Clinton: It Wasn’t Me, It Was Comey


Photo: Tim Pierce / CC-BY

As I discussed over the weekend, the Democratic leadership appears to be spinning its snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory this electoral season.  Various Democratic leaders have been blaming the results not on their engineering Hillary Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders but FBI director James Comey. Now Clinton herself is advancing that same spin despite every objective measure to the contrary. It is precisely why Clinton was never able to seriously improve the overwhelming view of being less than honest. Her campaign would continually spin events and scandals rather than deal directly with obvious problems. In the meantime, Clinton’s controversial friend and close advisor Sidney Blumenthal is raising yet another vast conservative conspiracy theory — that it was not the candidate but a cabal of secret agents directed by Rudy Giuliani that caused the defeat.

For those still interested in recent history, the public has been consistent that they did not want an establishment candidate and particularly did not want Hillary Clinton. Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president and over 60 percent of voters viewed Clinton as fundamentally dishonest. None of that stopped the DNC from engineering her victory over Bernie Sanders who presented precisely the populist campaign that many voters were looking for. Clinton had the Democratic establishment and many allies in the media — everyone agreed except the public. That was enough . . . until the voters had their say on November 8th.

Now there are many (particularly Sanders supporters) calling for a massive overhaul of the Democratic party.  In response, the establishment has been quick to blame Comey even though Clinton’s unpopularity levels remained dismal and her popularity was dropping before his disclosure to Congress. For many, the problem with the emails was not so much as the concern of her compromising national security but her bad judgment coupled with er belated acceptance of responsibility. Clinton at first laughed off the controversy and refused to say that she used bad judgment. She then begrudgingly accepted that it was a “mistake” while still maintaining that her national security judgment was her primary strength.

Clinton’s first statement after concession came in a private call with major donors. She did not acknowledge her long-standing polling issues with truthfulness or reputation as the ultimate establishment candidate in a counter-establishment election. Instead, she said it was all about Comey even though she was struggling to even gain a few percentage points over Trump who had rallied oppositional forces against himself. She even lost Wisconsin – a first since 1984 for a Democrat. That is not about Comey. The whole election was a disaster as we previously discussed on the blog. While this blog and others openly marveled at the decision of the Democratic establishment to pick an establishment candidate with such baggage, Democratic insiders and the media pushed the line that Clinton would necessarily win and that people would overcome their clear dislike for her. While Clinton appears to have won the popular vote, a Democratic nominee without the baggage and bad polling numbers might have produced a starkly different result, including the possible flipping of the Senate. particularly a perceived outside like Sanders.  While I have long been a critic of the electoral college and an advocate of a majority requirement for president, a run off would not have necessarily helped Clinton.  First, while she won the popular vote, she was well below 50 percent.  She was roughly 5 million below Obama’s total in the prior election against a much more polarizing opponent than Mitt Romney.  The final numbers are still uncertain but both REe likely to end up in the 47 percentile.  She won Colorado after Libertarian Ron Johnson took five percent.  The Clinton campaign sought to win on an anti-Trump vote as Trump sought an anti-Clinton victory.  That was not enough for a lot of young people and others who were simply not motivated by Clinton.  In the end, the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary voters were unstoppable.  Moreover, judging from the losses of the Senate races, the Democrats gave up on selecting a candidate with any “coattails.”  The Democrats lost a golden opportunity to take back the Senate and will now face the opposite situation in two years where more Democratic seats will be a risk.

For some, the Comey spin was not nearly conspiratorial enough.  After all, Comey had spent weeks being pummeled by the right for his clearing of Clinton of any criminal actions — the basis for a number of pro-Clinton ads and pitches.  He then informed Congress that they were looking into new emails while expressly stating that they did not know the significance of the emails.  He then cleared her again a few days later.  Blumenthal (who has been long denounced as something of a gossip and conspiracy spreader) is not willing to simply stop with Comey. No conspiracy is sufficient unless it is vast and conservative. So Blumenthal is reportedly telling people that a group of “right-wing agents” in the FBI staged an effective coup d’etat. Of course a coup presupposes that Clinton was the ordained new leader and that the election was merely a formality. He is quoted as telling Dutch television that “It was the result of a cabal of right-wing agents of the FBI in the New York office attached to Rudy Giuliani, who was a member of Trump’s campaign. I think it’s not unfair to call it a coup.” Unfair? No I would say unhinged is more accurate.

