It looks like Joe Biden is going to win

According to the 2016 2020 polls Hillary Clinton Joe Biden has a sizeable lead. I was looking forward to a Trump victory but with Hillary Clinton Joe Biden in the lead it doesn't look like it going to be a reality. Let's face it. Trying to defeat Hillary Clinton Joe Biden is going to be an enormous task. I mean we are taking on Hillary Clinton Joe Biden for crying out loud. I wonder if we are asking too much. I mean this is Hillary Clinton Joe Biden we are talking about. She He has been in Washington DC for years even decades. What chance do we stand?

Trump kicks ass

The Clinton's are the real racists not Trump

Trump is guilty

President Donald John Trump has violated numerous decrees from the deep state (Royal Deep State Decrees). Willfully denying Hillary her coronation is a criminal act according to the RDS. He then colluded with an group that the Deep State despises called "the American people" to act as his co conspirators in denying Queen Hillary I the presidency. Since he did not get out of Hillary's way and kiss her ass he is guilty of obstruction according to RDS standards.

The Benghazi Attack Is Finally Being Properly Prosecuted

On the night of June 15, 2014, eight Americans—six Delta Force operators, an F.B.I. agent, and an Arabic translator—travelled in rubber boats across the Mediterranean and arrived on a beach in Benghazi, Libya. They hustled across the sand and snuck into a nearby safe house. Their plan was to lure and capture Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the alleged ringleader of the most politicized terrorist attack since 9/11.

Twenty-one months earlier, on September 11, 2012, Khatallah had, according to federal prosecutors, coördinated the assault on the American Consulate in Benghazi. Two State Department officials, including the U.S. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, died in that attack, and two C.I.A. contractors were killed in a subsequent firefight at a nearby C.I.A. facility.

A day after the eight-man team beached on the coast, one of Khatallah’s associates unwittingly led Khatallah to the safe house. As soon as Khatallah stepped into the dark villa, several soldiers pounced on him. He tried to kick, punch, and bite his way free, without success. The F.B.I. agent present—who has been identified in court by only a surname, “Johnson”—brought Khatallah into a bathroom, where he covered the suspect’s eyes, plugged his ears, and stuffed a bit into his mouth. The team then hustled Khatallah across the beach, boarded its boats, and raced toward the U.S.S. New York, a twenty-five-thousand-ton* amphibious transport dock made, in part, with steel recovered from the World Trade Center towers, and waiting offshore.

The Benghazi attack has been thoroughly scrutinized. The Republican-led House of Representatives spent millions of dollars and held hearing after hearing on the matter during President Barack Obama’s second term. But the lawmakers leading the hearings seemed more focussed on Hillary Clinton and her colleagues—trying to find any missteps they made before, during, or after the attack that could be used for political purposes—than on the alleged perpetrators of the violence itself.

Meanwhile, the hunt for Khatallah was being pursued by operators and analysts from the C.I.A., Joint Special Operations Command, and the F.B.I. One of the biggest questions for them was what to do with Khatallah once they found him. Counterterrorism officials considered a drone strike or a lethal raid, a former military official told me, but President Obama and the Justice Department wanted to capture him alive and bring him to the United States to stand trial.

This was not a straightforward task. American officials did not have sufficient confidence in the Libyan police to coördinate with them for Khatallah’s arrest. And the F.B.I. wasn’t in a position to pursue Khatallah on its own. Moreover, the intelligence on Khatallah suggested that he could prove difficult to capture—he supposedly carried around a grenade like an explosive cyanide pill.

Officials hatched a hybrid plan: F.B.I. agents would accompany one of the military’s élite manhunting units on the mission for Khatallah. The agents would be present throughout the operation to preserve evidence, so that they, as law-enforcement officials, could later testify in civilian court.

This was a fairly radical concept. Plenty of terrorists had been indicted and tried in American civilian courts, but Khatallah would be the first known case of someone captured through a military mission, Mirandized by law-enforcement officials, and then tried in open court, before a jury. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was captured by military and intelligence officers in Afghanistan and charged in civilian court, but he pleaded guilty before going to trial. More typically, terrorists targeted during military raids have been either killed; detained in U.S.-run military prisons, such as Abu Ghraib; handed over, in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan, to local police or intelligence agencies; or, in the years immediately after 9/11, sent to Guantánamo Bay. Osama bin Laden was indicted by a federal court in 1998, three years before the September 11th attacks. But when American Navy seals finally confronted him in Pakistan, in 2011, they shot and killed him.

Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have been vocal critics of trying terrorists in civilian courtrooms. Trump described Obama’s stated desire to close Guantánamo as a “terrible decision,” and Sessions has called the military tribunals at Guantánamo the “perfect place” for terrorism trials.

After his capture, Khatallah was interrogated first by military and intelligence officials. Then, after five days, a “clean team” of law-enforcement officials took over. Michael Clarke, an F.B.I. agent, read Khatallah his Miranda rights and told him that he was entitled to an attorney. Khatallah asked if there was a lawyer on board. There was not.

Speaking through a translator, Khatallah gave Clarke a lengthy statement over the course of the thirteen-day trip across the Atlantic Ocean. In D.C. district court, Khatallah’s current attorney, Eric L. Lewis, has argued that his client’s “slow boat” extradition was unnecessarily drawn out. “The capture of Mr. Abu Khatallah was a spectacular logistical operation . . . [but] a legal failure,” Lewis said at a June hearing. He wanted Khatallah’s statement thrown out. The judge, Christopher Cooper, ruled against him.

Yet Cooper has set some limits to the proceedings. In the run-up to Khatallah’s trial, which is scheduled to begin on Monday, the judge decided that prosecutors would be unable to admit evidence purporting that Khatallah once told an associate that he was intending to kill Stevens’s replacement, too. Allowing such evidence, Cooper said, would heighten “prejudicial risk” and “do little to illuminate the formation and contours” of the actual 2012 attack. It seems, at long last, that someone is intent on paying attention to what actually occurred in Benghazi.

Source

I may disagree with Sessions on marijuana but we are on the same page here. The terrorists need to be held at Gitmo not in American jails.

This is what happened

You got your ass handed to you that is what happened. By electing Trump America said no to liberalism. No to feminism. By electing Trump America said it doesn't want a criminal in the White House.

George Soros and the Reichstag Fire in Charlottesville

The driver of the Charlottesville vehicle, which killed Heather Heyer and injured 19 others, was Alex James Fields. He was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and a member of Antifa funded by George Soros. He was only 20 years of age and lived in Maumee, Ohio. George Soros used him to further his movement to destroy the United States. All Americans, Left and Right, need to understand exactly what this evil man is doing to this Country. He is using two political parties to divide the US; ultimately starting a civil war that will crush the United States of America.

Driver of Charlottesville vehicle was Alex James Fields, democrat, Hillary supporter, ANTIFA member#MAGA #FraudNewsCNN #FakeNewsMedia
5:30 PM - Aug 12, 2017
180 180 Replies 842 842 Retweets 602 602 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The mainstream media insists that Fields is a neo-Nazi, producing photos of him standing with Vanguard America and carrying a shield bearing the group’s insignia. What they don’t mention is that Fields is a known left-wing operative.

