Though Bill and Hillary Clinton haven’t slept together since 1935 and barely share the same zip code though they are, air quotes, “married,” Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed via the recent release of her new Book of Excuses (with a title I shan’t publish here and with no link that I’ll provide), that her “skin crawled” in a debate with President Donald Trump.
But she also targets President Trump, recalling their second, town-hall style debate in October when the billionaire appeared to hover behind Clinton on-stage as she spoke.
“ ‘This is not OK,’ I thought,” Clinton writes. “No matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled.”
You want to see skin crawling? You want to see creepy? Displayed in public for all to see? Look no further than President Trump’s inauguration of January 20th. Check this video.
Watch as Bill Clinton runs his allegedly-raping eyeballs over the figure of Ivanka Trump as she descends the stairs towards the platform to Bill’s right accompanied by her husband and president-elect Donald Trump.
Notice how he leeringly and with dribbling spittle mouths the words “Ivanka” as she passes next to him.
Then notice how Hillary catches his eyeball tracking and makes her thoughts completely and obviously known. This is nothing new for her. She had just hoped that he would attempt to keep his sexual addiction in check publicly.
Hillary Clinton Launches Unlimited ‘Dark Money’ Group
Two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton officially launched a new organization on Monday, “Onward Together,” with the stated goal of “advancing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.” Put more bluntly, the group’s mission is to advance Clinton’s agenda, which was unable to defeat Donald Trump.
The devil’s usually in the details, is it not? The detail that is smashed to the bottom in fine print is this.
Contributions or gifts to Onward Together, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.
Translated: you can’t write that off and we take all the profit, thank you very much, you ignorant dupes, you useful tools. Because, after all, we deserve it and we are much smarter than you.
By listing itself as a 501(c)(4), Clinton is able to take so-called “dark money,” or money from donors who legally do not have to be disclosed, in unlimited amounts.
Anyone remember this, below? Of course you don’t. Just what Hillary Clinton is counting on.
Sessions asks 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys to resign
by Joel Schectman and Mark Hosenball
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions abruptly asked the remaining 46 chief federal prosecutors left over from the Obama administration to resign on Friday, including Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who had been asked to stay on in November by then President-elect Donald Trump.
Although U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and the request from Trump’s Justice Department is part of a routine process, the move came as a surprise. Not every new administration replaces all U.S. attorneys at once.
Stop. Please notice what is emphasized and what is de-emphasized. It is emphasized that the event was a surprise. It was not much emphasized that it is customary for new administrations to replace the US attorneys as they are political appointments and thusly connected by prevailing political prairie winds. When Demorats do it, the process is all well and good. When a conservative or a Republican does it — as George Bush did — the process is now evil on its face. As expected, Leftist news organs went ballistic.
Gloriously, CNN’s Don Lemon saw a conspiracy behind every bush — or was it Bush? Sean Hannity knows all, sees all, and pulls the strings of DC from the Fox News studios.
Then there are the US attorneys who, apparently, are superior to others. From the WP.com:
New York federal prosecutor Preet Bharara says he was fired by Trump administration
by Devlin Barrett, Sari Horowitz and Robert Costa
Preet Bharara, one of the most high-profile federal prosecutors in the country, was fired Saturday after refusing to submit a letter of resignation as part of an ouster of the remaining U.S. attorneys who were holdovers from the Obama administration, according to people familiar with the matter.
“I did not resign,” Bharara said on Twitter. “Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”
On Friday, acting deputy attorney general Dana Boente began making calls to 46 prosecutors asking for their resignations. Such requests are a normal part of a transition of power from one administration to another, and about half of the 94 Obama-era U.S. attorneys had already left their jobs.
Stop. So you see the difference in reporting? Reuters intimates it’s non-standard to expect letters of resignation and to accept them. WaPo says it’s a “normal part” of the transition.
