Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton under fire for joke about US leading in virus cases: Trump ‘did promise America First’

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was blasted on social media Friday for her swipe against President Trump amid the growing coronavirus outbreak within the U.S. Since the availability of testing kits has broadened in recent days, the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. has skyrocketed. On Thursday, the U.S. has reportedly outpaced both China and Italy with more than 97,000 reported cases. Clinton took the latest developments as an opportunity to knock her former 2016 rival on Twitter. “He did promise ‘America First,'” Clinton wrote, referring to one of the president’s oft-repeated campaign slogans. Her tweet was slammed by critics across Twitter. “Delete your account. This isn’t the time. This can’t be the new normal, where American tragedy is applauded for the sake of political opportunism,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, wrote. “This sort of vicious celebratory tone about Americans getting sick & dying during a deadly global pandemic is just appalling,” Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy reacted. “Hillary Clinton touting figures that are a result of Chinese disinformation to dunk on America and sick Americans is a pretty good reminder why she lost in 2016,” National Republican Senatorial Committee senior advisor Matt Whitlock said. “This is beyond the pale,” Human Events managing editor Ian Miles Cheong tweeted.

Hillary continues to be an out-of-touch, self-serving, entitlement-minded, arrogant, elitist bitch.  For starters, she stole that “joke.”  So, she gets a zero for originality.  Then, because she is so out-of-touch, she thinks she’s being funny/cute by taking a dig at Trump.  What she clearly doesn’t get (or maybe she just doesn’t care) is that the dig is at those poor Americans stricken with this awful Wuhan virus…or who have died from it.  Think about that.  Like I said…what a bitch.  There’s a special place in hell for people like her.

Federal judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition to address private emails: ‘Still more to learn’

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business. Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again — the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation — but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired. “As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said. The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.” Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?” The ruling comes after Judicial Watch revealed at a December 2019 status conference that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” and that the State Department “failed to fully explain” where they came from. The State Department has been pushing for the discovery phase of the case to come to a close, but Lamberth said he is not ready to do so, saying that “there is still more to learn.” Judicial Watch, which initiated this case in 2014, is looking for information regarding whether Clinton used her private email server to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act, whether the State Department acted in bad faith when they tried to settle the case years ago, and whether the department had adequately looked for records in response to Judicial Watch’s initial FOIA request. Given that the settlement attempts and records search took place after Clinton left office, the judge ruled that the deposition should focus on whether she intentionally tried to use her private server to evade FOIA and her understanding of the State Department’s record management requirements. Lamberth also granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, IT specialist Paul Combetta who was involved in deleting Clinton’s emails, as well as Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, who were State Department officials familiar with Clinton’s private email server. Judicial Watch also wanted to question Clinton and Mills about government talking points in the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Lamberth said that while they “cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack,” they can face questions regarding “their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”

Well, it’s about time!!  FINALLY, Hillary is being forced to answer these questions.  All of us would spend the rest of our lives in federal prison for what she did with that email server.  She’s, of course, a Clinton..  So, she won’t spend a day in jail, unfortunately.  But, at least she is being forced to address her brazen corruption.  It’ll be fun to see how she dances around all of this.  Kudos to Judicial Watch for their efforts here.  Excellent!!    🙂