A further discovery made by the ACLU is that the police officers at the protest were ordered to stand down just before the attack by Fields.

ACLU confirms that police were given stand-down order. This invited the violence the city used to shut down a court-permitted protest. https://twitter.com/ACLUVA/status/896386562484731904 …
4:55 PM - Aug 12, 2017
995 995 Replies 9,394 9,394 Retweets 8,583 8,583 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Again we are witnessing a shocking takedown of America by the Far Left funded by George Soros, as his goal is to destroy Western civilization. After the driver of the car, Alex James Fields, was identified by the authorities, someone put his social media accounts on lockdown, trying to hide his connections fo Hillary Clinton.

12 Aug
Whitehouse Plumber @rharrisonfries
Driver of Charlottesville vehicle was Alex James Fields, democrat, Hillary supporter, ANTIFA member#MAGA #FraudNewsCNN #FakeNewsMedia pic.twitter.com/VMN1tKzAyb

Joe Middleroad @JoeMiddleroad
Who scrubbed all of his facebook-twitter and why? He was arrested...he did not remove the content. REEKS of a setup/false flag #infowars
9:05 AM - Aug 13, 2017
9 9 Replies 72 72 Retweets 90 90 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

As George Soros is funding Antifa, many allegedly agree that he is involved in funding the Charlottesville terrorism attack. I am using the word “terrorism,” as in my opinion what Fields did was a “terrorist attack.” George Soros, in my opinion, is nothing more than a terrorist.


Follow
DONNA WARREN 🇺🇸 @DonnaWR8
DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!🎣

Organized by Soros funded RACE ☠️ BAITERS who want CHAOS & HATE!

3️⃣DEAD including 2️⃣LEOS#MAGA #Chalottesville
6:46 PM - Aug 12, 2017
79 79 Replies 1,131 1,131 Retweets 990 990 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Let us never forget that Obama actually invited the Ferguson Black Lives Matter group to the White House after the terrorism in Ferguson. He did not hold their feet to the fire, he simply kissed them in such a blatant slap in the face to the American people; therefore, encouraging these types of terrorist style attacks.

Follow
Feisty☀️Floridian @peddoc63
Obama didn't disavow BLM after they destroyed Ferguson & Baltimore.
Quite the contrary.
He invited them to White House! #Charolettesville
5:18 AM - Aug 13, 2017
390 390 Replies 3,877 3,877 Retweets 5,181 5,181 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
A citizen journalist actually made her way through the crowd in Charlottesville to bravely capture the event on video. She proved the mainstream media lied, as usual, spreading fake news from their ivory towers.

Follow
Joni Turner @joniturnerlaw
This shows everything!! Car ram and BLM being chanted! This show girl being killed! This is a BLM march https://www.pscp.tv/w/bF5MPzFwempNQllaZW5PRWR8MXlOR2FtUllZQWdHah1B1L-XlZ0_ouojn5QSZwzXjj-17pFFW_gWjB9VrDoa …
6:10 PM - Aug 12, 2017

Faith J. Goldy ن🇨🇦 @FaithGoldy
#Charlottesville DOUBLE STANDARD: antifa allowed to march!!! — Charlottesville, VA, United States
pscp.tv
137 137 Replies 856 856 Retweets 679 679 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
http://uconservative.com/2017/08/14/charlottesville-killer-hillary-supporter-funded-soros/

The man accused of being a neo-Nazi and murdering a woman by deliberately driving into her during protests in Charlottesville is in reality a supporter of Hillary Clinton and member of Antifa in receipt of funding by George Soros, according to reports.

James Fields, 20, of Maumee, Ohio, allegedly killed Heather Heyer, aged 32, and injured 19 others when he rammed his car into a group of protesters on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mainstream media is claiming Fields is a neo-Nazi and has conveniently produced photographs showing Fields standing with Vanguard America and carrying a shield bearing the group’s insignia.

But the mainstream media is actively suppressing information that proves Fields is actually a left-wing operative at the heart of a false flag designed to spark civil war, introduce martial law, and take away the rights of conservative groups to assemble peacefully.

Police were ordered to stand down just before the incident, as confirmed by ACLU. “This invited the violence the city used to shut down a court-permitted protest,” said Robert Barnes, a high-profile constitutional lawyer.

Immediately after the car was driven into the crowd and James Field was identified as the driver and arrested, his social media accounts were put on lockdown and scrubbed of political content. His affiliation to Clinton and the dangerous far-left is being actively suppressed.

There is only one winner in Charlottesville. His name is George Soros and he funds Antifa.

The UniteTheRight rally was planned months in advance, proper permits were sought and granted, and the peaceful protest was going to plan. Then, due to political pressure from the left, the city of Charlottesville rescinded the permit a few days before the rally.

This was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

So UniteTheRight went to federal court and won. A federal judge ordered that the rally must go on and the rally-goers Constitutional rights be protected.

But the left wasn’t finished. The Democrat mayor and police department ordered the rally an “unlawful assembly,” and threatened to arrest everybody – once again, violating 1st and 9th amendment rights.

Then things got bloody. George Soros’s Antifa stepped up to the plate, unleashing chaos and hate as per their job description.

Many are wondering if a civil war is starting within America’s borders. I, too, feel this could be the beginning of an ongoing civil war. Since the Far Left began attacking the Right and that includes a sitting President, it has felt as though their goal was to divide and conquer the United States of America. You have to wonder why they would do this? Why would they disrespect our voting system and strive to destroy their own country?

My belief is the Far left no longer considers the US a country at all, for they have surrendered their own rights to the New World Order, which is funded by George Soros. The goal of this elite globalist club is to destroy all borders and countries uniting together as one One World Order. This is only my opinion.

Source

Liberals hate the Constitution

The Constitution of the United States has failed
This is not fine.

What kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president — and then does it again 16 years later?

What kind of nation retains an electoral process that was originally designed to inflate the influence of slaveholders?

What kind of nation permits its Congress to write a time bomb into law that periodically forces rival factions into a game of chicken that could wreck the world economy?

What kind of nation fights a civil war over the question of whether people of African descent are people or property, and then looks the other way when the loser ignores the resolution of that war? What kind of nation waits until 1965 to guarantee black people’s right to vote?
Americans speak of our Constitution as if it were a religious text. To label a law “unconstitutional” is not simply to say that it violates some procedural rule or legal technicality, it is to label it fundamentally unAmerican. To do so is to question the values of any lawmaker despicable enough to support such a law, and to suggest that those values are at odds with who we are as a nation.

But our Constitution has not served us nearly as well as we would have been served by other systems adopted by our peer nations. Nor has it lived up to the expectations of its drafters.

Now, our country is facing a man of superlative ignorance. A racist. An admitted sexual assaulter of women. A man poised to violate the Constitution the very instant he takes the oath of office. A man who openly encouraged Russia’s efforts to usher him into the White House. A man who owes his election to the underhanded efforts of deep state actors within our nation’s internal police agency. A man who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. And the Constitution has placed this man in the White House.

