Reuters) - FBI Director James Comey told Congress on Sunday a recent review of newly discovered emails did not change the agency's conclusion reached in July that no charges were warranted in the case of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.
The two political ads that stood out over the last two days are below.
The first is a cartoon takeoff of the Simpson's, where Hillary and Bill Clinton are moving their historical baggage into the White House. Of course it's all nonsensical GOP political attack baggage they just can't get over. As I've mentioned in a previous post, this is sedition, explained away in this happy little cartoon. Republicans are powerless to stop this from happening, so the tantrum continues:
Clinton put out this ad going after Trump. Simple and to the point, the clips use here are Trump's calmer moments:
The Wisconsin Survey/St. Norbert College Poll, Oct. 13-16 2016, came and went oddly with almost no coverage. What's that all about? Did the great looking numbers for Clinton and Feingold throw cold water on the fabricated media "horse race" spin?
Here are the secret results no one wants you see apparently:
1. If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote: Republican Hillary Clinton........................................47%Donald Trump......................................39% 2. Donald Trump Voters Totally Committed 66%, Somewhat 27%, Might Change Your Mind 7%. 3. Hillary Clinton Voters Totally Committed 72%, Somewhat 24%, Might Change Your Mind 4%. 4. Regardless of how you intend to vote, which candidate, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, has a better temperament to be president? Hillary Clinton 63%, Donald Trump 26% 5. Which candidate, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, do you think cares more about people like you? Hillary Clinton 49%.Donald Trump 35%, 6. In the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat, if the election were held today, for whom would you vote?: Democrat Russ Feingold 52%, Republican Ron Johnson 40%.
While Trump yanks the "Basket Deplorables" further to the extreme supremacist right, the establishment party members continue to define Democrats and liberals as the true enemies of the state.
The final solution is to install a one party government, requiring a bloody armed government takeover. That's what Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin is demanding. Republicans have been pushing this idea for decades, but with Trump's help, we've reached the point of no return.
Bevin won the governorship promising to destroy one of ObamaCare's most successful state run health care exchanges, an example of government working extremely well. It was a big win against liberal socialism. So...
...if the undesirable and illegitimate elements in our country elect Hillary Clinton as president, than a bloody war is the only answer:
At the annual Values Voter Summit, a speech by Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin stated that bloodshed
might be necessary if Clinton is elected, that emerged as perhaps the most
shocking address from the weekend event.
Bevin: "Somebody asked me yesterday, I did an interview and they
said, 'Do you think it’s possible, if Hillary Clinton were to win the election,
do you think it’s possible that we’ll be able to survive? That we would ever be
able to recover as a nation?' And while there are people who have stood on this
stage and said we would not, I would beg to differ.
But I will tell you this: I
do think it would be possible, but at what price? At what price? The roots of
the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood, of who? The tyrants to be
sure, but who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of
those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have
nine children. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is
needed to redeem something, to reclaim something, that we through our apathy
and our indifference have given away."
While many assume Hillary Clinton was in pure campaign mode when she described Trump's "alt-right" agenda, I thought it was more of an alert to the nation.
Here's a clip of that speech, minus a few campaign references, that also raises the question why Republicans are oddly silent about Hillary's charges against Trump. This is a 21 minute warning:
This would be funny if Trump voters weren't so invested in this blunt talking reality show thug:
"You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard," Trump said. "I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor." "I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy," he said. "I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn't know what the hell happened."
When it came to Donald Trump, Clinton went for the jugular — his Twitter feed. The remark was deemed the "most-tweeted moment" of the evening by Twitter's Government & Elections team.
Trump proved Clinton right with his reaction to the RNC's lower ratings:
DNC Beats RNC for Third Straight Night in Early TV Ratings...
Early ratings results for Night 3 of the Democratic National Convention are in, and once again the DNC appears to have beat out the Republican National Convention. Donald Trump sent an e-mail to his supporters urging them not to watch Hillary Clinton deliver her nomination acceptance speech on the final night of the Democratic convention.
“I didn’t produce our show — I just showed up for the final speech on Thursday,” Trump told The New York Times in a phone call this week. Trump actually broke with tradition by making multiple appearances during the Cleveland convention, coming on stage to introduce his wife Melania on the convention's opening night and appearing onstage with running mate Mike Pence, who followed Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) non-endorsement speech on the convention's third night. His claim that he had no hand in the convention programming was also eyebrow-raising, given that campaigns typically dictate the speaker roster and many of the RNC speakers had direct ties to Trump. Among those were five members of the Trump family, the manager of Trump Winery and ‘80s sitcom star Scott Baio, who said Trump personally invited him to speak at a campaign fundraiser.
