The Senate Judiciary Committee has now released documents that contain information that verifies that yes indeed, then-Secretary of State Clinton was having all her emails copied and forwarded to a Chinese companies' email account.
August 22nd 2018She is older now, her once dazzling looks undeniably faded, her famous beauty worn and creased."Sorry about that," she says. "I was supposed to get ironed yesterday."Yes, it's "that dress" — the dress that, 20 years ago this month, held the fate of a presidency in her lap. It has been two decades since the day she gave her dramatic testimony to the grand jury and then promptly disappeared into the federal witness protection program. Even as she recalls her brief moment in the spotlight, she looks drawn. But that's because, following extensive reconstructive surgery, she's been living quietly as a pair of curtains in Idaho."What do you think?" she says, saucily brushing her hem against the sill as her pleats ripple across the mullions. "It cost less than Paula Jones' nose job."To be honest, I was lucky to get the interview. The dress was supposed to be doing the BBC — the full sob-sister treatment, Martin Bashir, the works—but, to protect her identity, they wanted to do that undercover secret-location protect-your-identity trick with the camera that makes part of the screen go all fuzzy and blurry."Are you crazy?" she yelled at them. "It'll look like I've still got the stain."
The Bushes got us into all kinds of messes. The first one killed the economic miracle that Reagan had fashioned. The second one screwed up the Middle East, where Iraq and Iran beautifully were engaged in killing each other for years, and he got us mired into the middle of the muddle. Clinton was too busy with Monica Lewinsky to protect us from Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights. Hillary gave us Benghazi and more. And Obama and Kerry gave us the Iran Deal, ISIS run amok, America in retreat. All to the daily praise of a media who now attack Trump every minute of every day.
The liberal protection racket for sexual predators was always intimately intertwined with the Clintons. The template used to defend Bill Clinton became a model for all left-wing sexual predators. They all hired the same lawyers and detectives and counted on the same cultural elites to mete out punishment to anyone who stood in the way of their Caligula lifestyles. It was Total War against the original #MeToo movement.Even Teddy Kennedy never plotted revenge on reporters or smeared his sexual conquests as bimbos, trailer park trash and stalkers. That was the Clinton model.
... around 2000, according to Shelton [Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry "Hugh" Shelton], a member of the department within the Pentagon that is responsible for all pieces of the nuclear process was dispatched to the White House to physically look at the codes and ensure they were correct — a procedure required to happen every 30 days. (The set of codes was to be replaced entirely every four months.)That official was told by a presidential aide that President Bill Clinton did have the codes, but was in an important meeting and could not be disturbed.The aide assured the official that Clinton took the codes seriously and had them close by. The official was dismayed, but he accepted the excuse and left.When the next inspection took place the following month, that official was on vacation, according to Shelton, and another official was dispatched to the White House. The new official was met with the same excuse — the president is very busy, but takes the codes very seriously and has them on hand."This comedy of errors went on, without President Clinton's knowledge I'm sure, until it was finally time to collect the current set and replace them with the new edition," Shelton writes."At this point we learned that the aide had no idea where the old ones were, because they had been missing for months," he added. "The President never did have them, but he assumed, I'm sure, that the aide had them like he was supposed to."
What're we supposed to think when it's revealed the man running the Hillary Clinton email server investigation (Peter Strzok) was a married Hillary supporter conducting an adulterous affair with a government lawyer, while dissing Donald Trump in his clandestine billet-doux text messages?
(Was he auditioning for Harvey Weinstein's next movie, assuming Weinstein is ever allowed to make a movie again or even would make one that in any way besmirched his good friend Hillary?)
As an FBI agent, Strzok's use of text messaging for such an enterprise was nothing short of moronic in this digital age, but nevertheless he was not fired but simply and quietly sent to FBI "Siberia" last summer, his activities only miraculously coming to public attention last week.
Why the secrecy? Many reasons, probably yet to be determined, but it comes down to this: the FBI, like the Mafia, practices omertà.
Now that Bill Clinton and his trashy wife are politically impotent, Democrats want a do over on Paula Jones -- you know the state employee Governor Bill Clinton tried to force to fellate him.She sued. His lawyers deposed him. He perjured himself (and tried to suborn perjury from others) about his consensual affair with That Woman, Miss Lewinsky.Perjury and suborning perjury can be felonies, and certainly are impeachable offenses. Democrats played it as everyone lies about sex, and he beat the rap.Sex is private, right?Now, all of Washington wants to strip Alabama of the right to elect Roy Moore, and Democrats find themselves on the outside looking in.So now there are a bunch of articles about how, oh, I believe Juanita Broaddrick (who claims Clinton raped her).That's nice.It is irrelevant.Clinton is irrelevant, and Broaddrick's story is hearsay. Sorry. Absent a conviction or admission of guilt, it is just gossip.But things may have been better had people believed her when we still could have had a police investigation, indictment, and trial. You know, all the things that make us civilized instead of the boys in "Lord of the Flies."Besides, it wasn't just Clinton.It was Ted Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.Democrats -- and frankly, most Republicans -- were cool with keeping Kennedy in the Senate after he got drunk, ditched his car in the water, and left a woman to die.And 22 years later, Democrats wanted to deny Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court because a woman said he put a hair on a can of Coca-Cola.I say to heck with them.I advise my friends and relatives in Alabama to vote for Roy Moore. He can always be expelled if he's guilty. We cannot expel Doug Jones if Moore is cleared.
Many years ago I worked with a man who before taking up a graduate degree in math at a German university had been a martial arts enthusiast. He had a very slight limp and one day told me the story behind it. While walking along a beach in Honduras with his wife and a British couple the foursome were attacked by a huge man armed with a machete. My friend had a "little camping machete" for defense and seeing the fight would soon go against his shorter weapon stepped inside his assailant's blade arc and took out his assailant's arm while receiving in exchange the blow which produced the limp. The Honduran police later congratulated him for subduing a notorious local criminal and took both him and the seriously injured suspect to the hospital.The story illustrates how in a sword fight, as in politics, the combatants often attack each other's extremities (sword hand, extended foot, arm) first before venturing into body strike range. To get into killing range you must often risk being killed yourself. So sword fighters usually wait for their foes to weaken or an opening to develop.The most singular thing about Donald Trump's wiretap accusation against Barack Obama is how he's refusing to play the game of extremities — losing a Flynn here and getting a Sessions paralyzed there — and getting right into lethal range. Trump's gone right past Schumer, ignored the surrogates and gone straight for the former president himself.The Sunday Guardian writes some believe Trump's key mistake was believing "in mid-November ... that it would be a statesmanlike gesture to (in effect) pardon Hillary Clinton." He must have expected a reciprocal courtesy. The next thing he felt were his digits being sheared away.Acting through their contacts in the incoming administration, the Clinton machine ... 'dismissed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn ... [and] ensured that the green light got flashed to launch an attack on another known foe of Hillary Clinton', Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose sought after resignation would energize the Clinton machine to move on to their next targets, Counsellors Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Bannon.Trump's response to the finger-lopping campaign was not to respond proportionately but to attack Obama himself. CBS News writes: "The White House ... is calling for an investigation into the previous administration’s surveillance activities."This escalation represents a real threat to Obama. Suddenly everything is out of control. Nobody would have minded much if Trump had gone after one of Obama's henchmen — which is probably what was expected — but none can foresee how an exchange of blades between principals will end. It is safe to say, however, that unless the combatants disengage, someone will get hurt. It will be a terrible moment for American political civility when a king lies on the political floor. The whole point of a peaceful transition of power is to prevent a clash between kings. Yet the very tragedy the electoral process is intended to prevent is happening before our eyes.
One of the ways American political culture prevents such a fight is to have only one king at a time. Former presidents are expected to retire and vanish. Obama, however, decided to stay in DC and try to destroy Trump’s presidency. That was a choice that showed little concern for America, but then, the lack of such concern has been a hallmark of Obama’s career.Answer: the foolish people who just lost the last election.
And who was foolish enough to think that Trump would respond to attacks by playing small ball?
Bud's always a good read, especially when he's off his hobby horse of Trump bashing.Now no less a liberal pundit as Thomas Franks is lamenting “Bill Clinton’s odious presidency” in his telling of “the real history of the ’90s,” and it’s something to see. The author of the national best-selling book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?,” which explained that Kansans tend to vote Republican because they’re too crazed by Christianity to embrace the truth faith of socialism, and which was the worst book we ever read on Kansas politics, has a new title out that explains how Clinton’s tenure was a disaster for a liberals. He grudgingly concedes that Clinton achieved modest increases in the minimum wage and top tax tax brackets, and made a failed attempt at health care reform, but notes that the rest of what he’s remembered for was mostly the doing of the hated House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his fellow right-wingers and that even the economic good times were largely a matter of accounting tricks and Enron-schemes and dot-com bubbles.As much as we’re delighted to hear such a left-winger as Franks at long last acknowledge these points, it is of course in service of the liberal agenda. Those tawdry sex scandals are now conceded, but that’s only because the religious right is now reduced to fighting for the right not to participate or same-sex weddings and saving nuns the cost of contraceptive coverage, and the woman who defended her husband’s serial abuses is now out on the campaign trail saying that any woman who alleges a sexual assault should be believed. Those tough-on-crime measures saved thousands of black lives, but now there’s a Black Lives Matter movement that is more concerned about the mass incarceration of murderers of black men and women. Don’t mention trade deals on a Democratic campaign trail, either, or even a Republican one, because those are now out of fashion, no matter what economic benefits they’ve brought. That welfare reform bill that proved so popular and effective prior to its repeal-by-executive-action under President Barack Obama is now described as “the repeal of welfare,” and the distaff Clinton is to be tarred with that as well. There’s no mention of the awful affordable housing policies that drove a housing bubble whose popping popped the entire economy, which of course is all blamed on those de-regulations, or how the lack of concern with Middle Eastern terrorism might have manifested itself a few months into Clinton’s successor’s first term, so it’s not an altogether satisfying revisionism.
"This is what MSNBC and the rest of the networks have been describing what they thought these fraternities, what they thought the [Duke] lacrosse rape [case was]," Coulter said on FOX News' Hannity. This is the elites circling the wagon and protecting a pederast. It's a shocking case and that's just the known facts."
With her repeated assertions that women never lie about sexual harassment, her careless mouth put the cat among the pigeons. Twitter, where American politicians fight their fiercest battles, was quickly littered with charge and countercharge. “To every survivor of sexual assault,” Hillary tweeted to abused women, “You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.” The Donald tweeted a warning that a fight over who abuses women was a scrap that Hillary shouldn’t want.Bubba and the missus got a pass years ago for his sordid sexual romps, famously with the 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Hillary called the story the product of “the vast right-wing media conspiracy,” and Betty Friedan, the founding mother of modern feminism, agreed. “[Mr.] Clinton’s enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern … whether it’s a fantasy, or a set-up or true,” she said. “I simply don’t care.” Anita Perez, president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, conceded politics trumped justice when Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer who said Bubba “manhandled” her in a private meeting about the job she had applied for. She said Mrs. Willey’s accusation was “disturbing, but to come to any judgment now is definitely not something I think is timely.”Timely for Hillary now or not, the pass the media gave Bubba seems to have expired. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post offers a two-part guide to Bubba’s dalliances “for younger voters who may be wondering what the fuss is about,” dating from his origins in the land of the magic huckleberry. “We will divide the stories into two parts,” he writes, “consensual liaisons admitted by the women in question, and allegations of an unwanted sexual encounter.”Bubba, like most Arkansas good ol’ boys, had a taste for the beauty queens who abound in the South, bedding two Miss Americas and a Miss Arkansas, who said she was told by “a Democratic Party official” after an affair with Bubba ended that if she didn’t keep her mouth shut he couldn’t guarantee “what would happen to my pretty little legs.”