As shown by the staffer who denounced Donna Brazile last week, many liberals (and particularly young people) are not buying the spin. Liberal blogs are already denouncing the DNC for engineering the victory of the “Clinton-corporate wing.” One such critic is Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary Robert Reich who insisted that “The Democratic Party can no longer be the same, it has been repudiated. This has been a huge refutation of establishment politics and the political organization has got to be changed … if the Democratic Party can’t do it, we’ll do it through a third party.”

Notably, in a Hill article, Democratic insiders are blaming Sanders voters and young people for not doing as they were told and voting for Clinton . . . which obviously misses the point.  The Democrats have been selling the lesser of two evils for years and voters simply had had enough with the selection of Clinton.  The primary revealed deep-seated opposition to Clinton who continued to refuse to turn over her Wall Street speeches and spinned serious questions about massive contributions and speaking fees from corporations and power brokers.  Even if the leadership sought to be willfully blind before the primary in lining up behind Clinton, the Sanders movement revealed the depth and anger of the electorate.  It was their election to lose and they engineered the Clinton victory and lost it.

To show the inability to even consider a new course after this defeat, the establishment is already grooming Chelsea Clinton for political office under the apparent theory that the solution to the public rejecting the Clintons is to add more Clintons.  Likewise, various Democratic members are pushing to continue the leadership of Nancy Pelosi as minority leader in the House despite calls for new leadership from younger members.

So the spin is on. It was not Clinton and certainly not the Democratic leadership. It was Comey and perhaps a hidden cabal of secret agents.  The Democratic party is again fulfilling Einstein’s view that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

301 thoughts on “Clinton: It Wasn’t Me, It Was Comey”

  1. MRC/YouGov Poll: Most Voters Saw, Rejected News Media Bias
    By NB Staff | November 15, 2016 | 9:47 AM EST

    RESTON, VA – The Media Research Center (MRC) announces the findings of a new post-election poll on what actual voters thought about the media’s influence on the 2016 presidential race. The MRC/YouGov poll was conducted on November 9 and 10.

    Key findings:

    7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.
    8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%).
    Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were “pro-Clinton.”
    8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump.
    97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.

    By 3-to-1 Margin, Public Say Media Bias in Favor of Clinton

    Media Research Center President Brent Bozell:

    “The media are in full panic mode because the American people rejected their leftist agenda — and them. People didn’t believe the nonsense that the media were politically neutral. Even a third of Hillary’s supporters believe they were pro-Hillary!

    “When you have a strong majority of actual voters saying the national ‘news’ media were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and tried to influence the public to vote for her; and believing they are fundamentally dishonest, you have a major problem that can’t be fixed with an apology. The public has rejected this institution as being either objective or truthful. There is an institutional bias at major media networks that must be repaired and I am highly skeptical that news executives are interested or capable of undertaking this responsibility.

    “Despite the overwhelming and persistent bias of this cycle in particular, I am heartened by the fact that, according to our poll, the American people didn’t let it sway their vote. If this isn’t a wakeup call for the left-wing media to stay out of politics, I don’t know what is.”


    Ivanka Trump wears the bracelet in the lobby of Trump Tower. (Photo: Getty Images)
    Ivanka Trump recently appeared alongside her father, President-elect Donald J. Trump, and surrounding family members in their first postelection interview, in New York City. The 35-year-old businesswoman wore a nude short-sleeved dress and opted for gold accessories, including a $10,800, 18K yellow gold diamond bangle from her eponymous jewelry line.

    Soon after the interview it was revealed that one of the fashion maven’s employees sent an email to journalists offering style details on the expensive bangle…

    Seeing as Trump’s eldest daughter is heavily scrutinized by the press and media alike, for the conflict of interest that lies in promoting her own business at high profile political appearances, it didn’t take long for social media users to take issue with Ivanka hawking her own expensive bangle on the segment. Many users felt that Ivanka was using this important interview as a marketing opportunity.

