web analytics



Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call For Free 15/M Consultation



Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Hillary Clinton"

Trump’s brutal response to the riots puts him closer to the people than his liberal opponents

Donald Trump is a quintessentially American figure. He speaks for millions of people and has democratic legitimacy: he won an election.

It would be an error to brush these points aside when reacting to the President’s comments on the riots. His manners may, as ever, leave something to be desired.

There is often something repulsive in his tone, as when he tweeted of the protesters outside the White House:

 “Nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That’s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least. Many Secret Service agents just waiting for action.”

In an earlier tweet he used the expression “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”, a phrase which could be traced back half a century to Walter Headley, chief of police in Miami, who in 1967 declared:

“There is only one way to handle looters and arsonists during a riot and that is to shoot them on sight. I’ve let the word filter down: When the looting starts the shooting starts.

This harsh doctrine divided opinion in 1967, and divides opinion now. But if one declares that only brutes and racists believe in shooting looters, one commits a political blunder.

During the 2011 London riots, I found myself discussing how to regain control of the streets with one of the kindest and gentlest people I know, a man of immigrant descent, a devout member of the Roman Catholic Church and a firm supporter of the Labour Party.

He replied that anyone on the streets should be shot.

“But what if they only went out to buy a pint of milk?” I objected.

“I don’t care,” he said. “They shouldn’t be on the streets.”

The riots terrified him, so he called for stern measures, regardless of the injustices these would entail.

It is generally noticeable that the nearer a riot gets to someone’s house, the more authoritarian he or she becomes.

The President understands this. In another tweet, which included a swipe at Joe Biden, his rival in this year’s presidential election, Trump demanded:

“Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors. These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!”

In any difficulty, Trump looks around for someone else to blame, and makes unsubstantiated allegations against them. The great denouncer of fake news himself disseminates fake news to his 81 million Twitter followers.

It is easy to become so angered by his behaviour that one overlooks his cunning. He wants his opponents to fly into a rage and hurl moral condemnations at him, for he calculates that while condemning him, they will imply that anyone who voted for him is  a disgrace to humanity.

That is the trap into which Hillary Clinton plunged when she said “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables”, went on to describe them as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamaphobic—you name it”, and added that “thankfully they are not America”.

Fatal words. Who is she to decide who is an American and who is not? People see in the liberals a bunch of hypocrites who have no interest in their fellow citizens, but wish to use their superior morality as a club with which to beat their compatriots into submission.

Trump begins, in these circumstances, to look attractive. He too is looked down upon by these grand and prosy liberals. He too knows what it is like to be scorned for being fat and never having read the right books, or indeed any books.

Herbert Butterfield identified, in The Whig Interpretation of History, the tendency of Whig historians to see the history of England as a glorious progress towards ever greater freedom.

Someone should write a similar essay on the liberal interpretation of American history, in which everything that does not form part of a glorious progress towards ever greater liberalism is treated as an anomaly which somehow does not count.

One of the odd things about this interpretation is that the liberals are at the same time anxious to emphasise all the shameful aspects of American history, including the horror of slavery, and the failure for a hundred years after the Civil War to ensure that liberated African Americans enjoyed equal rights with poor white southerners.

This looks like, indeed is, a grave inconsistency. But through every exploration of this perplexing history runs a guiding thread. In the eyes of the liberal historians, their moral superiority, their right to judge, remains self-evident.

No one can write, say, a Confederate history of the United States, a lament for the lost code of the Virginia gentleman, without being driven out of decent society. The only question, debated with ineffable earnestness, is whether the Confederate statues should be torn down.

Yet Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all from Virginia, and without them the United States would not exist. One of the pleasures of writing a volume of brief lives of all the American presidents, published in March, was spending time with these remarkable men.

The election in 1828 of Andrew Jackson, a born fighter who represented the ruthless and brutish strain in American life, was the first of many revenges taken by outsiders, men of whom polite society did not approve, but who had what it took to win a raucous, vacuous and demeaning presidential campaign.

Trump is the most recent of these vengeful outsiders. He came as a dreadful shock to the liberals, who had studied neither his predecessors in American history, nor the state of mind of his supporters.

In From the Other Shore, Alexander Herzen examined the failure of the European revolutions of 1848, and gave this account of the 18th-century origins of liberalism:

“The thought of the injustice of the social order, the thought of equality, flashed like an electric spark through the best minds of the last century. In a bookish, theoretical way, men realised the injustice of the times, and tried to redress it, bookishly. This tardy repentance on the part of the minority was called liberalism. In a genuine desire to reward the people for thousands of years of humiliation, they declared it sovereign, demanded that every peasant should become a political person…abandon his work, that is, his daily bread, and…concern himself with general matters. To the question of daily bread liberalism did not give much serious thought. It is too romantic to trouble itself with such gross requirements. It was easier for liberalism to invent the people than to study it.”

Something like this has happened in the United States. American liberals have a fervent belief in equality, and will do everything they can for the American people short of spending any time with them, when it might become possible to ascertain what the people actually want.

The liberals seem to have espoused, in the name of the people, a morality which has the unfortunate effect of cutting them off from the people. Trump with his brutal intuitions fills the resulting gap.

Nobody knows what will happen in the presidential election on Tuesday 3rd November. But it is rather extraordinary that after making such a hash of his response to the Coronavirus, Trump is still in with a chance of a second term.

Andrew Gimson is the author of Gimson’s Presidents.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lord Ashcroft: Trump stands a better chance of re-election in November than you may think

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For information on his work, visit www.lordashcroft.com.

The Coronavirus has changed the world, at least for the time being. But how much has it changed politics? It would take a brave soul to make any kind of projection about the long-term effects of the times we are living through. But my latest polling in the US, collected in my new report The Home Stretch: Campaigning In The Age Of Coronavirus, suggests that the biggest political effect of the current crisis might not be to change people’s minds, but to make them feel more strongly about what they think already.

In the red corner, we have Donald Trump’s 2016 voters. They have remained loyal throughout his presidency, and I found nine in ten of them approving his performance to date, most of them doing so strongly. Almost as many say he has been at least as good a president as they anticipated, with more than half of them saying he had surpassed their expectations.

