Thursday, June 23, 2016

Is Hillary Clinton's Record In Politics as Phony as Her Phony Clinton Foundation?

SEN. SANDERS SURRENDERS TO HER CORRUPTNESS… Will he serve her Wall Street Paymasters also?

Hillary & Billary….. Operating like third world dictators sucking in the bribes from every 

criminal and sleaze bag they know and they know all of them!

She’s Not Trump

At first, she was this: The First Woman.
Neither she nor her supporters admit that Hillary was initially running solely because she is the First Woman. Instead, she was running on her supposed wealth of experience and competence, her selfless, lifelong public service, but those reasons don’t hold up particularly well under close scrutiny.
She accomplished nothing of note as Secretary of State -- no important treaties, no high-profile peace agreements, no ground-breaking negotiated settlements, nothing. There’s not one single world hotspot or American adversarial relationship that is unequivocally better today as a direct result of her actions as Secretary.
Our relations with Israel -- our best friend in the region? Weaker, strained, tenuous.
The so-called “Russian reset?” A joke. Putin acts with impunity, taking liberties (literally as well as figuratively) as he pleases.
  • China?
  • North Korea?
  • Syria?
  • Libya?
  • Iran?
  • Mexico?
All worse. Nuclear weapons abound, trade imbalances/currency manipulations run wild, illegal immigration/drug running remains unchecked, dictators butcher their own populations without pause, and to cite the oft-used but completely accurate phrase du jour, “Our friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.”
No, it’s not all her “fault.” Not by a long shot. Obama’s overall weakness and apparent lack of caring or concern (some say outright intention) about seeing the U.S. slip into “also-ran” status as a player/influencer on the world stage has much to do with our current position.
However, if that slippage was contrary to her deeply-held convictions, then her high-profile experience, reputation and personal persuasive skills would certainly have come to the fore and been a major factor in not allowing it to happen. While it’s very tempting to say she simply wanted to check the “Served as Important Cabinet Member” box on her résumé, rather than actually do anything important or memorable, it’s even scarier to think she actively wanted markedly different results but wasn’t able to bring them about.
According to all the polls, she’s a very untrustworthy individual, a supremely negative character trait, because of four major reasons:
1) Her e-mail server situation appears to be close to out of control. Fortunately for her, the specifics and technical legalities of it seem far too arcane for the average casually-attentive voter to be concerned with. A recent poll of Democratic voters found 71% would vote for Hillary even if she were indicted. Trying to compare her e-mail situation to that of General Petraeus (“Who?”) or any other past administration official is an exercise in futility for the eternally communications-challenged Republican opposition, who wouldn’t be able to formulate a cogent, pithy, impactful statement explaining “Why it really matters” if their political lives depended on it. Which, to a great extent, they do.
Her private e-mail server, the legal negligence she showed in maintaining it, the 100s -- if not 1000s -- of classified communications that went through that unsecured server (regardless of any ‘marking’ at the time), everything has long since passed the threshold of technically “illegal, actionable” behavior. We’re now deep into the realm of the FBI essentially trying to find a certifiably un-Photoshopped picture of her standing over the body holding the dripping knife, knowing full well that Obama’s Justice Department will derisively dismiss with contempt and inaction anything less. This is the best example of the direct impact of a complicit liberally-biased media so far in this campaign. The liberal media walk a very fine line: they report on her e-mail doings just enough to be able to say to their critics, “See? We’re covering it,” but not anywhere near doggedly enough to actually have any tangible influence on the Great Unwashed. There is no pressure on the mainstream news organizations to press the matter. No one in the mainstream of liberal political thought wants to discover what the so-called “truth” may be, quite unlike if the situation and parties were reversed.