    Kathy Sullivan @NHKathySullivan
    Ivanka Trump hawking $10,800 bracelet she wore on 60 Minutes. Total lack of class, dignity, sense of appropriateness. God help us.
    10:07 AM – 15 Nov 2016

    Jason Janego @jasonjanego
    Ivanka Trump pitching reporters to write about $11k bracelet she wore on 60 Minutes – no conflict of interest here, please look away.
    9:17 AM – 15 Nov 2016

    HawaiiDelilah @HawaiiDelilah
    Ivanka Trump’s jewelry company is using her 60 Min appearance to market a $10k bracelet. Let the corruption & conflict of interests begin!…
    11:17 PM – 14 Nov 2016

    1. edm – Milo hawks his entire wardrobe. So do the Kardasians, etc. It is called capitalism. How many times have we seen a movie star come on a talk show to hawk his/her movie? Is that bad?


          In the past, attempts by relatives to profit from a connection to a president, such as Billy Carter’s introduction of Billy Beer during his brother Jimmy’s administration, and the creation of Roger Clinton’s band, Politics, during his half brother Bill’s terms in office, were roundly deemed inappropriate.

          The tension between Ms. Trump’s position on her father’s transition team and her unofficial, but powerful, role as a representative of women and the younger generation in his organization, and the fact that she is her own best ad and her brand is thus understandably using her as a celebrity, makes the issue even more complicated, and it underscores her status in the public eye and the amount of attention she will incur. The question now is how she uses it.

      1. I can only imagine what folks here would say if one of President Obama’s daughters were serving as advisers to their father and were trying to use their position to sell goods after appearing at the Democratic Convention…or after being interviewed on 60 Minutes before the their father took office. Such hypocrisy!

      2. The Kardashians and movie stars aren’t using their daddy who is President-Elect to try to make money. What a family!

        1. edm – the Kardasians are using their dad and mom for start up funds, as did Paris Hilton. There are acting clans. There are the Fondas, Tom Hanks kid has a lead in a tv show now. There are lots more. Of course, there are the Baldwin brothers. Opie has his daughter in Arrested Development.

          The Booths were a famous acting family.

          1. Paul,

            FYI: The Kardashians aren’t children of the President-Elect. I guess you missed that fact. Or maybe–just maybe–you do not want to acknowledge the difference. Some people can’t handle the truth.

            1. edm – one of Obama’s daughter’s was caught smoking pot. She was not arrest because she was the daughter of the President of the United States. This is all new to the Trumps. Old news for the Clintons, who have been scamming funds for years.

              1. Omigod! Malia Obama may–or may not have–smoked pot! Let’s all clutch at our pearls! What about George W. Bush? He was a drug user and an alcoholic. Yet he became president. I give him credit for getting off drugs and alcohol. How many among the Turley blog regulars–or regular Americans–have ever tried pot?


                Bush daughters cited in Texas

                AUSTIN, Texas — President Bush’s 19-year-old twin daughters were charged Thursday with underage alcohol offenses after an incident in a popular restaurant known for its Tex-Mex food and ice-cold margaritas.

                It was the second alcohol-related citation against Jenna Bush in less than five weeks. Police accused Jenna Bush of attempting to buy alcohol with false identification and Barbara Bush of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

                Both charges are misdemeanors punishable by a fine of up to $500, attendance at an alcohol awareness course, community service and a 30-day suspension of a driver’s license.

                But Jenna Bush, who just completed her freshman year at the University of Texas, could face a stiffer punishment because she is facing her second charge.


                So what if the Bush twins were caught drinking illegally? What if Malia actually smoked pot? Who cares? Not I. I wish we’d leave the children of presidents alone to live their young lives in privacy.

                1. edm – it is important to leave the lives of ALL the President’s daughters alone, including Ivanka.