They rate him highly on all policy areas, especially the economy, national security, immigration and (despite the impression you might get from Twitter) America’s standing in the world. They overwhelmingly saw his impeachment as part of a political campaign against him, rather than a serious judicial process in which he had a case to answer. Asked in my poll to choose from a wide range of positive and negative descriptions, their most frequent selections were “strong,” “up to the job,” “determined,” “effective” and, most popular of all, “leader.”

Nor had their faith been seriously shaken by recent events. Several of his voters in our focus groups in Michigan and Florida (conducted online, so as not to put anyone at risk) admitted that his handling of the crisis left a lot to be desired. This was particularly true of his sometimes rambling performance at daily press briefings at which, after serious points from scientists and doctors he would “go off on a tangent about how rich he is and how he doesn’t need a paycheck. It’s not what we really need to hear right now.”

But these supporters also argued that even if the crisis did not exactly show Trump in his best light, he was still the man for the job. He might be self-indulgent and undiplomatic, they say, or even “missing the compassion gene” altogether, but we knew that before we voted for him. The crisis had not been of his making, and what mattered was getting the country back on its feet once the emergency was over: “Who do you want there to rebuild the country? To me, that’s going to be his greatest opportunity to shine.”

Meanwhile in the purple corner, if you will, we have Trump’s less fervent 2016 voters, including those who had previously supported Barack Obama or had backed Trump mainly to stop Hillary Clinton. Though still largely positive, they gave lower approval ratings than Trump voters as a whole, and less generous marks on all policy issues.

It was also clear in our focus group discussions that many had begun to tire of the Donald Trump show. Though they had seen his antics as a price worth paying for the change they expected him to bring about, they were harder to take in the absence, as they saw it, of any real improvement in their own circumstances. “Calling people names and throwing out insults gets old after a while,” as one told us, “especially if the economy is not good.” Though he was supposed to have drained the Washington swamp and surrounded himself with experts, “everyone except his daughter has quit or got fired. It’s always their fault, never on him.”

For these people, Trump’s handling of the Coronavirus was part of this pattern. “We had two and a half months to prepare,” complained one. “Instead we were told it was a hoax and no-one took it seriously, and now we have no supplies.” Even now there seemed to be an absence of leadership: “Every day they hand the mic to a different person. You don’t know who’s in charge, who is the adult in the room.” Talk of the “Chinese virus” hardly helped: “It’s Trump being Trump but it’s unnecessary. His mouth gets him in trouble too often and this is one of those moments.”

In the blue corner, to stretch the metaphor beyond endurance, are the voters who never liked Trump in the first place, and who are predictably scathing about his performance in recent weeks. Rationally, they think the crisis should finally expose Trump as the terrible president they believe him to be: “His initial response was so laissez-faire, it’s coming back and biting him in the ass,” as one neatly summarized. “Seeing how he’s handling this, it would be crazy to re-elect him.”

But in their hearts, many are not so sure it will turn out this way. This is partly because they think people may be less inclined to remove a leader during such a time, but also because they themselves are struggling to summon the enthusiasm to get behind Joe Biden, effectively the Democrats’ nominee-designate since Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign last week.

A number of Michigan primary voters told us he had been only their third choice after younger and more exciting candidates dropped out and the party establishment re-asserted itself, as it had done for Clinton four years earlier. Though he did not inspire anything like the animosity of his predecessor, he felt every bit as much of a compromise – albeit one they were prepared to make. This was especially true for African-American voters we spoke to, who could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton but were resolved to do what it took to deny Trump a second term.

Despite this, few seemed hopeful that it would be their year. Implicit in their reasoning was that if they could not get excited about their candidate, they could hardly expect anyone else to. The poll suggested further grounds for such pessimism – the word most often chosen to describe him in our poll was “elderly,” with several undecided voters in our groups describing him as “not all there.”

Among those who had voted for Sanders in the primary, only seven in ten said they currently intended to turn out and vote for Biden in November. The incongruity was also evident at a national level – though Biden beat Trump comfortably in our poll, when we asked people who they thought would win, Trump came out on top.

Though the election is less than seven months away, in terms of events it remains distant and much could change. The numbers affected by Coronavirus will grow and the economic damage will mount. We can’t tell whether, by November, the emergency will have receded, with the accent on recovery and rebuilding, or if Coronavirus will still be the preeminent fact of the day. In political terms, there is still time for the crisis to turn the tables. But it hasn’t yet.

Lord Ashcroft’s full report Home Stretch: Campaigning in the Age of Coronavirus is available at LordAshcroftPolls.com

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Trump make himself the champion of America’s Christian evangelicals

Trump and the Puritans by James Roberts and Martyn Whittock

This book explains how, to the incomprehension and dismay of American liberals, Donald Trump was elected President by attracting the support of American Puritans.

Those of us who watch the politics of America from afar sometimes make the error of imagining that country to be similar to the European democracies, only bigger and more modern.

This assumption can be nourished by reading the best of the American press. Here one finds a sophisticated liberalism in harmony with European liberalism: a community of like-minded progressives who love the same writers, thrill to the same causes and are joined rather than divided by the Atlantic.

But America is in some respects astonishingly old-fashioned. That is one reason why I love going there. They take history more seriously than we do, and believe it is worth shedding blood for what you believe in – a truth from which the liberal mind recoils.

And they take religion more seriously than we do. The authors of this work remind us that about 70 per cent of American adults identify as being Christian, and that of the total adult population, a quarter describe themselves as “evangelicals”.

Of those evangelicals, 81 per cent voted for Trump in 2016, and most of them have stuck with him since. The term “evangelical” is open to the objection that it is imprecise, but as James Roberts and Martyn Whittock observe:

“While the meaning of this term may be open to interpretation, those who use it in the USA as an identifier generally subscribe to a broad raft of beliefs: acceptance of the Bible as the inspired ‘word of God’ (which often has a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the scriptures); traditional concepts of marriage, family and gender; and traditional attitudes towards the practice of sexuality, almost always involving classifying homosexual practice as sinful, with acceptable (heterosexual) sexual relations being reserved for within marriage. This is a collection of beliefs that would have been both recognised and accepted by most seventeenth-century Puritan believers.”

