Hillary is Guilty (193 Classified Emails According to DOJ), Stop Pretending Otherwise

This is so tiring. Just read the DOJ’s report: https://t.co/dKIgotXZPW https://t.co/sBvAkoM9tx

— TSB (@TweetingTSB) December 9, 2024

And she got away with it scot-free. Isn't that enough? 

Now stop the whining and just hope that FBI Director Patel will be too busy elsewhere to look into that cold case.

 

Hillary Braces For Her Longest Day

Eighty years ago today, thousands of brave Americans fought to protect democracy on the shores of Normandy.

This November, all we have to do is vote.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 6, 2024

That day will be November 5, 2024, henceforth to be known as D-for-Democracy Day. But, of course, only if you vote Hillary's way. You wouldn't want to frustrate democracy by voting for the wrong candidate.

If democracy will be on the ballot, is it even possible to vote against it? That seems illogical.

I'd ask Hillary about that myself except she limits who may reply to her posts to people she follows or mentions. Evidently democracy is so important that it must be protected by prior restraint of speech.  

Hillary's tin ear for rhetoric is still as bad as ever, despite having been in politics basically all her life. She didn't even learn anything from the long decades she understudied the Glibmaster-in-Chief himself, Bill Clinton.

Speaking of Bill, where is he in this final battle for big "D" democracy? I do hope he hasn't dodged the draft again.    

The State of the Union, Past and Present

This year's State of the Union address was scheduled for January 29, but, given the current brawl between President Trump and Speaker of the House Pelosi, who knows whether - or where - it will be given.

But if President Trump is even half the internet troller he seems to be, I think he should tweet out highlights from Bill Clinton's SOTU address of 1995, in which Trump's predecessor deplored the violations of law and the public burdens of - in his words, words which are rarely spoken on Capitol Hill today - illegal aliens. There isn't much Trump could add to the clip embedded above.

Notice that Clinton got a standing ovation from those remarks. Say, were Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the audience then? I think they were.

Notice as well his reference to the Barbara Jordan Commission report, which had absolutely Trumpian recommendations. In particular, see its chapter on Curbing Unlawful Migration (starting on page 118), which concluded that "reducing the employment magnet is the linchpin of a comprehensive strategy to deter unlawful immigration" [page 128], and called for "restricting eligibility of illegal aliens for publicly-funded services or assistance except those made available on an emergency basis or for similar compelling reasons to protect public health and safety or to conform to constitutional requirements" [page 136] and "continued attention to improved means for identifying and removing criminal aliens with a final order of deportation" [page 149].

The report also called for scaling back family chain-migration, the prioritization of highly-skilled immigrants, elimination of the admission of unskilled workers, and elimination of the diversity visa lottery. It further recommended capping legal immigration admissions to only 550,000 per year, and refugee admissions to only 50,000.

President Trump could adopt that whole report as his present agenda.

Bill Clinton: #MeToo, Now Versus Then

His last official photo (see this)

So the long-ignored matter of Bill Clinton's personal misbehavior with women is finally getting some attention, however reluctantly, from the news media. See, for example, the WaPo's opinion piece this week titled Bill Clinton's #MeToo reckoning.

Good luck on holding him to any kind of a reckoning. He's always gotten a pass on his sexual abuse of female employees, and that probably won't change now.

Consider, for instance, how the sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Clinton by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones was dismissed by a federal judge in 1998. (Jones appealed the dismissal and Clinton, who had lied under oath in the discovery phase, feared going to trial so much that he settled out of court for $850,000 when Jones had sued for only $700,000 in the first place - who had the leverage in that negotiation?).

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, a Clinton-appointee, held that even if Jones' allegations were true Clinton's actions would not constitute sexual assault. Read the judge's opinion and see what you think.

Plaintiff states that upon arriving at the suite and announcing herself, the governor shook her hand, invited her in, and closed the door. ... She states that a few minutes of small talk ensued, which included the governor asking her about her job and him mentioning that Dave Harrington, plaintiff's ultimate superior within the AIDC and a Clinton appointee, was his "good friend." ... Plaintiff states that the governor then "unexpectedly reached over to (her), took her hand, and pulled her toward him, so that their bodies were close to each other." ... She states she removed her hand from his and retreated several feet, but that the governor approached her again and, while saying, "I love the way your hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves," put his hand on her leg, started sliding it toward her pelvic area, and bent down to attempt to kiss her on the neck, all without her consent. ... Plaintiff states that she exclaimed, "What are you doing?" told the governor that she was "not that kind of girl," and "escaped" from the governor's reach "by walking away from him." ... She states she was extremely upset and confused and, not knowing what to do, attempted to distract the governor by chatting about his wife. ..

Plaintiff states that she sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door, but that the governor approached the sofa where she had taken a seat and, as he sat down, "lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told (her) to 'kiss it."' ... She states that she was "horrified" by this and that she "jumped up from the couch" and told the governor that she had to go, saying something to the effect that she had to get back to the registration desk. ... Plaintiff states that the governor, "while fondling his penis," said, "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do," and then pulled up his pants and said, "If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I'll take care of it." ... She states that as she left the room (the door of which was not locked), the governor "detained" her momentarily, "looked sternly" at her, and said, "You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves."

Plaintiff states that the governor's advances to her were unwelcome, that she never said or did anything to suggest to the governor that she was willing to have sex with him, and that during the time they were together in the hotel suite, she resisted his advances although she was "stunned by them and intimidated by who he was." ... She states that when the governor referred to Dave Harrington, she "understood that he was telling her that he had control over Mr. Harrington and over her job, and that he was willing to use that power." ... She states that from that point on, she was "very fearful" that her refusal to submit to the governor's advances could damage her career and even jeopardize her employment.

To recap, Jones alleged that Governor Clinton dropped his pants and took out Little Willie, asked her to orally copulate him, and when she refused he reminded her that he could intervene with her supervisor and cause her to lose her job. That sounds like both sexual assault and sexual harassment to me. But maybe the standards on that have changed, because Judge Susan Webber Wright thought otherwise back in 1998.

The Court finds plaintiff's attempt to restate her sexual assault claim in the guise of an equal protection claim to be no more meritorious now than when it was raised in the context of a due process claim. Although the governor's alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of criminal sexual assault as there is no alleged conduct that could be characterized as "forcible compulsion" or "sexual contact" for purposes of establishing a claim under the provision cited by plaintiff.

Putting aside the matter of which provision of law the plaintiff was citing, was the judge serious that Clinton's actions were merely "boorish and offensive" and not criminal sexual assault? What more would he have to have done to constitute criminal sexual assault?

Maybe Harvey Weinstein can cite that opinion in his defense today.

Clinton Spokesman Learns From the Master

So the New York Times published its first big Clinton Cash story today, which was about how Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company.

Immediately, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said this:

"[No one] has produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as Secretary of State to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation," Fallon told The Times."

That statement sounds familiar. So slippery and equivocating, and it has the distinctive sound of Clintonian Denial. Where have we heard that statement before?

Why, from none other than Bill Clinton himself when he denied similar, albeit less lucrative, charges of corruption at a 1996 press conference:

“But I can tell you this: I don’t believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution.”

Has Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon been studying Bill's old playbook?

He's Not the SECSTATE

Rasmussen Reports has good news for Bill Clinton, and not so good news for Hillary Clinton. See here and here. The bottom line is that:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all voters have at least a somewhat favorable view of [Bill] Clinton, while only Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary ends her African tour right now, maybe she'll keep her favorables above 50%.

Bill Clinton and Erik Prince: Three Degrees of Separation

I haven't seen the Clinton Foundation donors list for myself yet, since their website is still jammed and inaccessible. Anyway, the list is reportedly 2,922 pages long and not searchable, and no one with a normal home life will stay on his computer late into the night clicking "next" 2,922 times. So I'm relying on news media stories like this one in the Washington Post for the details of today's surprising revelation that one of ex-President Bill Clinton's donors was the Blackwater Training Center, home base of Blackwater Worldwide and its CEO, Erik Prince.

By the way, if you click on that story, dig deep; the WAPO buried the Blackwater item in paragraph 14 of a 19-paragraph story. I'm not sure whether that means they rated it low in news interest, or whether they were confused about how to report something that seems to implicate Bill Clinton and cause a problem for incoming SecState Hillary Clinton.