                  1. Ivanka is an adult who is on the transition team. Has a daughter ever been on the transition team before? I don’t think so. We are in uncharted territory here.

                  2. Paul,

                    The Bush girls and Obama girls were not/are not adults–and were/are living with their parents in the White House. They weren’t/aren’t grown women running their own businesses and attempting to make money off their fathers’ position. There is quite a difference.

                    1. Paul,

                      Unfortunately, you don’t get it that Ivanka is not child living with her mommy and daddy. She is not a minor child or a college student. She is a 35-year-old married woman with children.

            2. “The Kardashians aren’t children of the President-Elect”
              Who knows? He’s chased a lot of women in his day ….

      3. Ivan Trump’s Company Scrambles Over ’60 Minutes’ Bracelet Criticism

        Ivanka Trump’s company came under heavy criticism this week when it began promoting sales of a $10,000 bracelet that she wore on “60 Minutes.” And now, the future first daughter’s company is seemingly backtracking after being accused of conflating her father’s presidential interview with her own personal business.

        A “fashion alert” was initially sent to journalists on Monday by Monica Marder, vice president of sales for Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry. It promoted Ivanka Trump as wearing “her favorite bangle from the Metropolis Collection” on the CBS News show. The bracelet costs $8,800 to $10,800. “Please share this with your clients…” the email said.

        As a result, the company was accused of trying to make money off the election results through the interview…

        A public relations firm representing Ivanka Trump would not comment on whether or not the president-elect’s daughter was aware that the email went out in the first place.

        The interview was not the first time Ivanka Trump used her father’s political spotlight to highlight her brand. In July, the former model marketed a blush pink sheath dress she wore at the Republican National Convention. The dress, which retailed at a more affordable $138, quickly sold out.

  3. Jury is out on the selections for sure. Given the way things have worked out, it may pay off to put some of these neocon bozos in position with marching orders. Better the enemy that you can see possibly.

    Still no call for a no-fly zone over Syria, so that is basically better than anything Clinton had to offer.

    1. We survived GW Bush, Obama, and even that nut job Wilson. The world will continue to turn.

        1. I woke up this morning, so I’m fairly sure I’m still here. I was up early and can confirm an eastern sunrise. Would I believe the written word over my own eyes? As to the future, well predictions always have an element of chance, but I like my odds.

            1. Thank you. The Cubs won the Series, Trump won the presidency, and previously undefeated # 2, 3, and 4 in the college football rankings all lost on Saturday. So I suppose just about anything is possible.

        1. I’ll never forget Carter, and his family. Anyone remember Billy Beer? I’m not exactly a fan and did not vote for him, but Carter did appoint Paul Volcker as Fed Chair. Also Alfred Kahn whose arline price deregulation made it possible for me to fly home a couple of times a year when I was in grad school.

  4. Rudy Giuliani, the favorite for Donald Trump’s secretary of state, has ties to Venezuela, Qatar and Iranian exiles
    Trump, who blasted Clinton’s alleged ties to Middle Eastern countries, has no qualms when it comes to top diplomat

    Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, reportedly the favorite to be appointed as Donald Trump’s secretary of state, has a whole lot of potential conflicts of interest.

    On Monday evening, Giuliani repeatedly indicated that he’d be interested in the secretary of state position and offered a glimpse at what his foreign policies might look like during a gathering of The Wall Street Journal CEO Council.

    “ISIS, short-term I believe, is the greatest danger and not because ISIS is in Iraq and in Syria, but because ISIS did something al Qaeda never did — ISIS was able to spread itself around the world,” Giuliani told the audience, establishing that fighting ISIS would be his top priority upon assuming the position.

    The message is surprising, considering that Qatar, which sent money to ISIS extremists, is a country Giuliani once represented. He advised Qatar’s state-run oil company at a national gas plant.

    The potential leader of the State Department also represented an Iranian group that, at the time, was on a list of terrorist organizations. Per Politico:

    In 2011, an exiled Iranian political party called the Mujahedin e-Khalq, known as the MEK, paid Giuliani to give a speech in Washington calling on the State Department to remove the group from its list of terrorist organizations. The MEK recruited a host of other formal officials to its cause and succeeded in reversing the terrorist designation in 2012.