Opinion/Analysis: There was collusion – but not involving Trump

There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.” Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic Party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen … which is why you could bet the ranch that it would. Plan A was to get Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions. Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump not reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case. Upon becoming President Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton improperly set up a private, non-secure system for email communications. It featured her own personal server, stored in her home and, later, maintained by a private contractor. Secretary Clinton used this private email system for all of her official State Department communications, notwithstanding that doing so (a) violated government regulations (which, as the department head, she was responsible for enforcing); (b) violated governmental record-keeping and record-production obligations imposed by federal law; and (c) made it inevitable — due to the nature of her responsibilities — that streams of classified information would flow through and be stored in the non-secure system. This lack of security meant that top-secret intelligence — some of it classified at the highest levels, some of it involving Clinton’s communications with the president of the United States and other top national-security officials — became accessible to people who were not cleared to see it. Accessible not just to those lacking security clearance but also to hostile actors, including foreign intelligence services and anti-American hackers. When asked, nearly two years after leaving office, to surrender copies of her emails (by an Obama State Department under pressure from congressional investigators and Freedom of Information Act claimants), Clinton caused tens of thousands of her emails to be destroyed. Not just deleted. Destroyed. As in: purged with a special software program (“BleachBit”) designed to shred electronic documents. The aim was to prevent their being recovered. Ever. By anyone. In all, Clinton undertook to destroy over 30,000 emails, even though some of them had been demanded by congressional subpoena. And this would not be a Clinton story if we failed to note that, in the time-honored family tradition, Hillary lied her head off about the substance of the destroyed emails: We were to believe that, in thousands upon thousands of email exchanges, one of the busiest public officials and most obsessively political creatures on the planet had lolled her days away gabbing about yoga routines, family vacations, and her daughter’s wedding. President Obama took care of undermining any prosecution for her mishandling of classified information. He had a deep interest in doing so: He had knowingly communicated with his secretary of state through the private system, and he had misled the public about it — claiming to have learned about Clinton’s private email practices from news reports, like everyone else. All of that could be neatly buried in two steps. First, invoke executive privilege (without calling it that — too Nixonian) to seal the Obama–Clinton emails from public view. Second, ensure that the Clinton-emails case would never be prosecuted: If Clinton was never accused of criminal conduct, then Obama’s role as a minor participant would not become evidence in a criminal case. In April 2016, on national television, the president made clear that he did not believe an indictment should be filed against former Secretary Clinton, who, by then, was the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Obama explained that, in his considered judgment, Clinton meant no harm to national security. Plus, the intelligence involved, though technically categorized as “classified,” was not really, you know, the super-secret stuff — “There’s ‘classified,’” Obama scoffed, “and then there’s classified.” It was a classic Obama straw man. The criminal provisions pertinent to Clinton’s case did not require proof of intent to harm the United States, only that she was trusted with access to intelligence and nevertheless mishandled it, either intentionally or through gross negligence. Moreover, no one was accusing Clinton of trying to damage national security. That is a different, more serious criminal offense that was not on the table. It was as if Obama were claiming that a bank robber was somehow not guilty of the bank robbery because she hadn’t murdered anyone while committing it. There was no way on God’s green earth that the Obama Justice Department was ever going to authorize a prosecution involving conduct that would embarrass the president. Nor was it ever going to indict Obama’s former secretary of state — certainly not after Obama, revered by Democrats and pundits as a first-rate lawyer, had pronounced her not guilty, had provided a legal rationale for exoneration, and had endorsed her as his successor. Wonder of wonders: The “no intent to harm the United States” rationale President Obama had glibly posited in insisting Clinton had done nothing wrong was echoed in the ensuing months by his subordinates. Justice Department officials leaked to their media friends that Clinton was unlikely to be charged because there was scant evidence of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, very shortly after Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s case, FBI director James Comey and his closest advisers began drafting remarks exonerating Mrs. Clinton. Over a dozen critical witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not yet been interviewed. Salient evidence had not yet been examined. No matter. With the end of the story already written, the rest was just details. When Director Comey finally announced that Clinton would not be indicted, his rationalizations were indistinguishable from Obama’s. Thus “exonerated,” the former first lady was on her way to the Oval Office — this time as president. Or so she thought — as did the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, every progressive activist from Boston Harbor to Silicon Valley, and every political pundit from the Beltway to the Upper West Side. Alas, there was just one problem — a problem the president and his myrmidons could not fix for Mrs. Clinton. That problem was Mrs. Clinton. As would have been manifest to less politicized eyes, she was an atrocious candidate. Clinton was the same fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, broadly unpopular candidate she had been in 2008, when she couldn’t convince Democrats to support her. You may recall this as the reason there was a President Barack Obama in the first place. You say, “Hey, wait a second. Donald Trump was fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and broadly unpopular, too.” Maybe so, but if hammering away at an opponent’s malignance is the path to victory, shouldn’t you perhaps nominate a candidate who doesn’t mirror his defects? The only differences between the “It’s My Turn” Senator Hillary! of 2008 and the “Stronger Together” Secretary Clinton who expected a 2016 coronation was that she now had hanging around her neck the Benghazi debacle, a desultory tenure as secretary of state, a shades-of-2008 inability to convince Democrats that she was the preferable candidate (this time, not in comparison to a charismatic young progressive, but to a 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who had joined the Democratic party about five minutes before announcing his presidential aspirations), whispers that her health was deteriorating, and an email scandal that smacked of both national-security recklessness and rules-don’t-apply-to-me arrogance — precisely the kind of controversy that reminded Americans of how exhausting the last scandal-plagued Clinton administration had been. The Obama administration’s exoneration gambit came up snake-eyes because of Clinton herself. Democrats can con themselves (and attempt to con everyone else) into believing that her failure is due to Vladimir Putin’s perfidy or Trump’s demagoguery. In the real world, though, Clinton lost because of her epic shortcomings. That loss made it inevitable that the Obama administration’s exploitation of counterintelligence powers to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign would come to light. That made it imperative to promote the notion that there had been a Trump–Russia scheme worth investigating — a dark cloud of suspicion that would straitjacket and shorten the Trump presidency. The collusion narrative.