In England, Puritanism failed, and was seen to have failed, by 1660. In New England, where The Mayflower landed with the first wave of Puritan settlers in 1620, and the  “Great Migration” of about 21,000 Puritans took place between 1629 and 1642, Puritanism succeeded.

The most famous manifesto for American Puritanism was uttered by John Winthrop, from Groton in Suffolk, who had been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and in 1630 led the “Winthrop fleet” of 700 colonists sailing in 11 ships from England to New England:

“We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, ‘may the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God…”

The authors of this book give a convincing and dispassionate account of American Puritanism, but do not quote Winthrop at such length: I have done so in order to remind myself and others of the moral seriousness of these early Puritans.

The book does include the most remembered words in the above passage, “city upon a hill”, spoken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and in more recent times by Presidents John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who clearly wished – with a certain effrontery, some may say – to show that they were acting within the Winthrop tradition.

There were echoes of Winthrop, these authors maintain, in Trump’s speech in Pensacola, Florida, in November 2018, when he declared that “pioneers and visionaries raised up gleaming cities by the sea”.

The standard liberal retort to this line of argument is that Trump is too sleazy, pagan and disreputable to be a convincing champion for American evangelicals.

Moral condemnation of the President supplants any attempt to understand why Christians do quite often decide, on moral or indeed spiritual grounds, to vote for him.

This book acts as an antidote to such intellectual laziness. It traces the survival of American Puritanism from the 17th century to the present day, and shows how Trump made himself the champion of evangelicals who see everything they hold dear threatened by an aggressive liberal secularism which treats them with contempt.

The evangelicals found themselves dismissed by Hillary Clinton as “deplorables”, a badge they were happy to adopt. They found their traditional understanding of marriage mocked, and were more numerous, and more persistent, than British Conservatives who suffered the same insult at the hands of David Cameron:

“After the passing into law of what Hillary and her supporters in the US and elsewhere called ‘marriage equality’ – a term that many ‘deplorables’ regarded as a form of Newspeak – President Barack Obama ordered that the White House be bathed in the colours of the rainbow. In the eyes of many this was a tender act of solidarity. After centuries of the darkening of marriage through prejudice and exclusion, America had taken a step towards a new era of equality, perhaps the most important one since the Supreme Court’s Roe v, Wade ruling in 1973, which affirmed a woman’s right to abortion.

In the eyes of the “deplorables”, however, the rainbow White House was a transparent act of liberal-secular passive aggression. Under the guise of inclusiveness, the government was excluding the huge section of traditionally Christian Americans who believed that marriage was, by definition and nature, an institution that joined together one man and one woman.”

The early Puritans, founding their New Jerusalem in New England, were convinced they were God’s chosen people, entitled to dispossess and exterminate the Native Americans.

This belief in a providential mission was articulated on a larger scale by the journalist John L O’Sullivan, who wrote in 1845, while urging the annexation of Texas, of “our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions”.

The United States had the divine right to seize by force in 1846-48 vast territories from Mexico, stretching westwards all the way to California, with the southern border extended to the Rio Grande.

Abraham Lincoln, newly elected to the House of Representatives, opposed the Mexican War, and failed as a result to win re-election. Trump, if he had been around, would have been all in favour of it.

His anti-Mexican rhetoric is not an invention of the last few years, but has deep roots in American history. His calls to build a wall along the southern border play to the fear of evangelical Americans that the nation their forefathers built is in danger of being overwhelmed.

In 1960, Protestant voters narrowly failed to avert the election of the first Roman Catholic President, JFK. In the course of that decade, these Protestants came, these authors observe, to see secularisation “as a bigger threat to their understanding of Christian values than that posed by Catholicism”.

By 1980, Pastor Jerry Falwell could declare, in the forward to a book entitled The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead , “Americans have literally stood by and watched as godless, spineless leaders have brought our nation floundering to the brink of death”.

The evangelical Right had become a major force in politics. George W. Bush owed his election in 2000, and re-election in 2004, in part to the skill with which he appealed to this constituency.

Trump is adept, on issues like abortion, Israel and gun control, at appealing to evangelicals, convincingly portrayed here as the inheritors of the suspicion of central authority, and sure belief in their own righteousness, of the early Puritan settlers.

If Trump can appoint enough Supreme Court judges who oppose abortion, he can turn back the tide of secularisation. Compared to that great goal, his own character defects seem unimportant to many evangelicals.

Like Cyrus, the King of Persia who in the Book of Isaiah is found liberating the Jews at God’s behest, Trump is seen by some evangelicals as a man who is doing God’s work.

Liberals will throw up their hands in disgust at that thought. But revulsion precludes comprehension of how Trump has profiled himself as the defender of evangelicals who feel, as these authors put it, that “in a world of liberal identity politics they have been denied an identity that they themselves would recognise”.

The 400th anniversary of the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers (as they became known) on The Mayflower falls in November this year, just after the presidential election, so one of the first duties of the victor will be to join in the celebrations of that event, and to decide how to react to criticism by Native Americans.

To anyone who wants to understand Trump, and how he became the champion of America’s embattled evangelicals, this scrupulous though not elegant book may be warmly recommended.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The impeachment of Trump is a gigantic own goal by the Democrats

The Democrats have badly damaged themselves by voting in the House of Representatives to impeach Donald Trump. The proper judges of his conduct are the American people, who will decide in next November’s presidential election whether to grant him a second term.

All the efforts of the Democratic Party should be focussed on finding a candidate, and a programme, which will enable it to win that election.

The impeachment is a distraction from those tasks. It holds out the illusory hope that the Senate will find the President guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, and will therefore remove him from office.

The Republicans in the Senate have already said there is no chance they will do this. To this the Democrats reply that the charges against the President are so grave that the impeachment has to go ahead.

Trump’s supporters in the wider American public say he “hasn’t been treated fairly” and the Democrats are trying to “crucify” him. They consider him the victim of a process which is being manipulated for factional advantage by opponents who long ago declared him guilty.

Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 because she placed excessive reliance on the contention that he is a bad person, morally unfit to occupy the White House. This proposition could without any difficulty be proved true in the eyes of Clinton and her friends.