Further, Mr Bharara believes he’s superior to other USAs and, as a result, doesn’t have to submit a letter of resignation. When subsequently fired he becomes shocked, shocked I tell you. Then, after wits collected, he stated he was proud of his “absolute independence.” This is LeftShockSpeak for “shit, I have to say something.”
Another point about USA Preet Bharara. It was he who prosecuted Dinesh D’Souza for election fraud (thank you, Pat Dollard) because D’Souza is a conservative and was a critic of the Obama administration — as was revealed in his newly-released case files.
“All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.”
Could it also be that any number of these USAs should be removed due to incompetence? In my opinion that would be applicable to US Attorney Zachary Fardon in Chicago, who is noteworthy (or should I say infamous) for this:
Fardon became Chicago’s “top federal prosecutor on Oct. 23, 2013,” and has been heavily criticized for his lack of prosecution of federal gun law violations.
Fardon played up “his office’s role in fighting gun violence on the streets of Chicago” but aChicago Sun-Timesreport on “court records in October 2016 showed federal weapons charges in Chicago had actually fallen slightly over the previous five years.”
TheSun-Timesreport squares with the experience of the Chicago Police Board. Duringa January 7 interview with NPR, police board chairwoman Lori Lightfoot said Chicago needed more federal prosecutions if they were ever to turn the tide on the city’s gun crime.
We need to have more federal gun prosecutions in Chicago. Our federal partners from the U.S. attorney’s office, the ATF, the FBI need to be much more invested in this overall strategy. Chicago Police Department cannot tackle this issue by itself.
A final note of interest. Whilst the Demorats and Leftists wring their palsied hands over the terrible treatment by President Trump of the US Attorneys, President Clinton purified and cleansed the AG’s offices throughout the fruited plain in 1993 — including US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama Jeff Sessions, who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan and served President George H.W. Bush as well. Clinton ejected those USAs produced under Republican regimes — and had every bit of authority to do so. Let’s listen.
The bottom line is that none of this needs to be justified by the Trump administration. It’s how the game is played and the “mainstream media” or what I term the American Media Maggots have and will not tell you anything about the history of events like this. They want you to believe that everything occurs in a vacuum and is totally unprecedented. The American Media Maggots possess what I term a purposeful Historical Alzheimers.
That is why I say that the American Media Maggots have historically worked long and hard to earn their sobriquet of Fake News.
They are proud of the way they have acted and are acting now.
As conservatives, these common maneuvers are exactly what we expected of Donald Trump and, further, is precisely why he was elected.
“The spice must flow,” and the swamp must be drained.
EXCLUSIVE: Blow up! Days before losing the election Hillary and Bill had a screaming match over who to blame for her flagging campaign – the ex-president so angry he threw his phone off the roof of his Arkansas penthouse
by Ed Klein
Bill and Hillary had a vicious fight over the phone over who to blame for her sagging poll numbers, reveals a source close to the ex-president
Hillary blamed FBI Director Comey for reopening investigation based on Anthony Weiner’s shared computer with Huma Abedin for her slump
Bill faulted Robby Mook, John Podesta and Hillary HERSELF
He claimed the three were tone-deaf about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters
‘A big part of Bill’s anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,’ said the source
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.
‘I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign’s momentum,’ said one of Bill Clinton’s closest advisers.
‘Bill didn’t buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,’ said the source. ‘As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Once again, Bill displays that his political acumen far surpasses that of Hillary — with some limitations, of course.
‘Bill was so red in the face during his conversation with Hillary that I worried he was going to have a heart attack. He got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River.’
Here is another truthful tidbit because, well, do you remember this woman, Peggy Joseph? Were the expectations too high, or was Obama just another politician shilling for votes?
‘Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama,’ the source continued.
I’d say those were facts in evidence, were you to ask me.
‘Hillary wouldn’t listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren’t listening to anything he said.’