..which we now know to be a total hoax; a complete fabrication.  Thanks to attorney Andrew C. McCarthy for this outstanding piece.  Its an excerpt from his new book: “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig and Election and Destroy a Presidency.’  So, you’ll have to pick up a copy to read the rest of this..   Excellent!!!     🙂

Bill, Hillary Clinton booed at Billy Joel concert after singer dedicated song to them

Bill and Hillary Clinton got a taste of New York’s state of mind on Thursday night. After singer Billy Joel dedicated a song to the former first couple and flashed them up on the screen at Madison Square Garden, initial cheers turned to boos from the audience. The former first lady has been under scrutiny for years as she criticized President Trump and attempted to lay out the reasons she thought were behind her loss to him in the 2016 election. Former President Bill Clinton, on the other hand, faced fresh criticism surrounding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who on Monday was indicted on sex trafficking charges. A Clinton spokesperson denied the former president had any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, noting that he took “a total of four trips” with Epstein in 2002 and 2003. “In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation,” the statement read. An investigative journalist later told Fox News, however, that Clinton wasn’t telling the truth about either the flights or his knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. Journalist Conchita Sarnoff, who first broke the Epstein story back in 2010, says the number of flights isn’t accurate, claiming that Clinton was a guest on Epstein’s planes many more times over a longer period. “I know from the pilot logs and these are pilot logs that you know were written by different pilots and at different times that Clinton went, he was a guest of Epstein’s 27 times,” she said, adding that “many of those times Clinton had his Secret Service with him and many times he did not.” Hillary Clinton similarly encountered speculation over her relationship with Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who allegedly sexually assaulted multiple women over years. At the end of 2017, the former presidential candidate condemned Weinstein’s alleged behavior and said she was “shocked” to hear about it. In June, the couple also caught attention for the underwhelming ticket sales a Broadway depiction of them received — leading to an early end long before its initially-scheduled end date of July 24.

And that really is the underreported story..  Nobody cares about how many trips former Pres. Bill Clinton took with disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.  I mean, c’mon.  They’re two peas in a pod.  Not exactly news that they’d be BFFs.  The real story here..the elephant in the room, so to speak… is just how much people are SO over the Clintons and wish they’d just go away.  And this story wasn’t out of Texas or Utah or Missouri.  This was out of New York City where there are 10 Dem voters for every Republican one.  It’s insanely liberal.   Hillary Clinton was the absolute WORST possible candidate that the Dems could have put forth in 2016.  She is a  self-righteous, entitlement-minded, narcissistic lying hypocrite who made her campaign all about..well..her.  “I’m with her”.. remember?  Trump, the most UNlikely candidate made his campaign about making “America Great Again.”  The contrast couldn’t have been more stark.  So, over 64 million voters gave Hillary the finger and voted for Trump.  Afterwards, all Hillary could do was blame everyone, but herself, for her loss….and people saw right through that self-righteous, entitlement-minded, narcissism…and vomited.  It’s no surprise that their Broadway production about them (barf) has been a total flop.  Billy Joel, who is a great, legendary musician is also part of that liberal entertainment industry, and unfortunately showed how out of touch he is with his own audience…even in New York.