But for various reasons, this seemingly easy course of action proved more damaging to Clinton than it was to Trump.

In the first place, it made her sound like a hypocrite. People could remember how seedy the White House had been during her husband’s eight years there, which culminated in the President’s contention that oral sex with a White House intern did not count as “sexual relations”.

And she ran the risk of accusing anyone who voted for Trump of being a bad person too: a trap into which she fell by referring to half of his supporters as “the basket of deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it”.

Worst of all, she did not devote enough time and effort to working out why some of Trump’s policies – improving America’s infrastructure, tightening immigration control, making sure China did not destroy American manufacturing by trading on unfair terms – exercised a strong appeal to, for example, car workers worried their jobs were going abroad.

She ruled out conducting a proper argument with Trump, in which she demonstrated the greater efficacy of her remedies, because she herself said he was too disreputable for her to reason with him about America’s future.

Clinton seemed to prefer condemning Trump’s voters as racists to working out how to help them avoid sinking into poverty and despair. Since it was clear that she herself preferred spending her time, not with ordinary Americans, but with friends in the Hamptons who were, like the Clintons themselves, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, she stood exposed as a peculiarly repulsive hypocrite, a moralist who declined to practise what she preached and felt no real sympathy with millions of Americans who were worried about how to get proper jobs so they could feed, house and educate their children.

The same objections apply to the impeachment proceedings for which the Democrats have just voted. The whole exercise is a gigantic displacement activity, which prevents them from thinking straight about how to beat Trump by persuading his supporters to trust the Democrats.

Boris Johnson is in many respects a different kind of person to Trump, but presents his opponents with similar dangers.

It is easier for Labour politicians to demonstrate, at least to their own satisfaction, that Johnson is a bad person, than for them to work out why his policies appeal so strongly to working-class voters who believe that they and their towns have been neglected for generations by the political class.

How tempting it is, at the dinner tables of Islington, to dismiss those workers as a lot of thick, northern racists – and what a disastrous error.

The next Labour leader, like the next Democratic presidential candidate, will not deserve to win if the main argument he or she advances is that the incumbent Prime Minister or President is simply too contemptible to be allowed to continue in office.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Daniel Hannan: £1 million? £1 billion? £1 trillion? McDonnell is relying on you not knowing the difference.

Daniel Hannan is an MEP for South-East England, and a journalist, author and broadcaster. His most recent book is What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit.

Suppose I were to tell you that Labour’s promises would cost £50 billion. How would you feel about it? My guess is that, if you’re a Labour supporter, you’ll assume that that money can easily be squeezed from the undeserving rich, tax-dodging corporations and the like. If, on the other hand, you are not a Labour supporter, you’ll believe that that figure will mean higher taxes in general, a less competitive economy and slower growth.

Now suppose that, instead of £50 billion, the figure were £100 billion. How many people would shift from the first column to the second? My guess is almost none. Numbers on that scale simply make no sense to most of us. Our brains are designed to deal with practical rather than abstract questions. We can imagine what we’d do with £100 or £1,000. But £100 billion?

So we instead go with our hunches. Do we like and trust the people making the proposal? If we do, we are likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. If we don’t, we won’t. That would be true, in most cases, even if the figure were a trillion pounds – which is just as well for Labour, since that number comes closest to their actual spending plans.

Labour strategists are banking on our general innumeracy. I don’t say that they are taking us for fools. Plenty of clever and educated people can’t process numbers on that scale. It’s why charity appeals tell individual stories rather than offering figures. It’s why, as Stalin is supposed to have said, one death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic.

Most people are partisan. Most, though they don’t like to admit it, begin with their preferred conclusions. When Barack Obama ran up a large deficit, Tea Party protesters took to the streets in every state demanding a return to fiscal balance. When Donald Trump maintained – or, on some measures, increased – that deficit, the Tea Partiers stayed at home. Why? Because people are wired to respond to people, not abstractions. Tribal loyalties trump big numbers.

There is, however, an important qualifier. Voters who are not already partis pris will often be influenced, consciously or not, by those who intermediate the numbers – that is, by journalists, commentators and experts. If every analyst lines up to declare that a party’s figures are ridiculous, it makes a difference.

Importantly, this didn’t happen last time. There was a general assumption among pundits that Corbyn couldn’t possibly win, and that his promises were therefore to be treated as light entertainment. A similar asymmetry had benefited Trump six months earlier. He, too, was not taken seriously. His promises were placed before the electorate with a kind of amused smirk, while Hillary Clinton’s, like Theresa May’s, were properly analysed and criticised.

In consequence, there was surprisingly little discussion of the sheer unaffordability of Labour’s 2017 manifesto. Most commentators treated its absurdity as a datum or given – something that needed no elaboration. Result? Voters heard the promises (“no tuition fees!”) but not the fact that they were unfunded.

John McDonnell seems to have concluded from that experience that, if you expand the promises, you expand your support; but, since no one really gets big numbers, you won’t lose many voters on the other side. Even on his own figures, this manifesto would cost nearly twice as much as the far-Left programme he offered two-and-a-half years ago. In reality, that price tag doesn’t include the vast expense of the nationalisations, the four-day week or the loss of revenue prompted by capital flight.

How many people are bothered? Is McDonnell right that the battle-lines are unaffected by actual statistics? If the number of fiscal conservatives is fixed, after all, he might as well purchase the support of as many groups as possible – students, waspi women, benefits claimants, public sector workers.

But there is a limit. On Monday, the editor of ConHome suggested that “McDonnell might as well pledge £1 million to all comers. He could make it £1 billion while he’s at it. It would be no more or less credible than all his other plans.”

I suspect that, if he offered us each a million pounds, even committed Labour voters would smell a rat. The angriest Momentum activists, convinced that austerity is a product of greed and sadism, would surely realise that there isn’t the money to make such a pledge. So let’s ask a question. At what point do Labour’s pledges topple into obvious fantasy? When do people start listening to the independent commentators who are staring speechless at these wish-lists?

My sense is that, to the extent that we will see any outbreak of collective incredulity, we are seeing it now. Having already come up with risible spending commitments, Labour has now cheerfully added an unbelievable – a literally unbelievable – £58 billion commitment to bump the pensions of the women who lost out when the retirement age was equalised.