The Constitution gave Donald Trump command of the world’s most powerful military and an nuclear arsenal that can eradicate all life on Earth. It let him name a racist as our nation’s top enforcer of its laws. It let him use his office to sell hotel rooms to foreign diplomats. The Electoral College has voted. Trump will be our next president. This is what the Constitution hath wrought.

It did this because our Constitution remains the product of a compromise with moral monsters who believed that human beings could be owned as property. It did this because our Constitution offers no guarantee, or even much in the way of likelihood, that the men and women elected to lead the country will share the preferences of the nation as a whole. It did this because our Constitution fosters voter ignorance. It did this because our Constitution can be gamed — and was gamed quite successfully by the Republican Party.

The price of peace

There are competing theories for why America has an Electoral College. One, offered by Alexander Hamilton in an advocacy document written to persuade the nation to support its new Constitution, is that it would allow “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to” the presidency to determine who should hold that crucial job.

Another theory, which Hamilton did not include in his sales pitch for the Constitution, is that the Electoral College was part of the price northerners had to pay in order to form a union with states whose entire economic model depended on slavery.

Regardless of which theory you prefer, it is undeniable that the Electoral College now serves the second goal of giving a leg up to racists far better than it serves the first. In 2016, the electors themselves are almost entirely obscurities — party activists who are typically selected more for their willingness to cast a vote for their party’s candidate than for their ability to analyse the qualities best adapted to the presidency. Even if they’d wanted to elect someone other than Donald Trump as the president, they lack the stature necessary to quell unrest that would likely ensue.

What the Electoral College has done is steal the presidency from the woman who won it, and given it to a man who openly campaigned on racism and nativism. It’s the sort of outcome that would make many of the Founding Fathers smile — the ones who demanded a terrible price as the cost of Union.

To be sure, there were good men at the Philadelphia convention that drafted the original Constitution. There were men who, as Gouverner Morris said in a speech to the convention, saw slavery as a “nefarious institution” and “the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed.” There were also delegates from large states who stood for the very simple proposition that a vote from Virginia should count exactly the same amount as a vote from Delaware.

Yet these good men traded away their convictions. The new Constitution explicitly protected slavery. It allowed slave states to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating representation in the House and the Electoral College, even though those slaves could not vote. And it created the Senate, an anti-democratic body which today counts each person in Wyoming as 67 times more important than each person in California.

The good men in Philadelphia agreed to these terms in service of a singular goal: peace through Union. As Yale’s Akhil Amar explains, the Articles of Confederation, the loose alliance of states that preceded the Constitution, conceived of the United States as “an alliance, a multilateral treaty of sovereign nation-states.” Pennsylvania was as much a separate a sovereign nation from Virginia as Russia is today separate from China. The Articles largely bound these nations into a pact of mutual commerce and defense.

Nevertheless, the framers were well-versed in European history. They knew of the frequent warfare which plagued that continent, and they came to see Union as the best defense against a similar fate. As Amar describes their concerns, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but also perhaps to awe its neighbors. America would then recreate continental Europe — borders, armies, dictators, chains, and all.”

The threat from such armies, moreover, was twofold. As Hamilton warned, these armies could themselves be turned against the people, becoming “engines of despotism” that would lead the states in a “progressive direction toward monarchy.” Standing armies were a threat, not just to rival states, but to the people of their home states.

More than two centuries later, the Founding Fathers’ belief that their Constitution would keep America from keeping a standing army is quaint. The United States has the most powerful military in the world, in addition to a network of federal police, intelligence agencies, and an entire cabinet department devoted to internal security. Perhaps these institutions will balk if Trump orders them to impose the kind of tyranny Hamilton feared, but the Constitution sure did not stop them from being built.

It also didn’t save us from war among the states. The early history of the United States was an uneasy peace broken by regional conflicts and near-misses — the Nullification Crisis, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. And then the war came, a four year conflict that killed between 2 and 3 percent of the nation’s entire population.

Our Founding Fathers traded away democracy. They traded away the fundamental principle that every American’s vote is equal. They traded away every person’s inalienable right to freedom. And they’d traded it away for nothing.

Three generations of lost rights

If you go to the American South today, and you speak to a black person over the age of 50, you are most likely speaking to someone who was born into an apartheid state. If you speak to someone over the age of 70, that person probably had their voting rights stolen from them by a white supremacist regime.

This is not ancient history. These are flesh and blood Americans who live and work among us. America became a liberal democracy in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. Free and fair elections, at least at the nationwide level, are not something we have all that much experience with.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. When the Civil War was won, the victors demanded a new covenant. They wrote slavery out of our Constitution. They wrote freedmen’s right to vote into the Constitution. And, in the most sweeping and radical change that has ever been written into the Constitution, they completely reworked the balance of power between the states and the people.

The Fourteenth Amendment declared, for the first time in American history, that everyone born in the United States is a citizen and that every citizen enjoys certain rights solely because they are an American (without this amendment, states were free to violate the Bill of Rights). It provided that no one can be stripped of their liberty without appropriate legal process, and it insisted on equal treatment along racial lines.

Yet, for much of the next century, the South gleefully ignored these guarantees. “Black codes” relegated freedmen to a status that was often difficult to distinguish from actual slavery. Black men were arrested for minor or even fabricated offenses, then rented out to whites as cheap labor. Jim Crow segregated African Americans and stripped them of their vote. And if anyone dared to question white supremacy, they were quieted by terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which often worked in close coordination with the state.

There are many villains in this saga. The resilience of white supremacist government in the South occurred because the Supreme Court largely sat on its hands, often explicitly embracing the South’s most odious practices. It happened because the rest of the nation lost its nerve, abandoning Reconstruction for a peace built from the bones of black Americans. It happened because of immoral men willing to use murder as a tool of political control. But white supremacy also thrived because of the Founding Fathers.

Remember that compromise? The one that gave Alabama exactly the same number of senators as New York? It also prevented Congress from enacting a single civil rights law from 1875 until 1957.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was one of Congress’ final serious attempts to reconstruct the South. Enacted just over a year before Rutherford B. Hayes sold out black America in order to secure his presidency, the Act banned racial discrimination by “inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement.” It survived eight years before it was struck by the Supreme Court.

Though new civil rights legislation sometimes passed the House — five such bills did so in the 12 years following World War II — none of this legislation survived contact with the Senate. The same Senate malapportionment that, for many years, gave slave states parity with free states in Congress’ upper house, despite the fact that the free population in the North significantly exceeded that of the South, now gave the Jim Crow states a far louder voice in the Senate than their population warranted.

That thumb on the scale, combined with the filibuster, was enough to keep civil rights bills from becoming law.

Nearly six decades after the Senate finally ended its blockade of all civil rights laws, malapportionment continues to advantage conservatives and stymie progressives. To give just one example, the 54 senators who make up the current Republican majority (and who effectively kept the Supreme Court in Republican hands by preventing Chief Judge Merrick Garland from being confirmed to fill its vacant seat) represent fewer than 150 million people. The 46 senators in the Democratic majority, meanwhile, represent more than 170 million.