Throwing political opponents like Hillary Clinton in jail sounds so...banana Republican, doesn't it?
Sadly, they mean to do just that, and see nothing disturbing about it. Donald Trump Jr. received media praise for a powerful speech that perpetuated a list of absolute nonsense and lies that were disproved by his own party's congressional investigations, and no one cared.
The next logical step for Republicans?
Republicans have been "framing" the issues in same way the tabloids have doing for years, with sensationalized eye candy like...
The Wall Street Journal has mastered the art of propagandist headlines that are meant to alarm its readers, like the one below:
Clinton to Madison: Get Me Rewrite
She tells Sanders voters that she’ll revise the First Amendment.
How dare she. The article is actually about Hillary Clinton's promise to take money out of politics, by proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that would overturn Citizens United.
Voters won't like that...right? It's obvious who the WSJ is trying to reach with this one, but it sure isn't the American public, as you can see by the results from the conservative pollster Rasmussen Reports:
Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey (July ’15) found
that 59% of voters think most members of Congress are willing to sell their
vote for either cash or a campaign contribution, and 56% think it’s likely
their own representative has already done so. That includes 26% who think it’s
Very Likely their representative has sold his or her vote. 76% of Likely U.S. Voters (Feb. '16) believe the wealthiest individuals
and companies have too much influence over elections, 80% agree that wealthy special interest groups have too much
power and influence over elections.
So as horrible as "revising the First Amendment" sounds, Americans are with Hillary and Bernie.
Sure both party's take lots of money to fund their campaigns, but only one wants to take that same money out, and it sure ain't the Republicans. Even more surreal, their down and out small town middle American voters want to oddly, elect a millionaire. You can't make this stuff up.
What we're not seeing is the WSJ opposing a proposed revision in the new Republican platform:
“We do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states,” the platform reads.
That's a good revision.
I'm surprised Trump missed this one. After all, it could be true:
I am so tired of lazy reporting. Never once has the media mentioned the unrelenting negative smear campaign Hillary Clinton has had to endure since the early 1990's, when she tried to put together health care reform. Gee, I wonder why her negative numbers are so high today, anyone venture a guess?
And Democrats have bought into it hook, line, and sinker, as usual.
Now thanks to the 60 Minutes interview with Trump and VP pick Mike Pence, I now have a few other complaints to get to, like the built in Republican double standards no one seems to care about.
First, Republicans have never admitted out loud that going into Iraq was a historical disaster. No criticism of Bush, no anger directed at Cheney or Rumsfeld for lying this nation into that war. In fact, ISIS grew out of one of those lies (check out Frontline). But now that Trump is saying it was "badly handled" and a mistake, every Republican voter is quietly admitting it too.
Of course vocal Democratic opponents, politicians and voters alike, were cowards and weak on national security at the time. They were mocked by eye rolling conservatives who simply wrote it off as just more "Bush bashing" rhetoric.
But that's all forgotten now. Like Trump, they were always against the Iraq war:
Donald Trump: Yeah, you went to Iraq, but that was handled
so badly. And that was a war-- by the way, that was a war that we shouldn't
have entered because Iraq did not knock down--excuse me Lesley Stahl: Your running mate--voted for it. Donald Trump: I don't care.
"I don't care?"
What follows is another frustration; a persons past only counts against them if they're a Democrat. Obama's college papers, his pastor, his community organizing...etc., horrific stuff? State Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley's comments bashing "totally stupid or entirely evil" Democratic voters, the gay community, abortion is murder, feminism...etc., that's all too far in the past to count against her ability to be impartial today.
But Hillary's support of the Iraq war?
Lesley Stahl: What do you mean you don't care that he voted
for? Donald Trump: It's a long time ago. And he voted that way
and they were also misled. A lot of information was given to people. Lesley Stahl: But you've harped on this. Donald Trump: But I was against the war in Iraq from the
beginning. Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but you've used that vote of Hillary's
that was the same as Governor Pence as the example of her bad judgment. Donald Trump: Many people have, and frankly, I'm one of the
few that was right on Iraq. Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but what about he-- Donald Trump: He's entitled to make a mistake every once in
a while. Lesley Stahl: But she's not? OK, come on-- Donald Trump: But she's not-- Lesley Stahl: She's not? Donald Trump: No. She's not. Lesley Stahl: Got it.
Just this morning, the author of Trump's "Art of the Deal" Tony Schwartz was so troubled by the thought of a Trump presidency that he made these amazing comments:
And this racist presidential wannabe had this to say about Obama's body language of all things, because Trump couldn't find anything in to criticize in his speech about the Baton Rouge shooting:
“I watched the president. Sometimes the words are OK. But you just look at the body language — there’s something going on. There’s something going on. There’s just bad feeling. It’s probably something that we really don’t know and maybe we can’t feel it unless we’re black.”