For what it’s worth, I have a lot of sympathy with those women. The change happened very suddenly, and many had no time to arrange their finances accordingly. But the issue is not just whether the waspi women have a point. It’s also whether we have £58 billion to spend.

How much is £58 billion? To put it in context, the savings made between 2010 and 2013, the “savage Tory cuts” that brought protesters to the streets and pushed Labour politicians into making deranged claims about people “dying from austerity”, shaved £14.3 billion from the budget. The waspi shortfall is four times that sum.

Indeed, £58 billion would be half as much again as the all the money saved through welfare reforms since 2010. Labour, which created the deficit in the first place, and then spent the following decade howling down attempts to fix it, now proposes to spend vastly more than even Gordon Brown.

Do we understand that? Do we care? We’ll find out in two weeks’ time.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Johnson’s critics will get nowhere by calling him a liar

Julie Etchingham: “Does the truth matter in this election?”

Boris Johnson: “I think it does.”

The studio audience, after a moment’s pause to take this in, burst out laughing, as if the Prime Minister had said something which coming from him, sounded preposterous.

In the polling after Tuesday’s debate, Jeremy Corbyn was seen as more trustworthy than Boris Johnson, though by a margin of only five percentage points.

Could this be Johnson’s Achilles’ heel? Downing Street knows he has a trust problem – but draws comfort from the knowledge that all politicians have a trust problem.

There are, however, considerable variations between politicians, and great leaders are often admired in part because they are seen to be straight with people. Winston Churchill made no secret in 1940 of the severity of the defeat Britain and her allies had suffered, or of the grievous sacrifices which would be demanded on the path to eventual victory.

Clement Attlee, who beat Churchill at the polls in 1945, communicated complete honesty of purpose, He could commend socialism to the British people because he himself was so evidently brave, patriotic and unselfseeking.

Churchill’s peacetime successor, Sir Anthony Eden, made matters worse, after the Suez debacle, by lying to the House of Commons, where in December 1956 he denied having colluded with the Israelis.

Margaret Thatcher was generally thought of as sincere. That is one of the things her critics held against her. She actually believed in things, and clung tenaciously to her beliefs, though on tactics she showed greater flexibility than has commonly been realised.

Even her supporters could find her directness of speech disconcerting. As I remarked in my brief life of her, “Her conversation rendered the standard English methods of of evasion – jokes, paradoxes, understatement, any number of ironical devices which enable one to avoid commitment – unusable.”

Johnson is a master of such methods of evasion. In order to avoid answering a serious inquiry on an inconvenient topic, he will launch into a riff on some extraneous matter which is so entertaining that the questioner may not object to being thrown off the scent.

This technique has served him well with newspaper interviewers, who are grateful for vivid copy, even if it has nothing much to do with the question put.

On live television, the refusal on occasion to give straight answers can become more obvious, and makes some viewers very angry. Peter Oborne watched the ITV debate and demanded: “Is the BBC going to call out Johnson as a liar?”

Oborne went on: “He’s lied to the British people about the NHS tonight. That’s a pretty dark thing to do.”

This topic has long excited Oborne’s ire. In 2006 he published a book called The Rise of Political Lying, in which chapter four is entitled “The Lies, Falsehoods, Deceits, Evasions and Artfulness of Tony Blair”.

It probably indicates some sort of weakness in my own character that I cannot share Oborne’s indignation.

Certain formalities have to be observed. In the Commons, each member has to treat the others as honourable. Otherwise debate would become impossible. One cannot have an argument with an opponent one dismisses as a liar.

But that is exactly why the shout of “liar” should not be lightly uttered. Donald Trump’s opponents did themselves enormous harm by condemning him as a liar, for that gave them an excuse to stop asking why what he said was so appealing to, for example, American car workers who feared their jobs were going abroad.

Trump’s turpitude distracted his opponents from the task of examining his proposals. By dismissing him as a disgusting human being, Hillary Clinton fell into the trap of accusing his supporters of being “a basket of deplorables”, a description which made them even less inclined to listen to her.

Dismiss Johnson as a liar if you wish, but very soon you will find yourself uninterested in grasping why his message on Brexit appeals to millions of voters who do not think of themselves as Conservatives. Character assassination displaces comprehension.

The wider public know that literal truth is seldom to be expected from politicians. The art of persuasion, even the art of telling the truth, is more mysterious than that. Dickens told the truth by exaggerating it. So too, with cynical but romantic wit, did Disraeli. So too, with tremendous moral seriousness, did Gladstone.

It was disreputable of the Conservative press office to rebrand one of its Twitter accounts as a fact-checking service during the ITV debate, and it was also stupid, not just because the subterfuge was sure to be discovered, but because such debates cannot be settled by an appeal to the facts.

The judgments involved in deciding whether or not to trust someone – Prince Andrew, for example – are far more complicated, and entail trying to reconcile a swirling mass of often inconsistent considerations, moral, historical, psychological and so forth.

Voters understand this better than fulminating pundits do. Here is a woman in West Bromwich, quoted in a Vox pub piece published a fortnight ago:

“If I was going to vote, I’d vote for Boris Johnson because he’s a fool.

“I don’t care that he’s lied and cheated because that is his way and I support Boris.

“I will definitely vote for Boris, liar, cheat and fool! And for Brexit! I want to get out.”

In other words, voters can allow – or not – for a candidate’s frailties, and may prefer to be led by a Prime Minister who does not pose as a pillar of rectitude.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement

Westlake Legal Group 2trump-2hillary-face Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement Uncategorized sidney blumenthal Russia Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI donald trump anti-Trump dossier Allow Media Exception

The Clintons have a reputation for not holding back when it comes to people who cross them.

The latest report wouldn’t disabuse you from that belief.

According to a Fox News report, Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal allegedly made legal threats to the publisher of the new book about the Democratic connection to the origins of the Russia probe in an effort to shut the book down.

According to the Fox source, Blumenthal believes that the book, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History,” by Lee Smith, is defamatory.

“Blumenthal tried to stop it from being published,” the source told Fox News, saying the Hillary Clinton confidant sent threatening letters to Smith and publisher Center Street, a division of Hachette Book Group.