It’s a phenomenon I call “the Bill Clinton effect.” President Clinton isn’t just another example of a prominent pol who habitually cheated on his wife with many women, including those on his staff. Clinton showcased how those who normally police behavior and work to penalize men for mistreating women will excuse men aligned with them politically. In other words, Clinton revealed that liberals can expect to get away with a lot more in terms of abusing women than conservatives.Young progressives may only know a whitewashed version of the Clinton scandals, in which rabid conservatives tried to make a mountain out of a consensual-affair molehill. Yet the undisputed facts of the Lewinsky affair reveal a clear and classic example of a powerful man abusing women under his power and creating a hostile work environment: Clinton was a powerful executive having sexual relations with a 22-year-old intern working in his office, whom he rewarded with a taxpayer-financed job and other special treatment. None of the interns working alongside Monica got cushy job offers post-internship. That alone is supposed to be a giant red flag for those concerned about equal treatment and a harassment-free workplace.But, of course, that was just the tip of the iceberg; Clinton was having his affair with Monica in the midst of an ongoing investigation into his alleged sexual harassment of a state employee (Paula Jones) during his time as Governor of Arkansas. Other women also came forward with allegations of harassment and even assault. Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky, at first suggesting she was delusional, both to the public and then when testifying under oath as a part of that sexual harassment suit.Liberal women’s groups are supposed to frown on men who smear women and undermine the legal process of sexual harassment suits, and take accusations of sexual assault seriously. Yet President Clinton—a good Democrat who supported abortion rights and other feminist sacraments—was largely given a pass. Sure, some feminists murmured their disappointment with Clinton’s behavior and mouthed platitudes about Paula Jones deserving her day in court. But their criticisms were perfunctory at best. Mostly, they stood by Clinton’s side, defending him and remaining silent as he lied and slandered the women who accused him.Compare this to the treatment of Justice Clarence Thomas. Even if one assumes that every accusation made by Anita Hill is true, Justice Thomas would at most be crass and a little boorish, but very minor-league in terms of sexual harassment compared to Clinton. Yet women’s groups and the liberal media pounded Thomas, almost derailing his Supreme Court nomination, and to this day ensure that his name is synonymous with sexual harassment.Given these examples, it would make sense that liberals would feel freer to abuse women than their conservative counterparts. Conservatives have to assume that the press and the establishment women’s movement will exact as mighty a punishment as possible for any misdeed, while liberals can expect far less blowback. Moreover, conservatives, who are consistently bashed as part of a “war on women,” are terrified of anything that might legitimize that charge. Thus they are motivated to deal harshly with fellow conservatives who threaten to further entrench that reputation with the public. In contrast, liberals enjoy a comfortable advantage with women and reputation for caring about women’s issues, so are likely to be less vigilant about policing their own ranks.Given this history, it’s no big surprise that, as the liberal online website Vox.com put it, progressive have a sexual harassment problem.
But here’s the thing: The real issue isn’t whether or not to attack Bill to indirectly attack Hillary — it’s about directly attacking Hillary for how she herself treated the women involved.Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them.She attacked them. When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”And there are multiple reports of her and her detectives doing just that. Kathleen Willey — whom Bill allegedly sexually assaulted in 1993 — claims that detectives hired by Hillary threatened her and her children and even killed her cat.Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of raping her in 1978, reports that she was also threatened by Hillary. Oh, and let’s not forget — she had no problem blaming the (very true) allegations that Bill was having an affair with Lewinsky on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Anything to save a man’s career, amirite? Does this woman sound “feminist” to you?
The "rich" are never people like the Clintons, who acquired their wealth by the sweat of their brows, toiling in the harsh icy policy-mines of Davos. They're not the guys who make a bundle off some clever bit of tech, sell the company, then pledge to spend a fraction of their fortune on outfitting polar bears with inflatable vests to help them survive their imminent inundation in the boiling waters of the Arctic. They're not people like John Kerry, who married his way into a pile of money derived from a ubiquitous condiment; they're not people like Apple CEO Tim Cook, because c'mon, he's gay. They're not the Kennedys, because the Kennedys could strike oil on their Hyannis Port compound, pay African orphans a dollar a day to work the pumps by hand, build a pipeline that ran through a protected Monarch-butterfly preserve, and the media would still hang halos over their heads because JFK was martyred in Dallas by a free-floating toxic cloud of right-wing hatred that inhabited the brain of a well-meaning Marxist.These are rich people, but they're good rich people, because you can imagine any one of them writing a check to Planned Parenthood with the words "keep up the excellent mammograms" in the memo line.-- James Lileks