Granted, Prince was among the lesser fatcats on Clinton's list - in for only $10,001 to $25,000, rather than for millions like the Saudi Arabians and Barbra Streisand - nevertheless, there he was. So the question of the hour is: What was Erik Prince, the man liberals love to hate, doing on the list of Bill Clinton's 205,000 closest friends?

The controversies that have plagued Blackwater in Iraq, and it's main customer there, the U.S. State Department, are all too well-known. I find plenty of fault with Blackwater's operations in Iraq, and with the inadequate management provided by it's employer, as well. However, Prince has been demonized beyond what the facts justify and out of all sense of proportion. In the left-wing mind, Prince is the conservative Condottieri, the entrepreneur of mercenary mayhem, the impresario of death and destruction, the Praetorian protector of corporate interests, the commander of the Fundamentalist Freikorps, and - for all I know - the personal bodyguard to Dick Cheney himself. The picture presented by much of the news media and by various politicians is just too lurid and hyperventilating to be true.

So far as I can see, Erik Prince is just a former Navy SEAL who came from a wealthy family. When his father died, he left the Navy, put on a different kind of blue suit, and went into business for himself by founding and financing Blackwater Training Center, a place where he could employ a few Navy buddies and make some money training corporate security and law enforcement types. A remarkable biography, but really nothing extraordinary until the Iraq and Afghanistan wars created a huge demand for private protection contractors, resulting in Blackwater collecting over $1 billion in U.S. Government contracts between 2002 and 2008.

Prince appears to be the polar opposite of Bill Clinton. He's very private, very right-wing, and very religiously devout, a straight-laced military businessman and father of six who is hip-deep in Republican causes. What in the world led him to donate money to the Clinton Foundation? Which of Bill's worthy causes attracted Prince's interest? Was it health security, economic empowerment, leadership development and citizen service, or racial, ethnic and religious reconciliation? Or maybe HIV/AIDS, climate change, or fighting childhood obesity? Frankly, none of them sound like Prince's cup of tea. Maybe it was tsunami relief.

Bill Clinton and Erik Prince. Who or what could possibly bring this odd couple together? Could it be ... Hillary's political strategist Mark Penn ?

Last year, when the Democratic Party primary battle was getting started, some people pointed out the connection between Blackwater and Mark Penn. John Edwards was one. Bill Moyers was another. The below transcript from a PBS interview is typical:

BILL MOYERS: I was intrigued to learn that the PR-agency that is handling Prince, Burson-Marsteller , is also the guy who heads - the CEO is also Hillary Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Mark Penn.

BILL MOYERS: Mark Penn. Sort of-- he's been called Hillary's Rove. What-- I know something about how this system works. How a PR company comes to you and says hey I've got this client that would like to be on air here. Here's how we'd like to do it. And then, you see the same thing in being repeated from show to show to show — like Hillary Clinton was on all five of the Sunday morning talk shows recently. What have you learned about how the system works between the political and media elites?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, PR-companies are also mercenaries and I know oftentimes work for the highest bidder. I think it's interesting that--

BILL MOYERS: They're not shooting people though.

JEREMY SCAHILL: No, no, no. But they're mercenaries in the sense that they'll rent their services out to anyone. And once you're defending Erik Prince, you're working for him, then you become part of his sort of mercenary operation. I also think that it was a strategic choice to go with the company with Mark Penn because of his connection with the democrats and Hillary Clinton.

But let's, lets remember here we're talking about Blackwater right now because we have a Republican administration. For so many years, we had a Republican dominated Congress. Blackwater is certainly the beneficiary of the Republican monopoly in government. But this system has been bi-partisan for a very long time.

When Hillary Clinton's husband was in the White House, he was an aggressive supporter of the privatization of the war machine. Bill Clinton used mercenary forces in the Balkans. Who do we think gave Dick Cheney's company all of those contracts during the Nineties? We talk about Halliburton. It was Clinton. It was the Clinton administration. And, and, Blackwater may be an extraordinary Republican company. But they're gonna be around when there's a Democrat in office.

It makes sense to me. Why not give Bill Clinton a little cash (and pay lots more to Hillary's chief political aide) when your government contracting business is going to be around long after the Bush Administration is gone?