2) Her trustworthiness also takes a hit on the Benghazi Libya terror attack on September 11, 2012 that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. This is either a major or minor hit to Ms. Clinton, depending on the extent of awareness of the incident on the part of the voter. In another stark example of over-the-top liberal media bias that works to her favor, the predominant theme of the coverage after her Congressional Benghazi hearings some months back was “Clinton emerges from 11 hours of Benghazi hearings unscathed.”
Which, of course, was the exact factual opposite of what transpired at those hearings. The exact opposite. During the course of the hearings, Clinton admitted that before Susan Rice went out on her now infamous Five-Sunday-Show Lying Tour (where the fairy tale of the “attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim internet video” was first put forth), she (Clinton) had told both Egypt and her daughter Chelsea the night before Rice appeared on TV that the attack was unquestionably a preplanned terror attack. That was brand new information, gleaned at the hearing, and it proved Clinton had willingly lied to protect a political narrative.
The liberal media never reported this finding from those hearings. Clinton’s supporters continue to believe to this day that the hearings accomplished “nothing,” that they were all for show. It’s as if the Tigers beat the Red Sox in the actual game 4-2, but the TV reported that the Sox won and everyone simply accepted it. Still, her character has suffered a bit, if only because she is on videotape telling the victims’ families that they died from a violent reaction to an anti-Muslim video. Some voters have heard the deeper story and doubt about Clinton’s character remains an issue to that small slice of the electorate.
3) Influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation while also serving as secretary of state? Cutting deals and passing favors to foreign entities in exchange for donations to their pure-as-the-driven-snow charitable Foundation? There are about 20 layers of plausible deniability and unpinnable implication between any supposed wrongdoing and the Clintons. It just doesn’t smell good to anyone paying attention, but that’s a self-defining statement. Any voters at the edges who might negatively impact her candidacy are not paying close attention. This one’s an amorphous dead end. You know it’s there, she knows you know it’s there and she smiles, because she knows it’ll never happen.
4) Finally, there’s the Women’s Issues issue. “Any woman who accuses a man of sexual assault deserves to be believed.” Except, of course, any woman who accuses Bill Clinton, because that’s old news, “different,” and came from the well-known Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Her behavior as Enabler-in-Chief during the ‘90s was one of the most remarkable performances in service to an overriding political agenda ever witnessed in American history. Forgetting for just the briefest of moments the quaint notion in the American justice system of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is the liberal mainstream media so far in the tank for Ms. Clinton that they won’t even mention the rank hypocrisy of her outlandish current position in light of her past actions? The answer is ‘yes.’
So what exactly, besides her Democratic femaleness, is her candidacy based on? Hard to say. She has no real, tangible accomplishments to point to, either as secretary of state or NY senator. There are no Clinton Acts. There are no Clinton Accords. She has no military service, no heroism under fire, no great business and/or managerial accomplishments, no outright high-level expertise in any technical or economic or social or scientific field. She’s never started a business or run anything or managed a great number of people or made difficult, fast-paced life-or-death decisions. She gives every impression of being situationally dishonest, opportunistic, loyal only to her self-advancement.
But in spite of that, over the last few months she has been carefully crafting and refining a new rationale for her candidacy, one that her sycophants enthusiastically endorse, an approach that has real potential to appeal to Undecideds and Crossovers.
Hillary’s New Campaign Rationale: “I’m not Trump.”
That alone could make her the odds-on favorite to win.


