

Westlake Legal Group hillary-abc Hillary: Sticking with Bill was the “gutsiest thing I’ve ever done” The Blog marriage impeachment Hillary Clinton Chelsea Clinton Bill Clinton 2016 elections

Gutsiest, or politically necessary? Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton went on ABC’s Good Morning America to promote their new project, The Book of Gutsy Women, which prompted the obvious question from host Amy Robach. Hillary’s response ended up surprising even Chelsea, whose dad is the answer.

Skip ahead to 4:45 if you don’t want to hear Hillary’s thoughts on impeachment:

“Can I ask you, what’s the gutsiest thing you’ve ever done?” ABC News’ Amy Robach asked Hillary Clinton at the conclusion of the joint interview.

“Ah, boy, I think the gutsiest thing I’ve ever done — well, personally, make the decision to stay in my marriage,” she replied. “Publicly, politically, run for president. And keep going. Just get up every day and keep going.”

When posed the same question, Chelsea Clinton appeared caught off guard by the unvarnished response from her mother, who was often criticized by pundits for a perceived lack of authenticity on the campaign trail.

“Oh, goodness, I think I’m so overwhelmed by my mother’s answer that I’m a bit out of words,” she said, before citing her own role as a mom to three children.

That’s er, one hell of a reveal on national television to Bill’s daughter. Not that Chelsea would necessarily be surprised at the claim itself — after all, she had an unfortunate ringside seat to all of the drama — but she appeared shocked that Hillary would make that claim publicly.

Does a decision to stick with Bill qualify as a gutsiest moment, at least in the context of her public life? Maybe. Many people expected Hillary to discard Bill over his serial and indiscreet philandering after they left the White House, but she stuck with him. Bill was certainly a big political asset early in Hillary’s Senate career, but his value was questionable by the time she ran against Barack Obama for the 2008 presidential nomination, and his baggage outweighed that value by the time she took the job as Secretary of State in 2009. By 2014-15, even before the #MeToo movement had really caught fire, Hillary got criticized for sticking with a victimizer husband, although it’s equally arguable that dumping him in that period would have looked politically motivated too. (However, it’s also clear that Hillary wasn’t listening much to Bill about the campaign by that time, to her own detriment.)

Had she spoken about the decision to stay with Bill in these terms in 2015, would Hillary have solved her “authenticity” issue? Probably not, given that her campaign got mired early in her e-mail scandal and her serial lies and prevarications about it. In fact, Hillary uses this interview to continue the pretense that it was much ado about nothing, when it actually was an attempt to corruptly hide her communications as Secretary of State from Congress and the courts, more than half of which got destroyed after her home-brew system got discovered. But talking a little more honestly about that “gutsiest” decision rather than put out starry-eyed photos of the two of them on the campaign trail might have helped with that problem, if only incrementally.

Robach also asks Hillary about impeachment based on her legitimately long track record on the subject. Rest assured that Hillary feels that Democrats are correct to go full speed ahead on an impeachment inquiry, not that this will surprise anyone:

Clinton said Tuesday she does not have concerns that Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are overreaching when it comes to pursuing the impeachment inquiry of Trump.

“I think the evidence concerning Ukraine is so dramatic and irrefutable because it came right out of the White House, so let the impeach inquiry proceed,” she said, referring to a transcript of the July call released by the White House. “I know that [House Democrats] will do a thoughtful, thorough job. Nobody should jump to any conclusions.”

I think dramatic and irrefutable is a little conclusion-jumping as it is, as it pretty much refutes the earlier allegations of explicit quid pro quos and intimidation.

The post Hillary: Sticking with Bill was the “gutsiest thing I’ve ever done” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-abc-300x162 Hillary: Sticking with Bill was the “gutsiest thing I’ve ever done” The Blog marriage impeachment Hillary Clinton Chelsea Clinton Bill Clinton 2016 elections   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenHillaryClinton1 Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad washington D.C. sexual misconduct sexual harassment Sexual Assault Politics People Magazine North Carolina Media Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns campaign Bill Clinton biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 #metoo

Joe Biden gives Hillary Clinton a long hug. Aug. 2016. Screen grab via CNN.

Whether it’s making excuses for her husband’s lecherous, adulterous, and deplorable behavior when he was POTUS, being actively involved in smearing his accusers, or declaring 20 years later that we must believe all women who accuse men of sexual misconduct, Hillary Clinton is a woman of many, many faces.

She proved it again in an interview she and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, an author, recently did with People Magazine.

Clinton was asked her thoughts about the 2020 Democratic candidates for president, and she noted she was “staying out of it” and planned to support whoever won the nomination.

But when asked about frontrunner Joe Biden and his well-documented overly handsy approach when it comes to women, Clinton rushed to his defense, characterizing his inappropriate touching as “a little annoying habit”:

She said that Biden, 76, who is a leading contender to challenge President Donald Trump in next year’s election, “is a thoroughly decent human being who has served our country honorably and well for decades.”

“You could take any person who sticks their little head above the parapet and says, ‘I’m going to run for president,’ and find something that … a little annoying habit or other kind of behavior that people are going to pick apart and disagree with,” she continued.

Why was Hillary so eager to sing Biden’s praises in spite of the numerous allegations of inappropriate touching and invasions of women’s private spaces? Because Orange Man Bad, of course:

“This man must be defeated,” Clinton told PEOPLE. “People who are putting themselves forward, which believe me, is a really difficult process to undergo, should be judged on the totality of their lives and their service.”

Voters must “get over it” and “vote for anybody” to get Trump out of office, even if that “anybody” likes to brush up behind women when they’re not looking and smell their hair, hug women a little too tightly for a little too long, and kiss women supporters full on the mouth:

“We can pick apart anybody. I mean, that’s a great spectator sport. But this man who’s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States. So get over it,” Clinton said. “Look at the candidates, look at what they’ve accomplished, look at what they have fought for — and vote for anybody to get rid of Donald Trump.”

Watch video of Clinton talking about Biden below:

Hillary Clinton defends yet another handsy Democratic male from criticism over his unseemly behavior. Who coulda predicted that?

Flashback –>> Andrea Mitchell lovingly narrates a clip of then Vice President Biden giving Hillary a looong hug, and notes he’s the touchy feely type (“nothing pervy here”, she states) – but that it’s no big deal because it’s just Joe Biden:

——
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenHillaryClinton1-300x171 Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad washington D.C. sexual misconduct sexual harassment Sexual Assault Politics People Magazine North Carolina Media Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns campaign Bill Clinton biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 #metoo   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info”

Westlake Legal Group Bill-Clinton-Scared-Face-620x325 Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info” Social Media Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Culture Congress Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception

If Adam Schiff’s outrageous “parody” stunt last week on the July call between Trump and Zelensky wasn’t proof enough that Democrats are simply not interested in conducting an honest and fair impeachment inquiry, we now have so-called “journalists” tweeting out erroneous information about President Clinton’s impeachment in order to justify one against Trump.

It all started after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) complained on Twitter Saturday about the fact that the whistleblower’s complaint was based on second and thirdhand information. Here’s what Graham tweeted:

Liberal journalist Garrett Graff, a former editor for Politico Magazine, responded by (falsely) claiming that “Graham and the GOP had little trouble impeaching Clinton on Linda Tripp’s second-hand info”:

Say what??

His assertion is so far off from the truth that it isn’t even funny. Unfortunately, the tweet was so popular over the weekend that Linda Tripp’s name trended on Twitter for several hours Saturday as others piggy-backed on the tweet to make the same (false) point. Graff’s tweet has nearly 8,400 retweets and 28,000 likes as of this writing.

Yours truly was one of many people who pushed back on Graff’s shameless attempt at revising Clinton’s impeachment history:

Facts first.

——
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info” appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Bill-Clinton-Scared-Face-300x157 Journalist Gets His A** Handed to Him After Tweeting That Clinton’s Impeachment Was Based on “Second-Hand Info” Social Media Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news donald trump democrats Culture Congress Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com