What’s more, according to the group FairVote, “the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes.”

The ungovernable nation

Even setting aside the undemocratic Senate, the United States is an outlier among our peer democracies because of the unusual number of roadblocks our Constitution places before any bill that seeks to become law.

America’s separation of powers, which typically requires consensus among the president, two houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court — not to mention the cooperation of congressional leaders and committee chairs who have outsized power to hold up legislation — is generally taught to schoolchildren as if it were divine wisdom delivered to the Founding Fathers at Mt. Sinai. But it is a highly unusual system, in no small part because so many democracies that adopted similar models failed.

In his seminal essay “The Perils of Presidentialism,” the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz warned about the danger inherent in a constitutional system, like the one in the United States, which elects the nation’s chief executive separately from its legislature. In such a system, it is easy for two irreconcilable factions to each gain control of at least one veto point that enables them to halt the legislative process. Moreover, because both sides “derive their power from the votes of the people in a free competition among well-defined alternatives,” there’s no “democratic principle” that can be cited to break such an impasse.

As one Republican lawmaker defended his party’s actions in the lead up to the 2013 government shutdown, “I too won an election. You want me to just disregard all of my voters and all of the promises that I made and how I got elected?” The shutdown happened because both our Democratic president and our Republican House had an equal claim to democratic legitimacy.

The shutdown is an unhappy memory, but it is hardly the worse case scenario for what can happen if the president and the legislature face a unsolvable disagreement. It is “no accident,” Linz recalled of other nations that have faced such an impasse, “that in some such situations in the past, the armed forces were often tempted to intervene as a mediating power.”

The United States, fortunately, did not reach the point where Obama and former House Speaker John Boenher (R) needed to start counting their loyalists among the nation’s generals and admirals. But there’s still plenty of evidence of the issues that Linz is referencing in U.S. government.

Our stagnant, imperfect democracy leaves many problems — crumbling infrastructure, a job market that still has not fully recovered from the recession — unaddressed or underaddressed. It also denies voters much of the feedback that they need in order to cast their ballots wisely.

A likely reason why Republicans felt hornswoggled when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law is that they had good reason to believe that such a thing wasn’t possible. After all, every Democratic president since Harry Truman (as well as Republican Richard Nixon) promised a universal health plan. Yet, for more than six decades, they failed. Failed health care reform plans were as American as baseball and capitalism. It’s hard to blame Obama’s opponents for thinking they were safe from the horrors of affordable health care for the less fortunate.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party’s fiscal proposals, which include deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, a plan to charge seniors up to 40 percent more for inferior health coverage, and big tax cuts for the highest earners, are unpopular with the general public, unpopular with Republicans, and unpopular even with most Republican donors. Pretty much the only people who like these proposals are rich Republican donors.

And yet, somehow, the American people just elected a Republican Congress that is poised to enact these unpopular proposals and a president (albeit not with anything close to a majority vote) who is likely to sign them into law. How can this be? Why did so many voters condemn themselves to policies that they hate?

Vox’s Sarah Kliff offers one explanation for this dichotomy. In a recent trip to a Kentucky town that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, despite the fact that many of its residents depend upon Obamacare for health coverage, she heard a frequent refrain. In Kliff’s words, these voters “just couldn’t fathom the idea that this new coverage would be taken away from them.”

In one of the most heartbreaking interviews in Kliff’s piece, a voter whose husband is waiting for a liver transplant was able to get health insurance for her family thanks to Obamacare. Yet she told Kliff that she backed Trump because “I guess I thought that, you know, he would not do this, he would not take health insurance away knowing it would affect so many people’s lives.”

In 2012, a Democratic super PAC convened a focus group to assess whether Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the GOP’s fiscal proposals could be used against him. Yet the focus group’s reactions to these proposals resembled the conversations Kliff had with Trump voters in Kentucky. When the super PAC “informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed ‘ending Medicare as we know it’ — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.”

The Constitution of the United States, in other words, built a nation where elections frequently don’t have significant consequences. In doing so, it lulled many voters into a false sense of security. It taught them not to believe politicians’ promises because, chances are, those promises won’t be implemented anyway.

And then, when a party actually does bring about sweeping radical change, the same voters seem flabbergasted that the government they elected actually did what it said it would do.

The risk of permanence

One good thing that can be said about unified Republican control of Congress and the White House is that it is likely to break this cycle. If Republicans succeed in repealing Obamacare, replacing Medicare with a voucher program, slashing Medicaid, cutting Social Security benefits by 20–50 percent, and using the savings to put more money in the wealthiest Americans’ pockets, then it will be hard to pretend that elections don’t matter. Or that voters shouldn’t pay attention to a party’s ideas before they cast a ballot for its candidates.

But the biggest danger arising from unified Republican government isn’t that it will enact bad policies that might be repealed later. It is that the GOP will use its moment at the apex of power to ensure that it can never be displaced from this position.

In many ways, this process began long before Donald Trump even declared his candidacy. Over the last several years, voter suppression laws thrived in Republican-led states. Meanwhile, these laws — many of which are unconstitutional — have survived judicial review thanks to a GOP-dominated Supreme Court that even went so far as to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

There are also strong arguments that partisan gerrymandering violates either the First Amendment’s protections against viewpoint discrimination, or the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Yet Republicans on the Supreme Court also thwarted efforts to combat such gerrymandering in court. These decisions, combined with geographic factors that advantage Republicans, prevent Democrats from enacting legislation even when they win. In 2012, for example, Democratic House candidates won nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans. Yet the GOP kept control of the House.

There are many good things in our Constitution. But they don’t mean very much if the Supreme Court is unwilling to enforce them.

Once Trump adds another Republican justice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court’s first orders of business will probably be a long-pending dispute that seeks to hobble public sector unions’ ability to fund themselves — it is highly likely that Trump’s nominee will provide the fifth vote to inflict this wound on unions. That not only means lower wages for government workers in the long run, but also means Democrats will lose much of the political infrastructure that these unions provide.

And enabling voter suppression while carving up unions is really only a small part of the damage a truly partisan Supreme Court could inflict upon democratic governance. In the worse case scenario, a Supreme Court stacked with Trump justices could recreate the early twentieth century, when minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and much of the New Deal were blocked by an ideological Court that did not feel especially constrained by the text of the Constitution.

Despite all the obstacles laid by voter suppression and similar tactics, Democrats could claw their way back into congressional majorities and the White House — only to discover that their efforts to roll back Trump era legislation will be struck down by Republicans on the Supreme Court.

Learning the wrong lessons

If America holds a free and fair election in 2020, and if that election places a Democrat back in the White House, there’s a danger that liberals will learn the wrong lessons from four years of Donald Trump.

To be sure, some of the right lessons are obvious and unlikely to be missed. The Electoral College, for example, is a pathology that will have few informed defenders outside of the party that has twice seen its losing candidate declared the winner.