Islamism is the great evil of our age….

Instead, with the aid of our media and Internet, we greet each new act of
Islamic murder with a show of lies and anger. The Left is in charge of the lies. They tell us, in Hillary Clinton’s absurd words, that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The second comes from “Shep” on a Disqus comment at Scott Adams’s blog.  It is particularly poignant today, in the wake of Hillary calling out the Saudis for funding radical Islam, and posing as a friend of gays:

I encourage readers to add their own examples of Hillary Hilarity in the comments.




May 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton -- Career Criminal

At the conclusion of an article on the State Department IG’s findings that Hillary Clinton brazenly violated federal record-keeping statutes, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy asks:
“What are we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course [emphasis in original] she is prepared to cooperate -- and encourages her subordinates to cooperate -- with government investigators?”
The question is obviously rhetorical, but one problem with rhetorical questions is that we don’t always really answer them, other than shrugging. So allow me in this case to answer that question. What we are to make of Mrs. Clinton is that she is an accomplished career criminal -- and I mean that literally, not rhetorically. 
Like a lot of accomplished career criminals Mrs. Clinton has committed so many high crimes and misdemeanors, and gotten away with them to boot, that we tend to forget (or ignore) past acts of lawlessness because the new ones keep on coming. And like skillful felons the world over, Mrs. Clinton takes full advantage of this very human inclination, by sloughing off past accusations as “old news” or the result of biases that have emerged through “misunderstandings.” Anyone who has worked in criminal justice has seen this phenomenon, where repeat offenders get to know police, prosecutors and judges so well that law enforcement tires of them -- maybe even comes to like them a bit -- and so cut the career criminal a break. And the clever crook knows this tendency and plays upon it. It’s this dynamic that led to the development of “three strikes” laws, so such crooks don’t receive unearned or plainly manipulated sympathy. 
Donald Trump’s recent faux pas regarding the long-ago apparent suicide of Clinton confidant Vince Foster is an example of this process. Trump, as is his wont, made a poorly thought-out off-the-cuff remark suggesting that Foster was murdered, and that Clinton was behind it. Since this is one crime that the Clintons probably did not commit, Trump’s remark was foolish, since, like accusations about Obama’s birthplace, it just gives the leftist media ammunition to belittle legitimate criticisms. But it was also understandable -- Trump didn’t claim the accusations were true, only that he was aware of them, and given we’re talking about Hillary Clinton, well…
But Trump needn’t speculate about Foster’s fate, nor should we. Rather than trying to pin Foster’s death on Hillary, he ought to remind the public of her other crimes, and launch focused attacks on her documented and provable malfeasances, starting with her cattle futures trading windfall/bribe. Today, Hillary’s cattle trading is usually mentioned casually as an indicator of how far back Hillary’s corruption goes, but that crime (from 1978/79) itself is worth revisiting in some detail. 
Like most of Hillary’s wrongdoing, she benefits from the fact that her schemes are complex, superficially boring, and often hard for the general public to understand. In that sense it’s understandable that Trump fell into the trap of talking about the Foster case. Murder and/or suicide is comprehensible and sexy, trading livestock is not. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s $100,000 trading windfall cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a criminal bribe. 
Anybody that knows anything about trading commodities understands that what Hillary claims to have done -- turn an initial $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit ten months later -- is as a practical matter almost impossible even for the most skilled commodity operator, and absolutely impossible for a neophyte such as Hillary was. My father traded commodities for decades, was very smart, reasonably good at it, and even ran an advisory service for a time. He managed to stay ahead but not by much. Three quarters of commodity traders lose money, the vast majority inexperienced traders like Clinton. 
An inexperienced blackjack player would have a much, much easier time turning a $1000 stake at a casino into $100,000, than would a similarly situated person in futures trading, though of course such a blackjack run would require almost perfect play. What Hillary claims to have done would have required divine intervention, or a criminal scheme. Since I am fairly sure the Almighty is not on her side, we need to go with the latter. 
After the trading scheme became public in the 1990s, Clinton and her defenders tried to explain the windfall away as a combination of Hillary’s native intelligence, luck, and good advice. But a scholarly paper put out in 1994 by the Journal of Economics and Finance calculated that the odds of gaining such a profit in ten months under conditions at the time, and giving the investor the benefit of the doubt, at 31 trillion to 1. By way of comparison, the odds that the blood detected on O.J. Simpson’s notorious glove (found after the murders at Simpson’s estate), did not contain the blood of his victims is between 21 and 41 billion chances in one. Thus, at least by this metric, it is far, far more likely that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, than it is that Hillary’s cattle futures profit was not illegal. Even a bored, inattentive and not very bright electorate can understand that. And I understand that some people never will understand it no matter what, which is why O.J. walked. 
The futures trading incident is also notable in that after the scheme became a legal and political issue, Hillary’s cool reaction to it proved to be her coming out party as an effective mob boss who could handle herself under intense pressure and scrutiny. She was widely praised in the liberal press for being forthcoming and unflappable, while also giving no ground, a pattern that would repeat itself again and again, up to the present.   
Hillary’s cattle futures bribery scheme dates back to the same time frame as she began her other introductory criminal scam, Whitewater. From there came the Rose Law Firm billing records scandal (related to Whitewater), Travelgate, Hillary’s libels against victims of her husband’s predatory sexual behavior, Troopergate (related to Bill’s dalliances), the White House’s missing furniture, the friendly mortgage for the house in Chappaqua, a carpet-bagging Senate run, the Clinton Foundation, pay for play speeches, Benghazi, and the email scandals. (I may have missed one or two others.) 
It is a breathtaking history of scandal and criminality that might make Tony Soprano blush, and is certainly the envy of real life mob bosses cooling their heels in penitentiaries jail across the nation. Hillary simply has almost all the traits (and history) of a successful mob boss, including a close knit group of loyal confederates who operate under a code of omerta
Trump has many flaws, but to my knowledge he is not an outright criminal, much less a mob boss. Trump needn’t concern himself with Vince Foster. He does need to thoughtfully and aggressively hone his attack on Hillary’s enduring criminality. There is plenty to work with. 

Read more:

No comments: