Hillary Clinton

Tammy Bruce: What Hillary’s desire to run Facebook really tells us

The first question that comes to mind when hearing that Hillary Clinton would like to be CEO of Facebook is: How would they fit all their servers into her bathroom? We learned about Clinton’s desire to run the social media giant from a question posed to her during an event at Harvard University where she was receiving an award for her “leadership.” This for a woman who didn’t even have the courage to face her distraught supporters on election night 2016, own the defeat and tell them the truth. As her lackey John Podesta was lying to the confused and crying crowd at her election night party about it not being over, she was on the phone conceding to her rival Donald Trump. “Speaking at Harvard University before receiving an award Friday, Clinton was asked a hypothetical. … If Clinton could be chief executive of any company right now, which company would she choose? ‘Facebook,’ Clinton said without hesitating,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Clinton said that she’d want to be in charge of the social media giant because of the immense power it has over the world’s flow of information. ‘It’s the biggest news platform in the world … but most people in our country get their news, true or not, from Facebook,” according to the newspaper. It makes sense that the woman who set up bootlegged email servers and installed them in her bathroom while secretary of state would like to run Facebook. It’s apparent her goal, since she was guaranteed to win the race (you know there are insurance policies for that, right?), was to make sure she controlled the flow of information. She accomplished this by resorting to those unofficial (and unprotected) servers, roping off media like cattle, refusing interviews, and trusting in her legacy media sycophants to make sure the party line was never disturbed. Then there was that damn internet. Her media put up with being roped off, but then pictures of it hit the Web, and folks in flyover country weren’t impressed. Then, looking wobbly and unwell two months before the election, she had to leave a Sept. 11 event, collapsing into the back of a van. But that was OK because the press pool was told to not follow her, and they obeyed. But then there was some guy with a damn phone who didn’t get the order to not see anything, and his video of her being obviously ill and apparently fainting ended up on, yes, the damn internet. The Clinton effort during the campaign to weave an alternate reality failed, in large part because social media didn’t let her get away with it. The Clintons understand the deleterious impact of the Internet on scoundrels. In 1998, Newsweek dutifully spiked a story about Bill Clinton having an affair with a White House intern. Then some unknown blogger named Matt Drudge had the gall to publish it. A nobody (at the time) on the internet ruined their control of information. Twenty-one years later, millions more nobodies (you can call them deplorables) continued the American tradition of speaking truth to power. The difference in a generation was the addition of Facebook and Twitter to the equation. Her excited Facebook admission reveals her ongoing obsession with controlling what people are allowed to know. We know Hillary Clinton well, and it’s fair to say that her interest in running the news and social media entity has nothing to do with defending and increasing the free flow of information. The twice-failed presidential candidate was receiving “Harvard’s Radcliffe Medal for her leadership, human rights work and ‘transformative impact on society,’ ” the Daily Mail reported. The people of Libya would probably be surprised by that. As would our abandoned heroes in Benghazi, who were murdered. Fewer voices generally do make it easier for the establishment to give itself awards.

Indeed..  For more of this spot=on, scathing assessment of ol’ Hillary, click on the text above.  Thank God Hillary lost!

Hillary Clinton’s popularity has plunged since election, poll finds

Hillary Clinton, well over a year after she lost the 2016 election to President Trump, is less popular than ever, according to a poll released this week. Only 27 percent of those polled had a very or somewhat positive view of the former secretary of state, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. That makes her less popular than President Trump, whose popularity registered at 35 percent. It is a new low for her in the poll, which clocked her popularity at 30 percent in August 2017. A Journal analysis of the poll notes that the poll is a reminder of “just how unusual” Clinton is in terms of her unpopularity — even among recent losing presidential nominees who have typically experienced a post-election decline, but not to the extent Clinton has. At the time of the election, 40 percent had a positive view of her. While Clinton and Trump now both have similar levels of unpopularity (52 and 53 percent, respectively), her lower positive rating means Clinton’s favorability gap is wider. Trump, meanwhile, has faced a rocky first year as president overshadowed by constant controversies including a wide-ranging investigation by FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Clinton has stayed on the political stage. She has set up the political action organization Onward Together and released a lengthy campaign post-mortem titled, “What Happened.” She went on a speaking tour coinciding with the book’s release and has made numerous additional appearances discussing her 2016 loss. Yet the scandals that dogged her throughout the campaign have not gone away. The question of her email use when she served as secretary of state is still in the spotlight as the FBI’s handling of the probe itself is under scrutiny. And Trump has continued to launch the occasional attack on his former election rival. This week, Trump used former FBI Director James Comey’s book launch to again call Clinton “crooked.” “[Comey’s] handling of the Crooked Hillary Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst ‘botch jobs’ of history,” he tweeted. Earlier this month, Clinton said in a speech that she was focused on the upcoming midterm elections. “My goal is to take back the House and the Senate,” she said.

Take a moment and digest what that self-righteous, sanctimonious, entitlement-minded, arrogant, liberal elitist just said..  She said HER “goal is to take back the House and Senate.”  …kinda like it’s hers.  Note that she didn’t say that her goal is to help Democrats win elections.  No.  She said it almost as if it’s her House and her Senate.  Make no mistake..  She used to be a lawyer, and is very clear in the language she uses.  Such arrogance!!  But, it’s typical for Hillary..and more and more people are just sick and tired of her.  Many prominent Dems have even said publicly they wish she’d just go away, and don’t want her anywhere near them in an election year.  We expect her poll numbers to continue to decline.

Lawmakers Recommend Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe for Criminal Referrals

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday sent a slew of criminal referrals to Attorney General Jeff Sessions for a number of Obama administration officials and senior FBI employees for violations of the law in connection to the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations. Specifically, they sent criminal referrals to Sessions for: former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, as well as FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, for separate violations. The criminal referrals, first reported by investigative journalist Sara Carter, were made by Rep. Ron Desantis (R-FL), a senior member of the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees who is leaving the House to run for Florida governor, and nine other colleagues. Signatories included: GOP Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Dave Brat (VA), Jeff Duncan (SC), Matt Gaetz (FL), Paul A. Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (GA), Todd Rokita (IN), Claudia Tenney (NY), and Ted Yoho (FL). “Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately,” said the letter. They said Comey potentially broke the law when he chose not to seek charges against Clinton, for leaking classified memos of his conversations to President Trump to his friend Daniel Richman to give to the press, and for lying to lawmakers. They said Clinton potentially broke the law when disguising payments to Fusion GPS, the firm that produced the Trump dossier, despite mandatory disclosures to the Federal Election Commission. Lynch, they said, potentially broke the law when she threatened a former FBI informant, William Douglas Campbell, who had tried to come forward in 2016 with information related to the Uranium One deal that was approved in 2010. McCabe potentially broke the law when he lied to investigators four times when questioned about a leak that he had arranged, they said. Strzok and Page potentially violated the law by interfering in the investigation of Clinton’s private email server, they said. The letter cites a Wall Street Journal report that said their text messages to one another revealed FBI officials tried to eliminate evidence that Clinton had compromised high-level communications with then-President Obama. “The report provides the following alarming specifics, among others: ‘Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President Obama to ‘another senior government official,” the criminal referral said. Finally, the lawmakers referred all Justice Department and FBI personnel, including Comey, McCabe, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, for potentially breaking the law by using unverified and/or false information to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. Carter also reported that other recent documents obtained by congressional investigators suggest possible coordination by the Obama White House, the CIA, and the FBI in investigating the Trump campaign. “According to those documents, the senior Obama officials used unsubstantiated evidence to launch allegations in the media that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election,” Carter reported. CIA Director John Brennan had briefed Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in August 2016, prompting Reid to send a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey asking him to investigate allegations of collusion. Reid then reportedly stayed in close touch with Comey.

Wow!  This is huge!!

Opinion: Hillary Clinton, our leading feminist icon, still doesn’t believe women can think for themselves

