Deplorable scum

Hillary Clinton made a big bet on “deplorables.” Three years later, already having won that hand, Donald Trump raised her bid. He tweets that Never Trumpers are “human scum.”

“The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!”

This is obviously the Democrats’ fault. They keep empowering the President with their Star Chamber Impeachment coup, and encouraging him by continually upping the crazyiness ante. I mean, aren’t we all waiting with bated breath for Hillary Clinton to respond?

“Deplorable Russian scumbags” is still available.

If the Democrats had potential Presidential nominees (and Ms. Tentsuit is not one of them) who would condemn gun confiscation, eschew banning fracking, resist the pronoun war fallout, refuse massive tax hikes, ridicule the provision of free healthcare to illegal immigrants, oppose open borders, concede a woman’s right to choose logically ends with the birth of an autonomous being, abandon ruinously expensive fantasy proscriptions to prevent “climate change,” give up efforts to erase the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court, and stop threatening to stamp out religious liberty – Trump might have had to moderate his language.

Even so, he probably wouldn’t have. He can’t help himself. Democrats apparently cannot grasp that, and, by now, they certainly should.

Full disclosure: I was NeverTrump during the GOP primaries. I voted Libertarian in the General. After Mr. Trump was elected, I accepted his Presidency. I have been pleased by some of his policies, appalled by others. That’s all on record here.

Nonetheless, according to The Donald, I’m now at least peripherally scum.

I can’t vote for anyone else this time. Wish I could. My enthusiasm ends with stopping the Democrat, whoever that turns out to be. If there were a GOP Presidential primary, I’d vote for Ted Cruz, though he’s too principled to run against a sitting President of his own party.

Mr. President, I know you can’t keep a civil tongue. I know it contributes to your success. But, gross insults of people who don’t matter to your re-election won’t convince any undecideds to vote for you.

And some people who gave up NeverTrumping might succumb to recidivism. That comment was just one of many bridges you went too far to burn.

Pantsuit under the jitney

A friend forwarded me a link titled (by a Progressive friend of his) “Did you see this on Fox?“.

The link goes to the Huffington Post, where if you only read the headline:
Clinton Email Probe Finds No Deliberate Mishandling Of Classified Information,
it sounds as if Hillary’s misadventure with a technologically unsecured email server in a physically unsecured bathroom was just alright.

I guess the implication is that Fox News would suppress this story because Fox is biased. Somehow distinguishing Fox from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc..

The first paragraph of the story, however, is:

“A U.S. State Department investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state has found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information by department employees.”

Full disclosure, I don’t watch any TV news or opinion shows whatsoever, so I did not see it on any network.

I had no trouble finding an answer about whether Fox covered it, however:
State Department completes internal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email, here and here.

All I needed to know, though, is in that first HuffPo paragraph; the State Department ran the investigation of the State Department regarding the former Secretary of State‘s email peccadillo which they claim “employees” didn’t notice, while the State Department has inexplicable, continuing difficulty in locating information responsive to FOIA demands – about which those State Department “employees” certainly had knowledge.

Oh, and this is the same former SecState currently accusing Democrat Presidential candidates of being Russian assets, who also thinks the Constitutional provision of an Electoral College is unconstitional.

So, parsing that opening HuffPo sentence:
1- Hillary Clinton was not a “department employee.” She was a presidential appointee. She wasn’t exonerated along with the peons.

2- We know classified information passed through that server. Some of it in back-and-forth with “employees.”

3- The State Department investigated the career civil servants in their employ and found no intentional wrongdoing involving the incontestably deliberate installation by Hillary Clinton of a begging-to-be-hacked server that necessarily mishandled everything passing through it.

We know those civil servants knew they were using a non “.gov” email address… as did the President at the time. In violation of policy.

So we cannot go there.

Laughable. Under the jitney, Ms. Pants Suit. The conclusion can only be: All these career naifs were duped by Hillary.

I’m having trouble understanding why a Progressive Hillary booster would want any coverage of this at all.