Blumenthal didn’t respond to Fox.

If Blumenthal is that worked up about it, that’s probably the greatest ad for the book, as well as a good indication that something in the book is probably over the target.

The book delves into the involvement of Democratic operatives behind the unverified anti-Trump Steele dossier. The Clinton campaign and the DNC engaged Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for the information that became the dossier. The dossier, which was opposition research, was then essentially weaponized when it made its way to the FBI and the media and undermined Donald Trump.

According to the source, “the Clinton machine wanted to intimidate Lee,” but it doesn’t sound like he or the publishers are intimidated. The publishers don’t think Blumenthal’s threats hold any merit and they intend to go ahead with the book release, scheduled for Tuesday. Smith, while not discussing whether or not there were any threats, told Fox, “People in the Clinton world are keen for this book not to come out.”

Blumnenthal’s name has been attached to the dossier in the past by former House Intelligence Committee Chair Trey Gowdy according to the Washington Examiner.

“I have seen each factual assertion listed in that dossier, and then I’ve seen the FBI’s justification. And when you’re citing newspaper articles as corroboration for a factual assertion that you have made, you don’t need an FBI agent to go do a Google search,” said Gowdy, a former South Carolina congressman and member of the House Intelligence Committee, in a Fox News interview.

“And when the name Sidney Blumenthal is included as part of your corroboration, and you’re the world’s leading law enforcement agency, you have a problem,” Gowdy said.

The post Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2trump-2hillary-face-300x159 Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement Uncategorized sidney blumenthal Russia Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI donald trump anti-Trump dossier Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

News Summary from the Week that Was (20 – 26 October)

This is my weekly summary of news that the legacy media and Democrats have obfuscated for partisan political reasons. Once again, I am doing longer quotes of fewer articles this week, as I am still overseas. Here we go.

1. We’ve talked about this one before: corruption in US foreign aid. Foggy Bottom needs to be shut down, and all US foreign aid stopped because it is nothing but a piggy bank for the political class.

A senior Guatemalan official said his nation was aware President Donald Trump was going to cut funding to his nation, saying he understands the decision as the majority of funds designated to aid his nation’s poorest through development projects and other charities rarely reaches those who need it most. “To be honest with you, I don’t think most of that money is actually being properly used in our country, mainly in Guatemala,” Duarte told me. “A lot of that money goes to NGOs who spend it on mostly doing analysis and white papers sent studies. The money’s not really going towards the people. There’s no significant projects that really help us along those lines.”

Duarte noted that last week he had “a conversation with a couple of project managers from USAID that have worked here in Guatemala, they have worked in Haiti, they have worked in Africa, they have worked in Afghanistan and the issue here is that the projects are almost like pet projects for some political ideal.”

Read the rest here. If you think that’s the only country in which USAID dollars are wasted, then you’ve got another think coming! We need to shut down all US foreign aid and pour it in to rebuilding inner city slums in the United States, as well as to complete the Wall.

2. More great economic news in the Age of Trump that will never be discussed in the legacy media:

Latino-owned businesses are experiencing significant growth thanks to a strong economy, a Biz2Credit study found. Rohit Arora, Biz2Credit’s CEO, said Latino business owners are enjoying a 46 percent jump in revenue this year, which will bolster the nation’s thriving economy. [O]ur research finds that revenues of Latino-owned companies jumped 23% from 2017-18.

The fact is that Hispanics are flourishing in the Trump economy. Democrats asserting the contrary is a mere partisan talking point to try to deny Trump the Hispanic support he has earned and which may decide the presidential election outcome next year. Expect Democrats to increase their identity politics attacks in an effort to skew Latinos against Republicans over the next year and a half.

Read the rest here. This is more excellent evidence that the Trump economy is color-blind. His economic policies are working great! Tax and regulation cuts work every time they’re tried.

3. The “muh Russia” house of cards continues to fall apart. Here is the latest news courtesy of the British.

British intelligence told the FBI that dossier author Christopher Steele sometimes showed questionable judgment regarding investigative targets, according to a report that could preview some of the findings in a highly anticipated Justice Department watchdog report of FBI surveillance against the Trump campaign. Investigators with the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have asked witnesses about an assessment that MI6 officials provided the FBI regarding Steele, a former MI6 officer based in London.

The FBI’s handling of information from Steele is central to the OIG investigation into whether the bureau complied with laws and regulations in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.  The OIG has also raised concerns, according to The Times, that the FBI overhyped Steele’s value as a confidential source in the applications to obtain the Page FISAs. The FBI relied heavily on information from Steele in the FISA applications, the first of which was granted on Oct. 21, 2016.

Read the rest here. Despite the Brits’ concerns, the tainted Obama FBI pressed ahead with the so-called Steele dossier. Little by little, the onion is getting peeled back.

4. Too bad, Obama and George Soros!

The Supreme Court, in another defeat for gerrymandering reformers, overturned a lower court’s ruling that Michigan’s electoral districts are overly partisan and need to be redrawn. Monday’s order follows a June decision from the nation’s top court that found that questions related to partisan gerrymandering are not under the jurisdiction of federal courts. The new order returns the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A three-judge panel in that court had ruled that 34 state legislative and congressional districts needed to be redrawn because they were designed to favor Republicans.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering cases was blasted by activists, who have sought to advance their fight against politically-drawn maps in the courts. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, at the time called the decision one which “tears at the fabric of our democracy.”

Read the rest here. I’m liking it. Any time Obama and Eric Holder are thwarted by the USSC is a day to celebrate.

5. Judicial Watch continues to do the people’s business. This time it’s on Benghazi (plus more).

Judicial Watch today released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014. The long-withheld email, clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal. “This email is a twofer – it shows Hillary Clinton misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi and that the State Department wanted to hide the Benghazi connection to the Clinton email scheme,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Rather than defending her email misconduct, the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to reopen its investigations into Hillary Clinton.”

Judicial Watch’s discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:

  • John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS) testifiedunder oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
  • Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admittedunder oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
  • Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testifiedhe worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
  • In the interrogatory responsesof E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
  • Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testifiedthat both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
  • Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testifiedthat Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.