    1. Yikes, Makes the Clinton foundation look like child’s play. Surely President Trump would not start out his administration appointing such a corrupt figure.

      1. I really would like the Republican party to move in Rand’s direction but am not optimistic in the short run. We do not need this endless war posture.

  5. @edm

    Remember when I told you that the ADL is sometimes more of a DNC front organization than it is an honest protector of Jews? Somebody else agrees with me!

    Yesterday, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released a statement calling the anti-Semitism claims “painful” while describing Bannon as a defender of Israel:

    It is painful to see Anti-Defamation League (ADL) president Jonathan Greenblatt engaging in character assassination against President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon and Mr. Bannon’s company, Breitbart media. ADL/Greenblatt essentially accused Mr. Bannon and his media company of “anti-Semitism” and Israel hatred, when Jonathan Greenblatt/ADL tweeted that Bannon “presided over the premier website of the ‘alt right’ – a loose-knit group of white nationalists and anti-Semites.” …

    ZOA’s own experience and analysis of Breitbart articles confirms Mr. Bannon’s and Breitbart’s friendship and fair-mindedness towards Israel and the Jewish people. To accuse Mr. Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism is Orwellian. In fact, Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism. Here are a few of the many examples:

    Stephen Bannon joined ZOA in fighting the anti-Semitic rallies at CUNY by requiring his Breitbart reporters to call CUNY officials and Gov. Cuomo aides urging them to do something about it.

    Great article!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. Which article quotes real live Jews! Klein and Dershowitz! But by all means, please continue to NOT read websites that don’t confirm your idiotic biases! Nothing like a little hair of the dog!

        Plus, I hear Hillary threw coffee on Podesta, and called Mook an “incompetent little fag” while she was beating on them! No wonder Podesta was sooo abrupt and terse when he told the crowd to go home! He had to put medicine on the burn!

        Oh, ROTFLMAO!!!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. OOOOOH! Alan Dershowitz! LOL!

          You heard. I am sure you have heard a lot of things–especially from sources like Breitbart.

        2. “I hear” …. Were you there? I hear a lot of things, and most of them aren’t true or never happened. Why do you suppose that heresay is not admissible in a court of law?

          Though, perhaps President Trump will try to get the heresay ban lifted…..

          1. JR – Drudge Report is considered more powerful and influential than Breitbart.

  6. Ivan Trump’s Company Hawks $10K Bracelet She Wore On ’60 Minutes’

    The jewelry company run by Ivanka Trump apparently saw the new first family’s inaugural television interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” as an opportunity to reach new customers.

    In an email sent to New York Times reporters, Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry’s vice president of sales, Monica Marder, shared a photograph of the President-elect’s eldest daughter wearing a gold bracelet from the brand’s “Metropolis Collection” priced at more than $10,000.

    “Please share this with your clients,” Marder wrote in the “style alert,” “and of course please do not hesitate to reach out with any inquiries.”…

    Eric Lipton ✔@EricLiptonNYT
    White House as QVC. It has started.
    11:44 PM – 14 Nov 2016
    699 699 Retweets 496 496 likes

    …The promotional email raises additional questions about the blurred line between the Trumps’ political roles and their business dealings, particularly for the President-elect’s eldest children.

    Trump has said his children will run the Trump Organization through a sort of blind trust, yet they have served as his some of the closest advisors to his campaign and were named to his transition team last week. A 1967 statute bars all public officials from hiring or promoting their relatives.

    While Ivanka Trump told “60 Minutes” that she is “going to be a daughter” once her father moves into the White House, the promotional email suggests her businesses are leveraging her public platform as the daughter of the President-elect to earn money.

    This has happened before. The day after Trump delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention, she shared a link on Twitter for supporters to purchase the $138 sheath dress from her fashion line that she wore on stage.

    The Trump campaign also funneled money back into Trump businesses during the election, paying his family businesses over $8.2 million, according to a Politico analysis of the campaign’s finance filings.