In the interest of balance, I wonder if Rachel Maddow will mention this (Oct 21, 2019):
Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up

“Judicial Watch today released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014. The long withheld email, clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal…”

The State Department has participated in, even orchestrated, the cover up since before we knew about Hillary’s illicit server. They’ve been deliberately mishandling that information for over 5 years.

It’s their asses they need to cover. Not Hillary’s.

Since she’s, thank God, not President.

Obviously :-}

Hillary Clinton on potential rematch with Trump: “Obviously I can beat him again”

Perhaps this can be explained as a result of excess Chardonnay consumption. The only way it can be understood otherwise is that she believes winning the popular vote means she won the Presidency.

The thing that’s actually obvious is that she has declared herself unable to take the Presidential oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Since Article 2, Section 1 of that Constitution defines an Electoral College:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Bimbo Erupts

Hillary Clinton’s above the law self-privileging is breathtaking, even for a Democrat. She suffers from the delusion that because her husband was a genial, accomplished liar that the skill rubbed off on her. She’s also sure she’s immune to the charge of misogyny (which she would attach to anyone else behaving as did her husband) because of her sex.

Mrs. Bill can’t acknowledge Mr. Bill’s deeds, because without Mr. Bill she would have had no political career whatsoever. Might explain her bitterness and that of her handmaids.

Her nth wave Feminist supporters suffer from a similar megalomaniacal pursuit of their own (as they would put it) “privilege.” This privilege demands the destruction of any male, or white female, who disagrees in the slightest detail with THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE identity-political views, while steadfastly protecting those who who violate Feminist core values when those political views are shared. Harvey Weinstein, about whose, uh… peccadillos the Senior Harpies all knew, may not be the worst example. But, he’s the one we’ve got.

To be clear, Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for her husband’s long history of sexual predation. She is, however, responsible for denigrating the victims of each and every occurrence; simultaneously proclaiming Bill’s vices as virtues while insulting those who question her “narrative.” She just can’t bring herself to “put some ice” on her wounded sense of entitlement.

Bill Clinton’s Sexual Assault Allegations Are ‘Different’, Hillary Says
Read the whole thing.
Emphasis in original.

The numerous allegations of sexual harassment levied against him mean President Trump is a reprehensible monster, according to Hillary Clinton, but when it comes to similar claims made about her husband, former President Bill Clinton, it’s a different story

The difference-maker, according to Clinton, is the fact that the allegations facing her husband were thoroughly investigated by a federal prosecutor

“Well, there’s a very significant difference and that is the intense, long-lasting, partisan investigation that was conducted in the 90s,” Clinton said. “If the Republicans, starting with President Trump on down want a comparison, they should welcome such an investigation themselves.”

I dare say Justice Kavanaugh was more intensely, and with more partisan vitriol, investigated than Slick Willy, much more thoroughly investigated than her former boss, Barack Obama, and for a shorter time than the Mueller fiasco – which she initiated to cover up the DNC’s collusion with the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies.

IIRC, the claims against Trump all involve consensual activities, all of which occurred when he was neither Attorney General/ Governor of Arkansas, nor President of the United States. Since Kavanaugh was accused of far worse, my conclusion is that there’s nothing out there about Trump even as (un)believable as Julie Swetnik’s rape gang story.

Is there any doubt the #Resistance hysteria volume would ramp up to 11 if Trump was proved to have had oral sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and was disbarred for lying to a grand jury? There is, of course, no doubt the hysterics still defend Bill Clinton – of whom both are true. And that’s the real difference.

I’d like to see Bill’s yearbooks, one of which has a “dampstain” on page two. Hillary’s would be interesting only because those were her “Goldwater Girl” days. That should be disqualifying now, for any office, according to the Kavanaughts.

Collusion

If the Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant against the Trump campaign, and the evidence for that is growing strong, some employees of the FBI and DOJ face serious legal difficulty.

Here is an excellent walk through and timeline summarizing what is known about the Steele dossier: Clinton campaign propaganda appears to have triggered Obama administration spying on Trump’s campaign.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS, it is doubtful any of this would have become known.

RTWT