Read the rest here. Time to reopen EVERY investigation of Shrillary: U-1, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, email server, etc.

6. This is an incredible opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson that needs to be read from stem to stern. Here are just a few excerpts:

[W]hy the unadulterated hatred? For the small number of NeverTrumpers, of course, Trump’s crudity in speech and crassness in manner nullify his accomplishments: the unattractive messenger has fouled an otherwise tolerable message. While they recognize in the abstract that the randy JFK, the repugnant LBJ, and the horny Bill Clinton during their White House tenures were far grosser in conduct than has been Donald Trump, they either assume presidential ethics should have evolved or they were not always around to know of past bad behavior first hand, or believe Trump’s crude language is worse than prior presidents’ crude behavior in office. But the NeverTrumpers are and remain a tiny segment of the electorate who have had zero effect in swaying Republicans and only marginal influence in persuading swing voters, in their new roles as occasionally useful naïfs of the hard Left.

Far more importantly, why do the media, academia, the entertainment and professional sports industries, the progressive Left, the administrative state, and most Democratic officeholders despise him so? His brashness bothers them of course. His quirky tweets and name-calling certainly. His loud rallies, his public put-downs, and his feuding are certainly not matched by those of past presidents. But the real source of their antipathy is his agenda.

Had Donald Trump in his first month as president declared that he was a centrist Republican —as many suspicious Never Trumpers predicted that he would, true to past form—and promoted cap-and-trade and solar and wind federal subsidies, tabled pipeline construction and abated federal leasing for gas and oil production, stayed in the Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate Accord, appointed judges in the tradition of John Paul Stevens and David Souter, praised the “responsible” Palestinian leaders, “comprehensive immigration reform” as a euphemism for blanket amnesties, then Trump would be treated largely as a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush: hated, of course, but not obsessively so.

More importantly, had Trump just collapsed or stagnated the economy, as predicted by the likes of Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, he would now be roundly denounced, but again not so vilified, given his political utility for the Left in 2020 as a perceived Herbert Hoover-esque scapegoat. Had Trump kept within the media and cultural sidelines by giving interviews to “60 Minutes,” speaking at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, bringing in a few old Republican hands to run the staff or handle media relations like a David Gergen or Andrew Card, Trump would have been written off as a nice enough dunce.

But Trump did none of that. So, the hatred of the media, the Left, the swamp, and the celebrity industry is predicated more on the successful Trump agenda. He is systematically undoing what Barack Obama wrought, in the manner Obama sought to undo with his eight years the prior eight years of George W. Bush. But whereas the Obama economy stagnated and his foreign policy was seen by adversaries and rivals as a rare occasion to recalibrate the world order at American’s expense, Trump mostly did not fail—at least not yet.

We are currently in an economic boom while most of the world economy abroad is inert. Had the economy just crashed as predicted, the Trump agenda would have been discredited and he would be written off a pitiful fool rather than an existential monster. Again, hatred arises at what Trump did even more than what he says or how he says it.

Read the rest of this great article here. VDH nails it yet again! They hate POTUS because he is rolling back their decades-long march toward globalism, as well as exposing them all for the grifters and globalists they are.

7. Next up, it’s about time that Brennan et all started feeling the heat!

The secretive Justice Department inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigation’s origins now includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and British ex-spy Christopher Steele. U.S. Attorney John Durham, whose investigative portfolio recently expanded to include events from the launch of the inquiry in 2016 through the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller in 2017, has taken overseas fact-finding trips. But Durham’s focus on the actions taken by specific individuals makes his mission look like it could transform into a criminal investigation. And the line of questioning Durham has taken with potential witnesses — some in line with claims made by President Trump and other Republicans — puts his efforts into sharper focus. Durham has not yet interviewed Strzok, McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, or former FBI general counsel James Baker.

Durham is speaking to witnesses about Steele, the former MI6 agent whose dossier was used to obtain secret surveillance warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and Durham wants to know why the FBI used unverified information in its filings with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Durham also intends to interview CIA analysts and officials involved in the Russia investigation, prompting some to seek legal representation, and NBC News reported tension between the CIA and the DOJ over what classified information he should have access to.

Durham has already talked to two dozen current and former FBI agents as part of his effort. DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the department was exploring the extent to which “a number of countries” played a role in the Trump-Russia investigation, and Barr and Durham reached out to the United Kingdom, Italy, and Australia.

Read the rest here. One could argue that this is all taking too long, but it’s also true that the little fish need to be rolled up before questioning the big fish, too. The fact that Brennan and other cabal members are squawking bigly in public these days is GOOD sign.

8. Here’s a story which spells political death for Democrats pursuing their fake impeachment on bogus charges. And watch what happens when AG Barr/USA Durham start the indictments!

A memo by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. The memo, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, shows independent voters nationwide en masse oppose impeachment—with 54 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor. “We have seen public polling drastically under sample Independent voters, which is one of the many reasons for so much incorrect public data over the past month,” the memo explains regarding the disparity between internal GOP numbers and public polling from news organizations and polling institutions.

What’s more, internal RNC polling data, according to this memo, shows Democrats have lost support among their own base significantly in just the past week. “Support among Democrats for the ridiculous attempt to remove the President from office is down 10 points over the past week,” the memo says. Among all voters, the memo says support for impeachment has dropped in the past week by five percent—a remarkable shift against the Democrats in just one week, while the president’s support levels have increased across the board, especially among Republicans, with whom he now enjoys a 90 percent approval rating. The memo notes that the RNC is closely tracking impeachment support and opposition with its own sophisticated polling method, which is more accurate than the public polling.

Read the rest here. I’ve been saying for years that the media polls are nothing but push polls that attempt to INFLUENCE public opinion in the favor of Democrat positions on the issues, not accurately REFLECT it!

9. Speaking of which (indictments), this news is already causing apoplexy among the culpable in the cabal (Clapper comes immediately to mind):

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation. One source added that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report on alleged FBI surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign will shed light on why Durham’s probe has become a criminal inquiry. Horowitz announced … his report would be available to the public soon, with “few” redactions. The investigation’s new status means Durham can subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel fact-finding grand juries.