    President-elect Donald Trump has alienated many of the nation’s most senior national security officials and veteran foreign policy experts, leaving him with an apparent shortage of qualified Republicans willing to serve in his administration.

    Trump’s transition team — many of whom are relative political outsiders who apparently didn’t realize that President Barack Obama’s entire West Wing staff would have to be replaced — are reportedly scrambling to fill the transition team and make other political appointments before Inauguration Day.

    Reuters noted that Trump “will eventually need to fill roughly 4,000 open positions.”

    A sampling of the troubles: Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and Michigan representative who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, was leading Trump’s national security transition team before he abruptly left, Bloomberg reported. He was one of the few political insiders on Trump’s team.

    Some staff members on the National Security Council, meanwhile, are thinking of quitting before Trump even enters the White House, The Daily Beast reported last week.

    And at least 100 GOP national security leaders — most of whom served in previous Republican administrations and would be among the most highly qualified Republicans to advise Trump on foreign policy — effectively ruled themselves out after signing open letters in March and August saying he was “hateful,” “dishonest,” “dangerous,” “erratic,” and generally unfit for the presidency.

    1.“The incoming vice president, Mike Pence, has not elicited the same reaction, instead often painted as the reasonable adult on the ticket, a “counterbalance” to Trump and a “bridge to the establishment.” However, there is every reason to regard him as, if anything, even more terrifying than the president-elect.

      Pence’s ascent to the second most powerful position in the U.S. government is a tremendous coup for the radical religious right. Pence — and his fellow Christian supremacist militants — would not have been able to win the White House on their own. For them, Donald Trump was a godsend. “This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn’t mean it may not be God’s candidate to do something that we don’t see,” said David Barton, a prominent Christian right activist and president of Wall Builders, an organization dedicated to making the U.S. government enforce “biblical values.” In June, Barton prophesied: “We may look back in a few years and say, ‘Wow, [Trump] really did some things that none of us expected.’”

      Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.”

      1. Dave T,

        Controversial Catholic priest under church investigation for displaying aborted fetus in pro-Trump video
        Trump religious adviser the Rev. Frank Pavone faces potential discipline for “desecration” of aborted fetus

        The Rev. Frank Pavone, a controversial Texas priest, is coming under criticism from his church for publicly displaying an aborted fetus in a video encouraging Roman Catholics to vote for Donald Trump.

        In the Facebook videos (which have been deleted), Pavone placed what he said was an aborted male fetus onto an altar as he delivered a political speech.

        “I am showing him to you because in this election we have to decide if we will allow this child killing to continue in America or not,” he said. “Hillary Clinton and the Democratic platform says yes, let the child killing continue —and you pay for it. Donald Trump and the Republican platform says no; the child should be protected.”

        In a written statement, Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Texas diocese where Pavone serves condemned the “desecration” and said that he was “opening an investigation” into the priest’s videos. Pavone is currently listed as a member of Trump’s Catholic Advisory Group.

        “Father Frank Pavone has posted a video on his Facebook page of the body of an aborted fetus, which is against the dignity of human life and is a desecration of the altar,” he wrote. “We believe that no one who is pro-life can exploit a human body for any reason, especially the body of a fetus.”

          1. Dave T,

            They are indeed…and will probably get a lot scarier after Trump becomes president.

            1. “A few weeks before the debate, Kelly devoted a segment of her program, The Kelly File, to an interview with the author of a report on The Daily Beast website. It said Ivana Trump had sworn in divorce papers a quarter-century earlier that Trump had raped her — an accusation she later retracted. Kelly said that after the segment aired, an angry Trump called and told her that “I almost unleashed my beautiful Twitter account on you, and I still may.”

              It was a threat on which he soon made good.”

      1. Yep, Sure does. Look out people that don’t support Trump. .They are coming for you.

  8. Here’s some good post-election analysis for all the Hilbots. Progressives told you all along you chose the wrong candidate. So wake up if you can and revamp your dying party.

  9. Did anyone see the press conference with Obama, prior to his leaving on his round the world goodbye tour? WOW. Taking off the gloves at HRC’s campaign strategy. NOW, after all these days of blaming Comey, she can now blame herself. Boohoo.