But conservatives also spent much of the last century spinning a fairly consistent narrative about what’s wrong with the American system of government. In their mythology, the problem with the United States is that it is too democratic. That it is too easy for the federal government to enact new programs and regulations. And that the way to save America is to erect barriers that make it harder for elected officials in Washington to govern.

This narrative is likely to have some appeal to liberals reeling from four years of Trump. The idea that Obamacare, or Medicare, or Social Security, could have been saved if only there’d been more veto points in our system will be appealing. We are likely to see just how bad things can get if government is able to move quickly.

If Brexit does prove to be a calamity, British voters will at least know who to blame.

But liberals will shoot themselves in the foot if they succumb to the appeal of a left-libertarian alliance whose sole goal is to keep future Presidents Trump from doing too much, too quickly. In the short term, they are likely to freeze government in the weakened state that four years of Donald Trump will produce. In the long term, such a single-minded alliance would exacerbate the constitutional defects that brought America to the point we find ourselves in today.

Today, as President-elect Donald Trump waits to take the oath of office, the nation of Great Britain faces a similar crisis. The Brexit campaign, which appealed to much of the same racism and nationalism that drove Trump’s campaign, is victorious. A web of alliances that helped end centuries of warfare within Europe is now at risk. British workers are expected to “make £38 less a week than their E.U. counterparts by the year 2030 once the country leaves the E.U.”

The British parliamentary system, which typically places a single party in charge of the entire government, did not prevent these outcomes. But if Brexit does prove to be a calamity, British voters will at least know who to blame. It was a Tory prime minister who allowed the Brexit vote, and a Tory government will manage the nation’s transition out of the European Union.

There can be no doubt in London that elections have consequences. And no further doubt about who foisted these consequences upon the British people.

And, if Tory candidates campaign on a plan to dismantle their nation’s universal health care system, British voters will know damn well that they better believe that these candidates will actually do it.

They won’t vote, as so many Americans did, to dismantle our social safety net by accident.

Source

Chelsea Clinton: Hillary's revenge

“The Clintons are like herpes,” actor Tim Allen said last month, “Just when you think they’re gone, they show up again.”

As if on cue, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come back to life with a new plan to continue her family’s political dynasty – and she’s anointing her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, as our country’s next leader.

Hillary stopped sobbing over her defeat long enough to speak at Harry Reid’s retirement this week, where she announced that she’s throwing a  “thank you” dinner inside the Plaza Hotel’s elegant Grand Ballroom on December 15.

Of course, she’s not thanking her voters like President-elect Donald Trump is.

That’s not the Clinton’s style.

Instead, Hillary is making the event ultra exclusive, inviting only the most elite of her financial donors to the six-figure gala.

To get on this list, you not only had to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for her campaign, but you also had to host an event introducing her to other donors. The bar is so high that even longtime Clinton pals are complaining about being snubbed, according to The Washington Post.
What’s behind all this? According to sources closest to her, it’s plotting her next move to put the Clinton family back into power ASAP – and it links straight back to Chelsea Clinton.
Since voters rejected her last month, Hillary has tried everything from hopeless state recounts, to claiming Russians hacked U.S. voting machines, to trying to sway faithless members of the Electoral College in order to steal the 2016 election.

Still, she’s walking away a loser – this time.

But the Clintons never go away, no matter how much the American people demand it. Journalist Ron Fournier, a Clinton confidante, wrote on Twitter that “sources close to her” told him that “raising doubts about legitimacy of election, even w/out overturning result, is part of Clinton’s plans to keep her options open for 2020.”
That’s right; Hillary Clinton is considering another run for president four years from now, at the age of 73!

But critics says that announcement may just be a smoke screen
For once, Hillary may be doing something that doesn’t benefit her own political career — she’s trying to convince her top donors to shift their money to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, the Clinton’s cartel’s ace-in-the-hole.

A source close to the Clintons told The New York Post that “the Clintons need some time to regroup after Hillary’s crushing loss,” but “they will not give up.”

“Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand,” the Clinton insider said.
The plan is for Chelsea Clinton to run for Congress, maybe as early as 2018.

Chelsea will run for the seat of Rep. Nita Lowey, a 79-year-old far-left Democrat from New York, when Lowey retires.

Lowey’s district has two advantages: It’s a Democratic safe seat. Chelsea is unlikely to run into any serious competition there. And Lowey represents the city of Chappaqua, where the Clintons have a home. Chelsea doesn’t live there – she lives in Manhattan with husband Marc Mezvinsky – but that’s no problem for the Clintons. After all, Hillary didn’t live in New York before becoming its U.S. senator.

So, the plan is to put Lowey out to pasture and install Chelsea in her place.
So far, Chelsea has made a comfortable living by cashing in on her family name and access to power, and has been groomed for years by her power hungry parents.

Chelsea Clinton is vice chair of the ethically challenged Clinton Foundation, where she has taken a special interest in its fundraising operations. Coincidentally, she has an estimated net worth of $15 million and owns a $10.5 million apartment overlooking New York City’s Madison Square Park.
And like her parents, Chelsea’s media connections run deep. For example, in 2011 NBC News paid her $600,000 as a special correspondent, although she had no experience in journalism – or, as far as we could tell, any talent, either.

Chelsea only faces one major problem: Lowey is not stepping aside quietly. She says she has no plans to retire, Chelsea’s future plans be damned.

“You’ll have to ask Chelsea” where stories about her retirement are coming from, Lowey said. “I’m running for office. I currently serve, and… I will keep running.”

In fact, a New Rochelle newspaper first published reports that Chelsea plans to run for Lowey’s seat five years ago – but still Lowey hasn’t budged.

If Chelsea wants her seat, it will be over her dead body (which rumors say can be arranged in Clintonland).

But at a minimum, Chelsea will have to work for it, which is more than this 36-year-old grown child has done for anything else in her life.

Source

Hillary supporters cry while Trump supporters laugh

2016 election results

First of all congratulations to President-elect Donald Trump. We men joined together to send Killary the evil witch packing. I don't know where she is going but I know one place she ain't going and that is back to the White House. Feminists were backing Hillary and they ate a big bowl of shit. The difference between the two rallies was as different as night and day. The Trump rally upbeat and optimistic while the Clinton rally you could here people crying.

Not only have we chosen a new President we have chosen to repeal old archaic marijuana laws. Five states have gone for full legalization: Arizona,California,Maine,Massachusetts and Nevada. While other states are trying to legalize medical marijuana: Arkansas,Florida,Montana and North Dakota. Only the proposition in Arizona went down in flames. All the rest past. Yesterday 4 out of 5 states told the federal government to stuff their prohibition and 4 states decided that they would give medical marijuana a try. Yesterday was truly an historic day.

Looking good

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he said that in one area Trump is up by 11 points but I don't remember where. So if anyone knows where feel free to leave a comment.

The crimes of Hillary Clinton

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached for Whitewashing Clinton’s Crimes

Former federal prosecutor says that Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence—with the support of the president himself
By Sidney Powell • 10/11/16 8:30am

Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people.