Read the rest here. Could this be the drizzle that precedes the deluge? Could very well be!

Here are the honorable mentions this week:

And here’s the short summary of this week’s “feature articles”:

  • A senior Guatemalan official confirms rampant corruption in foreign aid to his country.
  • Latino-owned businesses are prospering BIGLY in the Age of Trump.
  • British intelligence is covering their tracks on the Steele front by stating to the FBI that he was often a source of “questionable intelligence.” (Duh!)
  • In a blow to Obama and Soros, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that Michigan’s electoral districts are overly partisan and need to be redrawn
  • Judicial Watch continues to break ground on Hillary Clinton’s private email account – which was known by many even back in the Benghazi days (2012)!
  • Victor Davis Hanson explained why the Uniparty types are so virulently anti-Trump (it’s because he’s been so successful in rolling back Obama’s – and their – globalist agenda).
  • USA Durham’s investigation into Trump-Russia origins now includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and British ex-spy Christopher Steele.
  • An RNC memo containing internal GOP polling data shows the American public (and even Democrat voters!) are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Trump.
  • And the best news of all: the Durham probe has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation.

I have to admit that I’m starting to feel a little bit giddy about all the good news that keeps coming out: the Ukraine star chamber is being discredited daily, some Republicans are finding their gonads (even if tiny), the media’s push-polls are failing to move the needle in the Democrats’ direction, Durham’s got a criminal investigation going now, the cabal are getting more unhinged by the day, the lefties on social media are apoplectic in defense of the cabal and Democrats, etc.

Life is pretty good – and it’s going to get even better as Horowitz’s FISA abuse report comes out in the days ahead! Stay tuned…

The end.

The post News Summary from the Week that Was (20 – 26 October) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TruthImage2-300x161 News Summary from the Week that Was (20 – 26 October) Uncategorized Ukraine schiff redistricting polls Opinion Polls News Media Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton Hillary Cinton Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption Economy donald trump doj democrats corruption Clinton email server bill barr American economy  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy

Westlake Legal Group Capture-2-620x393 Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy Politics Hillary Clinton funeral Front Page Stories elijah cummings donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is so obsessed with her loss against President Donald Trump that she can’t even put her anger away for a funeral speech.

During the funeral of the recently passed Rep. Elijah Cummings, Clinton took a not-so-veiled shot at Trump.

Comparing Cummings to the Elijah of the Bible, Clinton said Cummings could “call down fire from Heaven” and “weathered storms and earthquakes.” That’s when Clinton took a swipe at Trump…during a eulogy.

“Like that Old Testament prophet, he stood against corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel,” said Clinton.

The crowd erupted into applause at that line, knowing exactly what comparison she was drawing with that tidbit of information.

“The American people want to live their lives without fear of their leaders,” she said later in the eulogy.

She added that it’s their responsibility as leaders to uphold the promises made to the people during campaigns and later said that Cummings embodied values, including putting an emphasis on “kindness” when describing him.

This all comes off as a bit more than disgusting for multiple reasons. During a funeral for my family member, I’d be angry about the fact that a speaker defined their lives by who the speaker’s most hated enemy was at the time. It’s a shallow look into the impact someone made on this planet, and a look at how shallow the person making the remarks are.

However, the crowd erupted into applause showing just how much Trump is living rent-free in their heads. Still, taking the time to hate on someone at someone else’s funeral seems a bit much, and if any of them in that place where the funeral was being held had any self-awareness, they may want to take a step back and take a look at the state of their spirit.

Clinton definitely should.

The post Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-2-300x190 Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy Politics Hillary Clinton funeral Front Page Stories elijah cummings donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax

Westlake Legal Group hrc-620x413 Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax tyler drumheller Special Counsel sid blumenthal russia hoax Politics Lee Smith Hudson Institute Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

One of the most prolific and insightful chroniclers of the Russia Hoax that the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, and their allies and lackies in the FBI and Intelligence Community perpetrated upon the United States has been Lee Smith. He’s as Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and has been instrumental in teasing out the various strands of this slow-motion coup. Now Lee has a book coming out next week titled The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History. And that book has drawn the attention of long time Clinton consigliere Sid “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal.

Clinton family associate Sidney Blumenthal has made legal threats to the publisher of a forthcoming book featuring allegations against Democrats in connection with the Russia investigation in an attempt to stop publication, Fox News has learned.

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News that Blumenthal claimed the book – “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History,” by Lee Smith – was defamatory.

“Blumenthal tried to stop it from being published,” the source told Fox News, saying the Hillary Clinton confidant sent threatening letters to Smith and publisher Center Street, a division of Hachette Book Group.

Defaming a public figure, particularly one as odious as Hillary Clinton, is a very difficult barrier to overcome in any legal action but I suspect that Blumenthal has an additional agenda.

Back when Hillary Clinton’s emails came out, we found that Hillary Clinton was using an off-books intelligence service rather than relying upon the Intelligence Community (note to self: why is it that no one in government seems to trust the Intelligence Community very much?). Of course  there was an uproar over the Secretary of State using some cronies to provide her with the information she used to set foreign policy–just joking, because her name wasn’t Donald Trump no one thought very much of it. The head of this off books project was non other than Sid Blumenthal. He was partnered with a skeevy ex-CIA goon named Tyler Drumheller…who had the foresight to die in August 2015 as the email investigation was heating up. One of the emails included Top Secret information that did NOT originate at State. If this had been pursued with anything like the energy used trying to frame George Papadopoulos I think it would have made Comey’s decision to not prosecute Clinton impossible. Read these two speculative pieces:

The Real Email Question: Did Hillary Clinton Sell US Secrets?

Do Hillary Clinton’s Emails Expose A Scheme To Trade US Secrets For Political Influence?

The more attention that is drawn to Clinton by Lee’s book, the more attention that is going to be drawn to the activities of Sid Vicious and court sycophant and fixer. The more people start looking at Blumenthal, the more interesting he’s going to become. And unlike most of the other players in this melodrama, absolutely no one in DC likes Blumenthal.

Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.


The post Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hrc-300x200 Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax tyler drumheller Special Counsel sid blumenthal russia hoax Politics Lee Smith Hudson Institute Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com