  10. This clip of Assange interview reveals just one of the larger concerns about Hillary Clinton’s State Department tenure:

    ISIS is being funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. During her tenure as SoS total arms exports from the United States, in terms of the dollar value doubled. And the consequence of this is that this notorious terrorist jihadist group called ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

    Yes, it’s just a family charity.

    1. This evidence and more is what was in the 30,000 emails deleted and destroyed with Bleach Bit. America made the right choice by electing Trump. And, yes, Trump should appoint a special prosecutor.

      1. All of Hillary’s emails went to or came from somebody else. How could bleachbit destroy the emails on the other end? Or did she just send them to herself? I don’t see how there can be any “undiscovered” emails, after all this.

        1. She had them bleachbitted, which was illegal.

          And, it depends upon to whom the emails were sent. We only know what she did. I have not heard in the news that anyone around her or anyone else she might have contacted were subpeoned. Perhaps a ton of those emails went to foreign nationals (Qatar, perhaps). The NSA may have them, but they aren’t talking.

          A more thorough investigation is needed. What does President Obama know? Loretta Lynch? Eric Holder? President Clinton? Chelsea Clinton? John Kerry? …

          1. So not one of these 30,000 emails went to any known government official, or came from them? How is that possible?

    1. And when Lesley Stahl in her 60 Minutes interview asked Trump if he intends to fire Comey for such a damaging move, Trump said:

      “I think that I would rather not comment on that yet,” he said. “I don’t — I haven’t made up my mind. I respect him a lot. I respect the FBI a lot … There’s been a lotta leaking, there’s no question about that. But I would certainly like to talk to him. And see him. This is a tough time for him. And I would like to talk to him before I’d answer a question like that.”

      “I’d wanna see, you know, he may have had very good reasons for doing what he did,”

      1. So will Comey be fired? And will it be Obama who does it?

        I like Trump’s answer that Comey may have had very good reasons for doing what he did.

    2. There are no rules in the DoJ or FBI preventing him from updating Congress on the progress of investigations. The common practice is to not talk publicly about investigations in progress or investigations that have cleared the subject of wrongdoing. Common practice, NOT a rule. Indeed, he was honoring a pledge he made under oath to Congress to aprise them of any new developments.

  11. She lost because she is the matriarch of a crime family! Comey is a cop, all he does is try to come up with evidence for a prosecuting attorney.

    1. Squeeky – I have no problem believing Hillary went ballistic on Podesta and Mook. I also have no problem believing she would lie about it.

      1. I don’t doubt that you believe this story, given your longstanding hatred of her. But do you have any reputable proof?

        1. Jay S – there are reports from the Secret Service of her throwing stuff (ashtrays, etc) at Bill Clinton while he was President.

          1. So where are there credible and substantiated reports that she assaulted Mook or Podesta? Or is it just “people are saying” heresay?

          2. Paul,

            I don’t blame her. I would have clonked him on the head with a brash candelabra!

            1. “I would have clonked him on the head with a brash candelabra!”

              That should have read: “I would have clonked him on the head with a brass candelabra!”

  12. Lots of good sense rants out there. That’s the root of the problem here, the intended audience does not have good sense. They will not listen. I have another friend who called in a rant about the whole thing. I asked him a question–again, and it was like I didn’t say anything–he picked up right where he left off. I know Autumn’s experienced this situation as well. Unsettlingly bizarre. I have asked here on many occasion to clarify a Clinton position, only to hear crickets. It’s all just, “the orangeman’s coming!”

    1. You are sooo right. Several times on this thread, and the others, die-hard Democrats offer as their analysis of Trump, some other die-partisan’s OPINION. Trump is a fascist because this guy or girl I read, says he is! They are incapable of rational analysis. Trump is anti-Hispanic for wanting to throw out illegal immigrants, even though Mexico also throws out illegal Hispanic immigrants from Central America. Unless they are funneling them through to the United States.