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.

It’s easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary—neither under oath nor with a rights warning—in the presence of her coconspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the “investigation.”

Comey’s “investigation” was a farce. Any former prosecutor worth a flip would have convened a grand jury, issued subpoenas, gotten search warrants, seized computers, run wire taps, indicted the Clinton cabal, and squeezed the underlings to plead guilty and cooperate. This business of friendly chats, immunity agreements handed out like party favors, and side deals that include the Attorney General approving the destruction of evidence to keep it from Congress doesn’t happen for others targeted by the feds.

Just ask any number of Wall Street executives who for various reasons found themselves on the opposite side of the Department of “Justice.” In fact, my former client, Jim Brown, served a year in prison convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for testifying about his personal understanding of a telephone call to which he was not even a party. Yes, you read that correctly. Read Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. It becomes more relevant every day.

How did we get here?

Thanks to the work of Judicial Watch and others, we learned over a year ago now that Hillary Clinton ran the most important and confidential of world affairs and the United States Department of State through an unsecured computer server assembled by her minions and ensconced in the basement of her New York home. She did so despite repeated warnings of security risks, against protocol, and contrary to her own memo to all of her underlings. That posed no problem simply because the rules don’t apply to Clinton.

Conveniently, her server also handled Clinton Foundation correspondence that facilitated the personal enrichment of Hillary and Bill by hundreds of millions of dollars. That money came from Bill’s remarkable “speaking fees” at hundreds of events around the world—each of which was quickly approved as requested by Clinton crony Cheryl Mills at the State Department—as if there were no conflict of interest. Simultaneously, foreign entities made “donations” of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to obtain the immediate attention of and curry favor with the secretary of state—and it worked.

The conflict of interest inherent in that entire scenario is palpable. It’s the Clintonian equivalent of the scheme former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow conceived that destroyed Enron—a large side-slush fund that operated as his own piggy bank. The Clintons boldly went where no one has gone before: They privatized the State Department for their massive personal gain, creating a net worth for each of over $100 million dollars in a few short years. Ironically enough, lead counsel for the Clinton Foundation now was President Obama’s longest-serving White House counsel. A former prosecutor on the Enron Task Force, Kathryn Ruemmler was implicated in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and its cover-up.

The personal home server allowed Hillary Clinton to send and receive all of her emails and run the State Department free from protected, secure, and required government channels. It was established deliberately to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act—both of which applied to her work-related correspondence.

That was no problem for Clinton however, as she simply “didn’t know how to use a computer,” apparently was incapable of learning to do so (unlike most toddlers in the country), and she liked her Blackberry—which was reason enough for her highness to ignore the national security interests of the entire country.

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: ‘My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.’

Clinton’s insistence on operating outside the government security protocols demonstrated at best deliberate disregard for the law and national security—and, at worst, conduct that was treasonous. That is why 18 USC 793 (d) and (f) make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to even move any information relating to the national defense from secure conditions or to fail to return it upon demand. Clinton did both—repeatedly.

The unsecure server also facilitated the clearly conflicting roles of Clinton confidant and protégé Huma Abedin, who was paid simultaneously by the Clinton Foundation and the taxpayers through the State Department. That made it easier for the double-dipping Abedin to schedule meetings quickly for Clinton with those who had paid to play—substantial donors to the Foundation, such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had been denied a face-to-face through those pesky State Department protocols in place for mere mortals. His millions in contributions to the Foundation got him an appointment with Clinton through Abedin in a matter of hours.

We wrote more than a year ago—as soon as we heard one Clinton server was “wiped”—about the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton. We foresaw the need for a special prosecutor and predicted that if emails could be found, they would likely implicate high ranking people across the government, including the president.

Lo and behold, President Obama, who told the country he heard of Clinton’s private email from news reports, was in reality emailing her at Clintonemail.com and using an alias. He must have forgotten. But, wait—just this week, we get more emails, and there’s now evidence that the White House and the State Department coordinated an attempt to minimize the problem.

Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself—conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it’s called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001. Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

And let’s not forget obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1519. That statute was tailor-made to fit the facts of the Clinton cabal’s destruction of evidence. It reads:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Remember the man relentlessly prosecuted by the feds for throwing a few fish overboard? That case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide that fish weren’t the kind of tangible objects/evidence to which Congress intended the new obstruction statute to apply. But emails, computers, and servers are. Senator Clinton voted for that new statute—but it doesn’t apply to her. Well, it would, but Loretta Lynch and James Comey just agreed to destroy evidence of it themselves.

These false statement and obstruction offenses are so easy to prove that prosecutors often tack them on to already multi-count indictments just for good measure when they want to hammer Wall Street bankers or other citizens and business people who actually work for a living.

How many of these federal criminal offenses are established by the limited evidence that has been pried out of the Clintons’ hands or resurrected from unsuccessful although mighty attempts to destroy it? They are truly countless, as each email would be a separate charge but, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just pick three or four—that don’t even include all the conspiracy charge options routinely used by “reasonable” prosecutors.

First, Clinton testified to Congress that she “turned over all of her work-related emails.” Second, she “only wanted to use one device.” Later, she chose her words carefully, claiming “nothing was marked classified when it was sent or received.” That sounds good to people who are not lawyers, but it’s Clintonese and not the law.

She “turned over all her work emails”?

First, her friend Sidney Blumenthal found a number of emails he exchanged with her about confidential matters of State that she didn’t produce. Next, that pesky Pentagon found over 1,000 emails between Hillary and General Petraeus alone. Most recently, the FBI found roughly 15,000 Clinton thought had been erased completely when she had her servers “wiped” professionally with BleachBit. We’ll never know how many were deliberately destroyed to protect her incompetence and corruption. Mills, Samuelson, and others at Platte River Networks destroyed whatever they wanted.

As both secretary of state and an attorney who had long been paid by the taxpayers, Clinton should know that information “relating to the national defense” is what is protected under 18 USC 793(f). It doesn’t have to be “classified”—marked or unmarked—even though much of it was.

Sure, let’s give her the presidency and the nuclear codes and access to every national secret—ISIS can just hack her and use our own missiles to destroy us. They won’t have to worry about trying to bring nukes into the country.

In any event, according to the FBI’s perfunctory investigation, more than 2,000 of the emails available are classified as Confidential or Secret or higher.

Clinton may have only wanted “one device,” but the truth is that she had 13 “personal mobile devices that were lost, discarded, or destroyed.” Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has an excellent timeline of irrefutable, no-spin facts derived from the part of the FBI’s file that has been made public. The timeline of events alone is damning.

Not surprisingly, Attkisson reports that “[a]fter the State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by the House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with Bleachbit, and the FBI couldn’t review them. After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server ‘PRN’ with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.”

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: “My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.”

I guess that’s why they invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination, had hard-drives wiped, destroyed devices with hammers, put the selected emails in the hands of her attorney and refused to produce them for weeks, while her staff all refused to speak without grants of immunity or took the Fifth. I guess it just depends on how you define “cooperation.”