Opinion/Analysis: Why Hillary Clinton will never be president

An op-ed published this week in the Wall Street Journal has ignited rumors of a potential 2020 presidential run for Hillary Clinton. The piece discusses the different iterations of Hillary Clinton the public has seen over the past 30-plus years. But none of those versions became president and no matter how many times Clinton tries to reinvent herself she cannot change who she is at the core: inauthentic, unlikable and out of touch. According to the op-ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein – headlined “Hillary Will Run Again” – Hillary Clinton 1.0 was a “universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand” in 1994 when she was first lady. Hillary Clinton version 2.0 was a moderate when she successfully ran for the Senate and again when she lost in the Democratic presidential primaries to then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. In 2016, Clinton 3.0 was a progressive who moved further to the left because of her challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. And Hillary Clinton version 4.0 will run for president in 2020 by returning to her roots as a progressive, Penn and Stein predict. But the fact there have been so many different versions of Clinton is precisely the problem. Clinton is inauthentic. Former Obama adviser and Democratic strategist David Axelrod nailed this point about Clinton and the 2016 election when he said: “Authenticity is a big factor and a leading indicator for candidates, and they have to be comfortable in their own skin. There is no one wishing that Donald Trump would speak his mind. Hillary Clinton has always been allergic to revealing herself, and when she does talk, it comes out through a political filter.” Clinton’s authenticity has also taken a major hit over the years because she changes policy positions depending on where the political winds are blowing. This gives the perception that she is not rooted in any core beliefs. One issue that probably hurt Clinton most in the rust belt was trade. As secretary of state in 2012, she backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, even calling it the “gold standard.” However, she changed her position in 2016 while under scrutiny from Bernie Sanders on the left and candidate Trump on the right. Clinton also has a likability problem. In an interview with the Washington Post, Democratic pollster Peter Hart put it this way: “I bring it down to one thing and one thing only, and that is likability.” The likability issue was also brought up during a 2008 Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, when the moderator said voters were impressed by Clinton’s resume but were “hesitating on the likability issue.” Obama famously quipped that she was “likable enough” during the exchange. Clinton is also out of touch. Her surprise pit stop to an Ohio Chipotle in 2015 while on the campaign trail demonstrated this. Despite it being a great opportunity for pictures with customers, she wore dark sunglasses in the restaurant. She couldn’t be bothered to speak with anyone. Clinton’s infamous “basketful of Deplorables” comment also underscores this point. In response to her comment calling his supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic,” Trump responded that Clinton showed “her true contempt for everyday Americans.” Other gaffes also speak to Clinton’s disconnect with voters. In response to a question from ABC’s Diane Sawyer in 2014 about her $200,000 speaking fees, Clinton said that she and President Bill Clinton “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” President Clinton received a $15 million advance for his memoir after leaving the White House and then-Sen. and former first lady Hillary Clinton received $8 million in a deal for her memoir. In what will likely be a crowded 2020 Democrat primary field, Hillary Clinton would not stand out. Her time has come and gone. She is a relic of the past. No amount of pollsters, speechwriters, or consultants can change who she is – and that is why she will never be president.

Agreed…and well said, Lisa.  Lisa Boothe is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Hillary has no core beliefs.  And a great percentage of Americans absolutely despise her.  Her likability” factor is in the toilet.  When she said she was “dead broke,” a LOT of us said.. “can I please be that ‘dead brok?'”   Unreal…   Hillary is a self-righteous, arrogant, sanctimonious, entitlement-minded, liberal elitist.  She changes her “views” based on what’s currently popular.  And, she’s a brazen hypocrite.  Remember when she said we all need to believe “all women” who make sexual allegations against men?  Yet, when such very credible accusations were leveled at her husband, she fought them tooth and nail.  In other words, to her..  Believe all sexual accusations made by women, unless they’re against my husband.  So much for the #MeToo movement, lol.  Hillary made her 2016 campaign all about herself.  Donald Trump made it about “the forgotten men and women”..and to “Make America Great Again.”  That was the difference.  Heck, the man only takes $1 a year for his salary (because he has to), and donates the rest of his presidential salary to charity and federal government agencies like Health and Human Services (it rotates each quarter).  In a million years, Hillary would NEVER do that.  Remember when she got caught stealing the china out of the White House when the Clintons left it in 2001?  They had to go back and recover the china and other items and return them to the “People’s House.”  Lisa is right..  Hillary’s time has come and gone, and America has had enough of her.  But, hey..  If the Dems are dumb enough to renominate that nauseating bitch, then they deserve to lose….again.