Woe are the Democrats. For generations now, they’ve been telling the American people that only they, and their cohort of liberals and leftists, understand and truly value women. Because of their special understanding of women, only they can be trusted to do what’s right politically for them, they tell us. Then came Hillary Clinton pulling the curtain back on that dangerously false narrative. At a speech in Mumbai, India, the twice-failed presidential candidate blamed her loss on mindless women who do as their husbands tell them. Again contemplating why she lost the 2016 presidential race, Mrs. Clinton blamed certain women for not thinking for themselves. “We don’t do well with married, white women,” she said, because of “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should,” Mrs. Clinton told the audience. It’s obvious from the last election that the Democrats also didn’t do well with married, white men. Yet, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t argue that it was Republican women bullying and pressuring their husbands into voting a certain way. In other words, the leading liberal feminist in the country is pushing the ironic narrative that if you’re a woman who does not conform to the liberal narrative, you have no mind of your own and are controlled by the men in your life. Yet it’s conservatives who are sexist and reliant on perpetuating gender stereotypes. Got it. Having come from the left, one of the most constant and appalling demonstrations of sexism in the feminist movement was the degrading and dehumanizing of women with whom liberal feminists disagreed. One of the most famous public illustrations of this is brought to us by Gloria Steinem, an icon of the modern feminist movement. In 1993, Ms. Steinem declared that then-Senate candidate from Texas Kay Bailey Hutchison was “a female impersonator … someone who looks like us but thinks like them,” reported the Orange County Register at the time. Publicly declared from on high by the Supreme Feminist for All Women: You are not a woman at all if you don’t think like us. When this columnist was within the feminist establishment in the 1990s, Ms. Steinem’s remarks reflected an attitude that was standard operating procedure. Heck, maybe Hillary thought she was doing women who don’t fall in line a favor by accusing them of simply being dumb pawns, instead of stripping them of their womanhood entirely. One of the biggest threats to the liberal “feminist” movement was for women to see there was a different way to think about the issues, better ways to think about policy and politics. This is why women who do not conform remain such a threat to the liberal status quo. Knowing what Mrs. Clinton exposes about the inherent sexism on the left, even her allies expressed dismay at the comments. FoxNews.com reported, “Clinton’s former 2008 presidential campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle didn’t defend her remarks. ‘Look this was bad. I can’t sugarcoat it,’ Solis Doyle said on HLN this week. ‘She was wrong and clearly it’s not helpful to Democrats going into the midterms and certainly not going into 2020.’ “ “Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who is up for re-election, come the midterms in November, in a state Trump won by 19 points, [noted], ‘Those are kind of fighting words for me, because I’m partial to Missouri voters,’ McCaskill told The Washington Post. ‘I think they were expressing their frustration with the status quo,’ ” Fox News reported. The Washington Examiner noted, “What if the notion that women’s votes somehow belong to Democrats by default was always the product of leftist self-delusion and nothing more? What if these women voted for Trump of their own accord, in part because like many of the people who actually did vote for her, they were turned off by Clinton’s obvious and easily detectable insincerity and inauthenticity?” And Liz Peek, a writer and frequent guest on Fox Business and Fox News tweeted: “Hillary is supposed to be supportive of women but secretly she thinks they are cowed by husbands & bosses — shame on her. She can’t imagine women didn’t support her — that’s the biggest sign they actually think for themselves.” Hillary Clinton is turning out to be a touchstone for our time, just not in the way she expected. She reminds us almost every day that the left exercises a sexism that this nation has rejected. It also reminds us of the importance of a genuine advocacy for women in this country that instead of punishing women for thinking for themselves, we value and elevate all women, making sure they’re free to make choices that best suit them.

Well said, Tammy!  Author Tammy Bruce is a radio talk show host and a New York Times best-selling author…and calls it exactly right here.  Hillary is a nauseating, self-righteous, entitlement-minded, whiny hypocrite.  And now, even her former supporters are running away from her because they realize just how toxic Hillary’s big mouth is.  Of course we hope she continues to keep talking.  She’s the gift that keeps on giving.    🙂

Hillary: White Women Voted for Trump Because Their Husbands Told Them To

Hillary Clinton said that white women voted for President Trump during the 2016 presidential election because their husbands told them to, during a discussion at the India Today Conclave on Saturday. The moderator asked Clinton why she thinks almost 52 percent of white women voted for Trump, despite them knowing about the controversial “Access Hollywood” tape. “[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton explained. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.” Clinton then said that she was doing well with white women until former FBI Director James Comey released a letter announcing the FBI had reopened its investigation into Clinton’s email practices. “It stopped my momentum, and it decreased my vote enough,” Clinton said of the Comey letter.

Wow…  Her handlers and the DNC really need to tell Hillary to just shut up and go away..  She’s gone beyond being pathetic and a laughing stock, to being a national embarrassment.  Just think how offensive her suggestion is to married white women; that they’re too stupid and incapable of voting for themselves.  No wonder they voted for Trump!  Unreal…

Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know

As federal investigators continue to look into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors are also probing an Obama-era sale of a uranium mining company. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year directed federal prosecutors to look into the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company – a transaction that President Trump has called the “real Russia story.” The Hill reported that Russian officials engaged in a “racketeering scheme” to further its energy goals in the U.S. And an FBI informant recently told congressional committees that Russia paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in an effort to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make sure the deal was successful. In 2013, Rosatom, backed by the Russian state, acquired a Canadian uranium mining company, now called Uranium One, which has assets in the U.S. Uranium is a key material for making nuclear weapons. Through the deal, Russia is able to own about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, Colin Chilcoat, an energy affairs specialist who has written extensively about Russia’s energy deals, said that the company only extracts about 11 percent of uranium in the U.S. The deal also “doesn’t allow for that uranium to be exported at all,” Chilcoat told Fox News. “It’s not like it’s leaving the U.S. or somehow finding its way to more insidious players.” The agreement was approved by nine government agencies with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency group that reviews how certain foreign investments can impact national security. The State Department under Clinton was one of those agencies, though Clinton told WMUR-TV in 2015 that she was not “personally involved” in the agreement. Some investors reportedly donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia and reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal, Republicans, who are largely critical of the deal, have said. The FBI had looked into the agreement and uncovered that some Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in nefarious dealings, which included extortion, bribery and kickbacks, The Hill reported. Evidence of wrongdoing by Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. who was eventually sentenced to prison, was discovered by the FBI before the deal was approved, according to The Hill. Author Peter Schweizer – who wrote about the deal in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash” – told Fox News that there is no evidence that the people involved with approving the agreement knew that the FBI had an ongoing investigation into it. But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News “if anyone colluded for a foreign government in [the 2016] election, it was the Clinton campaign [and] the Democrats.” Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant, alleged that Moscow paid millions of dollars to a lobbying firm to help Bill Clinton’s charities in order to influence Hillary Clinton, who was then former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Campbell made the claims in a 10-page statement given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.” “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.” APCO Worldwide is a global public affairs consulting agency.

Pres. Trump is correct in saying that THIS is the “real Russia story.”  To read the rest of this outstanding analysis, click on the text above.

Hillary Clinton backer paid $500G to fund women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct before Election Day, report says

One of Hillary Clinton’s wealthy pals paid $500,000 in an unsuccessful effort to fund women willing to accuse President Trump of sexual misconduct before the 2016 election, The New York Times reported Sunday. Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit Clothing and a major Clinton campaign donor for many years, gave the money to celebrity lawyer Lisa Bloom who was working with a number of Trump accusers at the time, according to the paper’s bombshell report. Bloom solicited donors by saying she was working with women who might “find the courage to speak out” against Trump if the donors would provide funds for security, relocation and possibly a “safe house,” the paper reported. Former Clinton nemesis turned Clinton operative David Brock also donated $200,000 to the effort through a nonprofit group he founded, the paper reported in an article entitled, “Partisans, Wielding Money, Begin Seeking to Exploit Harassment Claims.” Bloom told the Times that the effort was unproductive. One woman requested $2 million then decided not to come forward. Nor did any other women. Bloom said she refunded most of the cash, keeping only some funds for out-of-pocket expenses accrued while working to vet and prepare cases. The lawyer told the paper she did not communicate with Clinton or her campaign “on any of this.” She also maintained that she represented only clients whose stories she had corroborated and disputed the premise that she offered money to coax clients to come forward, the paper reported. “It doesn’t cost anything to publicly air allegations,” Bloom said. “Security and relocation are expensive and were sorely needed in a case of this magnitude, in a country filled with so much anger, hate and violence.” The Times article said it learned of Buell and Brock’s connection to Bloom from two Democrats familiar with the financial arrangements who also said Bloom’s law firm kept the money from Brock’s nonprofit group but refunded the $500,000 that Buell contributed. Brock declined comment, according to the paper. Clinton campaign representatives said they were unaware of his work with Bloom. Buell would not comment on the financial arrangement, according to the Times. Still, she claimed she was frustrated that Trump had escaped the repercussions that have befallen many other powerful men accused of similar misconduct. The Times article expanded on a report in The Hill two weeks ago that said Bloom worked with campaign donors and tabloid media outlets during the final months of the presidential election to arrange compensation for the alleged Trump victims and a commission for herself, offering to sell their stories. In one case Bloom reportedly arranged for a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempted to score a six-figure payout for another woman. The woman with the mortgage ultimately declined to come forward after being offiered $750,000, The Hill reported. The paper reported reviewing one email exchange between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were solicited, without naming which ones. Bloom, who is the daughter of famous attorney Gloria Allred and, like her mother, specializes in representing women in sexual harassment cases, worked for four women who were considering accusing Trump. Two went public, and two declined.

Wow..  This is a HUGE story!  It completely destroys the credibility of Lisa Bloom and all of the women she offered money to share their alleged harassment by President Trump in the weeks leading up to the election.  More fake news ginned up by the dominantly liberal mainstream media (i.e. MSNBC, CNN, etc.), and now even the “failing” liberal NY Times had to eat crow and put out this story.