Enter stage left James Comey, Director of the FBI, who fills himself with righteous indignation to tell Congress what a great job the FBI did in this “investigation.” As Congressman Trey Gowdy said, and I concur, “This isn’t the FBI I used to work with.”

Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clinton declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton’s emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote: “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell? Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison.

It’s not just the private server. It’s not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.

It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it’s about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment. The conduct of the Clintons, their cronies, their Foundation, and now our highest law enforcement officials make the entire Watergate scandal look like an insignificant computer hack.

Where is the Congress? Where are what used to be our great newspapers? The sounds of silence are terrifying indicators of how government-controlled our mainstream media has become. I guess that’s why Reporters Without Borders has dropped our Freedom of Press rank to 46th world-wide.

FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be impeached for their roles in whitewashing Clinton’s crimes and their own participation in the destruction of evidence. They facilitated and participated in the obstruction of justice—spitting in the face of the Congressional investigation. Congress should be able to name a special prosecutor when the Attorney General has a clear conflict—such as meeting secretly with Bill Clinton during the “investigation” and receiving a promise of continuing as Attorney General if Hillary is elected President. The timeline of events and their conduct reek of corruption.

Stay tuned. Clinton’s answers under oath to D.C. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan are due October 13. Remember, he’s the judge who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice following the Bush administration’s corrupted prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. And it was Judge John Sirica—combined with what was then the great Washington Post—who exposed the Nixon corruption.

With more and more government intrusion in every aspect of our individual businesses and lives, we are quickly losing the land of the free, and we now must wonder if any of the brave are home. Who has the chutzpah to stand up to the Clintons? Where are the real Americans? Hopefully, on election day, they will pour out in droves and resoundingly demand real change. The election and Judge Sullivan are our only chances for justice at all.

Source

Answer them,Hillary

Congress grills James Comey

FBI Director James Comey is passionately defending the integrity of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email setup, arguing that critics are unfair to suggest that agents were biased or succumbed to political pressure.

“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels,” Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. “We are honest people and … whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done.”

The normally stoic FBI chief grew emotional and emphatic as he rejected claims from Republican lawmakers that the FBI was essentially in the tank for Clinton when it recommended that neither she nor any of her aides be prosecuted in connection with the presence of classified information on Clinton’s private email server. He acknowledged he has “no patience” for such allegations.

“I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water for one side or the other. That’s hard for people to see because so much of our country, we see things through sides,” Comey said. “We are not on anybody’s side.”

It was at least Comey’s third appearance on Capitol Hill since the Clinton email probe was closed, but the FBI director’s assurances did not seem to satisfy House Republicans, who said the decision not to prosecute Clinton or her aides smacked of favoritism.

“I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). “There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there’s a heavy hand coming from someplace else.”

Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences — short of criminal prosecution — if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and her aides did.

“Mary or Joe, if they did this in the FBI, would not be prosecuted,” the FBI director said. “They’d be in big trouble, but they would not be prosecuted. That wouldn’t be fair.”
Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and repeatedly questioned prosecutors’ decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people in connection with the probe.

“You cleaned the slate before you even knew. … You gave immunity to people that you were going to need to make a case if a case was to be made,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department’s decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

“Laptops don’t go to the Bureau of Prisons,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills.”

The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.

“Anytime you know you’re subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer’s practice of law, you know you’re getting into a big megillah,” Comey said.
Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton’s July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe.

“I don’t think there’s any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.
“If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this,” Comey said. “The decision was made after that because I didn’t know what was going to happen during the interview. She would maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove.”

Comey also said it wasn’t the FBI’s role to dictate who could or couldn’t act as Clinton’s lawyers. “I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer,” the FBI chief said, while acknowledging he’d never encountered such a situation before.
Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness.

Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the Clinton interview.

“We had already concluded we did not have a prosecutable case against Cheryl Mills or Heather Samuelson at that point. If we they were targets of our investigation, maybe we would have canceled the interview,” the FBI director said. ‘Frankly, our focus was on the subject. The subject at that point was Hillary Clinton.”

Despite the second-guessing from Republicans, Comey said he remained convinced that prosecution wasn’t even remotely appropriate given the facts.
“As painful as this is for people, this was not a close call,” he said. “This was done by pros in the right way.”

Source

Has James Comey ever heard of Peter Comey? He should be familiar to him as they are brothers. Peter Comey is tied to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation. That is why James Comey didn't do squat. Everyone was out there saying that James Comey is a straight shooter. If this is what they mean by "straight shooter" then I would hate to see their interpretation of corrupt.

Here is what really happened.

Is Hillary Clinton above the law?

From Public Advocate-the Clinton Investigative Commission:

It's time for Americans like you and me to take drastic action.

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be possibly the most corrupt politician in America.

We've seen evidence of countless acts of criminal negligence, corruption and deceit.

She even left Americans to die in Benghazi.

Yet she has not faced one indictment, not one criminal charge.

Instead, she's been praised by the media and President Obama while securing the nomination for president from one of America's two primary political parties.

Is Hillary Clinton above the law?

Is America powerless to hold her accountable?

She's got the White House, the Department of Justice and even the FBI in her back pocket protecting her.

The federal justice and court systems are so packed with Obama's cronies that there's no one to stand up to Hillary's criminal rampage.

The United States Congress is the only force left that can take action against her.

But Republican leadership is sitting on their hands.

That's why I'm writing you today as Director of the Clinton Investigative Commission (CIC).

I'm formally calling on Congress to act now and hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her actions.

But I need your help to do it.

Our Representatives won't speak up unless you and I force them to.

My constitutional experts have uncovered something only a handful of people in the country have realized.

We don't have to wait for November to Impeach Hillary.

That's right.

Congress can impeach Hillary right now for her criminal misconduct as a senior federal official.

I've prepared a petition to Congress, laying out her misdeeds and what they can do about it.

Please sign your petition for Congress to "Impeach Hillary."

All it needs is your signature, demanding they take action.

And once you've signed, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or $15 to help fund our efforts.

Hillary Clinton is a criminal of the highest order, and I'm not going to sit by and watch her behavior go unpunished.

She left Americans to die in Benghazi, and then tried to lie to the American public about what happened...

...She abused her power as Secretary of State to funnel untold millions into the Clinton Family slush fund, dubbed the Clinton Foundation...

...She committed criminal negligence in her role as Secretary of State in the handling of classified information, documents and emails...

...and she blatantly lied to Congress about her behavior as Secretary of State, as testified by the director of the FBI.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, Hillary still denies she did anything wrong.

That's why I've tasked the Clinton Investigative Commission (CIC) with bringing her to justice.

The CIC was founded to uncover the corruption of President Bill Clinton -- but we've never stopped observing and tracking the activities of the Clinton family, and that includes Hillary.

I have watched in horror this past year as one crime after another committed by Hillary was exposed -- only to see her evade justice each and every time.

For years now, America has known that Secretary Hillary Clinton behaved inappropriately, and even criminally, regarding the Benghazi incident.

But then you and I saw her incompetence and negligence in handling classified emails laid out before the country.