Hillary Clinton jokes ‘they all look alike’ after interviewer mixes up Cory Booker and Eric Holder

Hillary Clinton joked about how black men like Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and former Attorney General Eric Holder “all look alike.” During an interview on Friday, Clinton made the quip while correcting Recode’s Kara Swisherabout who recently goaded on Democratic voters by rhetorically encouraging them to “kick” Republicans when they “go low.” After Clinton noted how she adores Booker, Swisher asked the former secretary of state what she thought about this “kick them” remark. “Well, that was Eric Holder,” Clinton noted. “Eric Holder, oh, Eric Holder, sorry,” Swisher said. “Yeah, I know they all look alike,” Clinton quipped to a wave of laughter and applause in the room.

Wow..  Just fathom if President Trump or ANY Republican had made such a crack..  Mika and Joe over at MSNBC, or Jake at CNN would lose their minds.  But, hey..  It’s Hillary.  So, she gets a pass by the spectacularly hypocritical dominantly liberal mainstream media.  Typical..  As many of you know, we like to point out the brazen hypocrisy of the liberal media.  And, like the article above about Don Lemon, we’ll continue to expose their hypocrisy for you.  For more, click on the text above.

Rep. Steve Scalise: When Eric Holder, other Dems call for violence, that’s a direct threat to our democracy

This summer, California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters to harass cabinet officials. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that you “cannot be civil” with members of the Republican Party. And Wednesday, videotape was released of former Attorney General Eric Holder telling a Democratic audience at a campaign rally in Georgia on Sunday that they should “kick” Republicans when they perceive them as “going low.” Despite the continued reports of politically motivated threats or violence, Democratic Party leaders have worked to keep this anger burning and incite even more harassment and violence. Beginning with my own near-death experience at the hands of a deranged shooter who sought to assassinate a baseball field of Republicans, there is a growing list of violent or threatening actions taken against conservatives by Democrats. Ashley Kavanaugh, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wife and his daughters received multiple credible threats. Dana Loesch, NRA spokeswoman, received death threats against her children on Twitter. Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., received such a threatening phone call that the man has now been indicted. Jamie Gardner, wife of Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., wife, received a text of a beheading after the vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. Several Republican Senators had their personal information, including home addresses, posted to Wikipedia for threatening purposes by a Democrat House staffer. Congressman Clay Higgins (R-La.) received threatening phone calls that led to a man’s arrest. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kent., and his wife Kelly Paul have both received credible threats that have led to arrests. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife, as well as White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, were chased out of restaurants. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was confronted by protesters and harassed out of a DC restaurant. Rudy Peters, a Republican California Congressional candidate, was nearly stabbed while campaigning. My office has continued to receive threats against my life that have led to arrests. A female pro-life activist was violently assaulted by a man that has now been found guilty of eight counts of assault for this and similar incidents. And this list goes on. The threats and the violence have not let up and instead of seeing my Democrat colleagues calling for an end, there have been calls for their supporters to keep going, to do even more to threaten Republicans. As a survivor of a politically motivated attack, it is tragic to think this is an acceptable state of political discourse in our country. I refuse to stand for this and I will continue to call for an end to it. A healthy, strong democracy is not possible if anyone lives in fear of expressing their views. If this is going to stop, it must start with Democratic leaders, who need to condemn, rather than promote these dangerous calls to action. In America, we win battles at the ballot box, not through mob rule or intimidation. While it’s clear many Democrats refuse to accept the election of President Trump, if they want change, they need to convince people with their ideas and actually win elections, rather than call for violent resistance, harassment, and mob rule. As I see, working in Congress every day, it’s possible to agree without being disagreeable and address political differences in a civil manner. That’s an example leaders need to continue to set. Instead, when Democratic leaders like Eric Holder call for violence, that is a direct threat to our democracy. I hope he and others think long and hard about the world they are creating and the impact they are leaving on this country. As the oldest democracy, our country has long been heralded as the freest country in the world. It doesn’t feel so free if anyone lives in fear for holding or expressing a differing opinion. Let’s end this violence and return to civility before someone else gets hurt.

Agreed!  And well said, Steve.  Congressman Steve Scalise represents Louisiana’s first Congressional district and serves as the Republican majority whip. On June 14, 2017, he was shot by a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter while practicing with fellow Republicans for a Congressional baseball game. He nearly died, and underwent multiple surgeries before returning to the House on Sept. 28, 2017, to bipartisan applause.  Shame on Eric Holder, Hillary, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the many Democratic leaders who continue to promote mob violence.  And kudos to Congressman Scalise for calling them out.