      The Democrats have simply degenerated into a mass horde of chimpanzees, grunting, snorting, and madly flinging poo at whatever.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Sounds like Trump and Putin had a good phone call today. I guess that will be the height of contempt for the Democrats. Imagine that, the two countries who each have the power to erase human life from the planet. From 1945-2005, that was our goal, to resolve issues without wiping out everything. When talking about this growing foreign policy crisis, the Democrat response on this blog has either been 1) Total self-absorption to their personal feelings and convictions, unable to process any outside information, or 2) that they are so morally bankrupt that they are fine with Clinton gambling the lives of everyone on the planet in order to get her way by wanting a no-fly zone. We know there was money in there for the foundation on how that pipeline works out, but we won’t go there. So far I’ve had no defense to these direct observations, other than, “did you see what Trump did?”

        Also, to let them know their ship has sailed, Moldova and Bulgaria just chose not to vote to be pro-Washington puppet regimes, instead opting for Moscow (can you blame them–if things don’t go well… ask Hussein, Mubarak, Ghaddafi, and the rest of “yesterday’s friends” how well they fared). Egypt is planning military exercises with the Russian army. Putin has visited Israel and is going back. He’s out there making friends–and deals for Russian business. Clinton celebrates sodomizing Ghaddafi with a bayonet. And I don’t think sodomizing a Muslim with a bayonet is treating Muslims with respect. The same respect I got with insults based on my ethnic heritage from the “enlightened” here.

          1. You forgot South Korea where the President has 5% approval rating and is seen a puppet of the US Military for enabling the placing of the THAAD missile system among other things. Anything to smear China is backfiring in Asia as Malaysia, the Philippines and soon South Korea step away from the US.

      2. Hello Squeeky Fromm,
        Sort of ironic name given who She is and what She was convicted of doing! This is one of those from the mass horde of chimpanzees, grunting, snorting, and madly flinging poo at whatever, This response is in furtherance of a previous reply to you with regard to “2 Amendment” I want people who are in possession of firearms to handle store and keep them in a responsible way. I am not interested in “taking away your firearms” but scenes and tragedies like the following are all too common and we need those who want guns in their homes and persons willing to prevent this: Girl, 4, Accidentally Shoots Herself And Her Mother In The Head
        “Curious kids and loaded guns have deadly consequences,” This is not a rare occurrence it happening daily in this country. Take a rant on that!

        1. Oh, I think you ought to keep guns away from kids, too! That is only smart. One of mine is an AK47 that my father got me for home defense. You can pop out 30 full metal jacket rounds in like 6 seconds! Sooo, if a 5 year old got a hold of that, then very not nice things could happen!

          But down here, where I live in west Louisiana right next to Texas, most people have firearms like that, and there has been no rash of kids mowing down the neighborhood. Most of the shooting is just the old fashioned kind, where Pooky or Ray-Ray shoot each other over drugs, or because somebody dissed them. Since most of us also pack heat (I carry a 5 shot 38 in my purse wherever I go, except court.), most interactions are fairly civil.

          Plus, you know you can leave the monkey troop any time you want, and join the human beings. We don’t even have a loyalty oath, or membership fee!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Do you think there is any limit as to how many guns it would take, to be “enough”? Would America be safer if there were 10X more guns, 100X more guns, 1000X more guns?

            America has the highest per-capita level of gun ownership among advanced countries (by far), and the highest number of gun deaths per capita among advanced countries. Is this a coincidence? If the number of guns rose, do you think the number of gun-related deaths would go up, or down?

            Just curious …..

        2. Bunnie

          You are wasting your time responding to Miss Fromm. She recently elected a wolf to guard her chicken coop. That gives you some insight as to the mindset. When you bring up gun safety a little switch in their heads clicks on and all they hear is ‘cold dead hands’, 2nd amendment but only the second half, where’s my pistola? Excuse me, after my second cup of coffee I need to go and take a Trump.

          1. issac – you really need a therapy dog or a hug or something. You are going to have a really rough 4 to 8 years if you don’t come to grip with you problem with this election. It is just going to get worse.

Comments are closed.