As FBI Director James Comey reported in his findings, Hillary's guilt seemed beyond question -- yet he inexplicably refused to recommend charges against her.

There are former government employees in prison for committing far lesser acts of negligence than Hillary, yet she is allowed to walk free and even seek the highest office in the land!

And just this summer, you and I learned that Hillary Clinton utilized a "Pay to Play" policy during her time as Secretary of State.

An independent investigation found that Hillary gave the overwhelming majority of her discretional time to groups and individuals who made massive donations to her Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation is nothing more than a tax shelter and slush fund for the Clinton Family under the guise of a "non-profit organization."

Yet again, she is not facing any criminal charges!

Is there a different standard of justice for the wealthy and connected like the Clintons? It's certainly looking that way to most Americans.

We are going to hold Hillary to the same laws that apply to you and me.

And with your help, we can do it.

That's why the CIC is launching the first national petition calling on Congress to impeach Hillary Clinton over her behavior as Secretary of State.

By impeaching Hillary, Congress will be certifying her as "unqualified for national office."

She doesn't even have to be in office for Congress to Impeach her.

It's likely most members of Congress do not realize they have this power.

And Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have shown that they have no desire to hold Hillary accountable.

Which is why Public Advocate's Clinton Investigative Commission is turning up the heat on the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

With your help, the CIC is going to launch a full media blitz to gather support and kick Congress into action.

We will be emailing millions of Americans, launching Google Ads and even using social media to gather more signatures.

I've tasked the CIC with gathering at least 50,000 signatures right off the bat -- and 1 million signatures before it's over.

And then we will turn all our efforts onto Congress by delivering your petitions and pressuring them to act!

So please sign your petition calling for Congress to "Impeach Hillary" over her criminal conduct.

And then please consider chipping in a generous donation to help the CIC do even more.

Authoritative published opinions -- including our own top Clinton Investigative Commission legal counsel -- say impeachment is an extremely appropriate legislative action.

And since it is completely independent of executive involvement, there is no way for the corrupt Obama Administration to stop it.

While Hillary Clinton does not currently hold public office, Congress is empowered under the Constitution to act based on her transgressions while she held federal office.

After Congress impeaches Hillary, the Senate can then bar her from holding any federal office in the future.

Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) has already joined with the Clinton Investigative Commission in calling for impeachment hearings.

Do you think the same laws that apply to you and me should also apply to the wealthy and connected like Hillary Clinton?

Do you think it matters when government employees violate the law, endanger our national security, and use their power to line their own pockets?

If you said "Yes," you need to let Congress know.

Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell have shown us that they aren't going to act on their own.

It's going to take a massive grassroots uprising to force their hand and make them do the right thing.

Signed petitions, emails, faxes, Google Ads, social media, direct mail -- we'll use it all!

The Clinton Investigative Commission will be delivering your signed petition directly to your U.S. Senators and Congressman.

But we need at least 50,000 signed petitions to Congress to get this ball rolling.

And to reach that many people is going to take a full media program -- which isn't cheap.

So after you sign your petition for Congress to Impeach Hillary, please consider chipping in a donation of $20 or even $15 to fund the CIC's efforts.

Even $10 or $5 will be a great help.

Thank you in advance for standing up for law and order in America.

Together, we can show the Clintons they are not above the law.

God Bless,

HON. EUGENE DELGAUDIO
Director, Clinton Investigative Commission

P.S. The Clinton Investigative Commission is launching a first-of-its-kind petition calling on Congress to "Impeach Hillary" over her criminal conduct!

Hillary's pattern of corruption has been exposed for all the country to see -- yet she has still not faced a single indictment, not a single charge.

Obama's administration is sitting on the evidence, refusing to take action. That's why we need Congress to step up and fight for justice.

Click here to sign your petition for Congress to "Impeach Hillary."

And after you sign, please consider chipping in a generous donation of $20, $15 -- or even $10 or $5 -- to fund our efforts to bring Hillary to justice.

*** Clinton Investigative Commission is a project of Public Advocate of the United States.

Public Advocate is a non-profit 501(c)4 that fights for the Family. As such, we do not endorse or oppose any candidate for office.

Contributions or gifts to Public Advocate of the U.S. are not tax-deductible. Public Advocate is a non-profit organization that fights the radical agenda of the Homosexual Lobby. Public Advocate receives no government funds. You may reach us at: Public Advocate, P.O. Box 1360, Merrifield, VA 22116; phone (703) 845-1808; http://publicadvocateusa.org.

Not only does Hillary Clinton insult Trump supporters but she is a racist on top of it

Hillary and Bill Clinton
'Basket' case: Clinton regrets 'generalistic deplorables' jibe as Trump supporters pounce
Javier E. David,CNBC Sat, Sep 10 11:16 AM PDT .

Democratic presidential contender HIllary Clinton was forced on Saturday to walk back her contention that half of Donald Trump's supporters were part of a "basket of deplorables" , as the remark was met with a barrage of criticism that it insulted average American voters.

At a New York fundraiser on Friday, the former Secretary of State cautioned her supporters not to take a victory for granted, with recent polls showing the presidential race tightening. She then categorized Trump's base as divided between people yearning for change, but disparaged the other half as "a basket of deplorables."

In a campaign statement on Saturday, the former Secretary of State apologized in part for the crack, saying that she was "wrong" to suggest half of Trump's backers were deplorable. However, she added that she would continue to speak out against what she said was intolerance on the campaign trail.

The controversy came days after the two contenders traded barbs over their respective credentials to serve as commander in chief, after an NBC News forum on the subject failed to produce a clear winner.

Meanwhile, the real estate mogul and his supporters pounced on Clinton's remark, with even some of his most implacable GOP critics siding with him on the issue. Trump himself calling it "a new low", while his campaign called on her to apologize for a sentiment they say betrays contempt for voters.

The remark, which some observers compared to 2012 GOP nominee's infamous "47 percent" comment that undermined his standing with many voters — for which he was forced to apologize —appeared poised to roil an already polarizing and volatile race where both candidates have struggled to connect with key voting blocs.

For Trump, a durable electoral coalition has thus far proven elusive given his charged remarks about immigrants. In light of this, Clinton has made a concerted effort to define Trump by legions of supporters known euphemistically as the "Alt-Right"

Trump's most prominent backers have furiously denied being motivated by racism, and are instead deeply concerned about the economy. At the same time, many of the GOP contenders supporters have been linked to bigoted behavior and opinions, especially on social media.

Clinton's backers were equally as quick to rally to her defense, unleashing a wave of furious sparring on social media between both camps.

However, even Republicans critical of Trump's candidacy in general distanced themselves from Clinton's broadside. A number of "Alt Right' Republican critics found themselves defending Trump's umbrage at Clinton's remark.

Tom Nichols, a "Never Trump" Republican and a national security expert who has backed Clinton over Trump, likened her remark to Romney's "47 percent" jibe in 2012.

Source

What Hillary thinks about her own party

Hillary Clinton's America versus Donald Trump's America

Which America do you prefer?