CONFIRMED: Video confirms Hillary Clinton drunkenly attacks Podesta and Mook on Election Night
My friend is a trustworthy reporter(Oxymoron? -BZ) who often sees anti-Clinton stories spiked. Not everybody at CNN is bad. The leadership is, though.This is a respected neutral who is being silenced – A good friend of mine, sick of CNN suppressing inconvenient stories that hurt the left.
Oh, it gets better, friends.
The few honest MSM reporters have been reduced to leaking info to new media people because their corporate bosses won’t let them report it.
Read that again: MSM reporters have been reduced to leaking info to new media people because their corporate bosses won’t let them report it.
A friend at CNN says Clintonland reports Hillary was in a “psychotic, drunken rage” election night; needed hardcore meds to speak Wednesday.
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained. Hillary on election night was straight-up Hitler-in-the-bunker shit. It even included psychotic screaming about “the Russians.”
The doctor helped restrain Hillary when she violently attacked Mook and Podesta at midnight. Gave sedatives, then amphetamines next morning.
You’ll enjoy this.
CNN reporter says Hillary needed so many amphetamines Wed morning she had unexpected nosebleeds all day. Fear was she’d bleed at concession.
Hmmm. Does that perhaps explain why no one saw Hillary Clinton in public for any form of appearance, much less a concession speech, on election night?
Hillary Clinton Screaming Obscenities and Throwing Objects in Election Night Meltdown
by Daniel J. Flynn
The mystery of Hillary Clinton, milk-carton missing on election night, appears solved.
A Tuesday of catharsis for Donald Trump voters turned into an evening of rage for Hillary Clinton. The Democratic presidential nominee, anticipating the postelection reaction of many of her supporters, began shouting profanities, banging tables, and turning objects not nailed down into projectiles.
“Sources have told The American Spectator that on Tuesday night, after Hillary realized she had lost, she went into a rage,” R. Emmett Tyrrell reports. “Secret Service officers told at least one source that she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage.”
“Head home, get some sleep, we’ll have more to say tomorrow,” said John Podesta. That’s called an intensive and obvious clue. There’s more.
Tyrrell’s reporting indicates that Mrs. Clinton’s mental state made it impossible for her to address her supporters on election night as custom requests.
Not just mental; remember the story above.
“Her aides could not allow her to come out in public,” he writes. “It would take her hours to calm down. So Podesta went out and gave his aimless speech. I wish we could report on Bill’s whereabouts but we cannot.”
“People say they’re amazed Bill’s marriage survived,” Tyrrell noted to Breitbart. “I’m amazed Bill survived his marriage.”
It rankled Hillary Clinton that she lost to a black neophyte in 2008. She knew she had no chance against incumbent Obama in 2012. 2016 was to be her year because she was “due” to be president. It was “owed” to her.
Imagine the vast amounts of gin and crank that had to be knocked down when she realized she supported Bill Clinton’s continuing sexual escapades and rape allegations for years and years, only to have the ultimate prize knocked away from her clutching fingers by the unwashed commoners, the proles, the groundlings, the serfs.
As I said, this couldn’t happen to a nice, more humble couple.
As I say now: let the indictments and prosecutions commence.
FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, lawmaker says
by Catherine Herridge and Adam Shaw
Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search.
“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.
Precisely correct. Because if you “do deals,” then you are — unless you’re a complete dunsel — expecting something in return.
“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” Goodlatte asks.
Why yes, it does. Read that paragraph over very carefully, because of the reveal. IF the laptops were not important to the case, then why would they require destruction?
Surely, destruction of the laptops was not an issue brought to the table by the FBI. It would have been an issue brought to the table specifically by Mills and Samuelson.
Wait. Isn’t that called a clue?
Immunity was provided and EVIDENCE DESTROYED because of said immunity deal.
When the government provides immunity — and only government entities can do so — it is invariably because prosecution is focusing not on the level of those provided immunity but on levels above. In other words, immunity is provided in order to catch the so-called “bigger fish.”
So I ask: what “bigger fish” were caught by providing immunity to Mills and Samuelson and, further, why did this immunity include destruction of the hard drives from their laptops?