It's still stunning how easily Republicans can get away with a simple moment of silence for the biggest mass shooting in U.S. history, but feign foreign policy outrage against Clinton for the deaths of 4 diplomats in Benghazi. Coincidentally, Clinton just happen to be the Democratic candidate for president.
The actual partisan Republican "report" said something completely different:
Also not buying into the politically motivated attack...
Yet the Republicans callous behavior over 49 Americans mowed down in Orlando deserves just another moment of silence and Paul Ryan's smirk directed at the Democratic Party's "publicity stunt" sit-in to pass common sense gun legislation supported by over 80% of the public:
It now appears to be Trey Gowdy’s turn to come clean. He’s the republican congressman who is by default in charge of the Benghazi committee. And he just admitted to a game changer. Gowdy and the republican Benghazi committee have been attacking by using a variety of government documents which have been heavily redacted to the point that it’s never been entirely clear just what context they would be in if not for all of the redactions and blackouts. After democrats asked the CIA to declassify the documents so that the public could see what was really being presented, the CIA responded by stating that it had never asked for anything to be redacted. When questioned under pressure, Gowdy admitted that he himself decided to redact large portions of the documents based on his own personal judgment of what information he did or didn’t want the public to know.
Last night on All in with Chris Hayes, Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery humorously revealed this outrageous Trey Gowdy blunder:
Bendery: "...the CIA said, 'oh no, that wasn't classified information,' and Trey Gowdy said 'yea well, we need to protect it, and he put it up on the committee website and outed the name of a CIA source...in the subject line."
“Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is trying to turn
the tables in the controversy over her handling of classified
information on her chief Republican investigator.”
She’s not so much turning the table than pointing out how
vacuous the email controversy really is. And yet unmentioned...
Hers was a legal server, with yet unclassified emails:
Their point: South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy
and the panel he chairs that is investigating Clinton have dealt similarly with
information that was later found to be classified. "Trey Gowdy treated e-mails in this case the same way
Hillary Clinton did, considering them unclassified and storing them on
unclassified systems. We don't see what legs Trey Gowdy has to stand on in his
criticisms of Secretary Clinton."
But the trumped up email controversy continues....
The Clinton campaign says none of the emails she sent or
received on that server were marked classified at the time, and that rules at
the time allowed her to use a private account. Some of the information
that moved on Clinton's private e-mail account later was determined to
warrant a classified designation. The Friday afternoon defenses
highlight a rhetorical problem facing the Clinton campaign.
Apparently RedState is so desperate for page hits that even when they're exposed as sexist hypocrites for bashing Hillary Clinton, they don't mind getting attention. Here's RedStates condescending comment:
"If Hillary Clinton possesses any unique selling proposition
beyond proving even a homely woman can sleep her way into power, it is her
tenure as Barack Obama's secretary of state. That seems to be a slender enough
reed when polls show the electorate could give a flying rat's patootie about
experience and favor a change agent above all."
Here's what Media Matters simply pointed out after RedState banned Trump for his sexist comments to Megyn Kelly:
Here's how shameless hypocrites and bullies respond to getting even more attention (bottom of pic):
Scott Walker's calm sleepy eyed demeanor has successfully concealed his more vindictive personality trait for years. Thankfully, that's about to end.
As predicted, Walker's massive cuts to the UW and public education are now coming back to haunt him. Think Progress:
Hillary Clinton:“And you take somebody like Governor Walker of Wisconsin, who
seems to be delighting in slashing the investment in higher education in his
state; in making it more difficult for students to get scholarships or to pay
off their debt; eliminating the opportunities for young people who are doctors
or dentists to actually work in under-served areas in return for having their
debt relieved; ending scholarships for poor kids; and most surprisingly to me,
rejecting legislation that would have made it tax-deductible for you on your
income tax to deduct the amount of your loan payment.”
Okay, here’s the criticism that always drives me crazy; our free
market Republican privateers, for some odd reason, hate the free market when Democrats like Hillary Clinton negotiate speaking fees.
Here's Walker's embarrassing anti-free market response to Clinton's criticisms:
Clinton has come under fire for collecting lavish speaking
fees from universities.
Republican policy is rife with easy answers to amazingly
complex problems, like Walker’s tuition freeze. Is that a solution to crippling
student debt and the rising cost of education? Didn’t think so:
But even Walker’s attack on Clinton doesn’t escape scrutiny.
University officials have pointed out that freezing tuition eliminates one
option to make up for Walker’s large budget cuts. Walker also proposed a $127
million cut in primary school funding in January and Wisconsin’s decrease in
per-pupil spending from the 2010-11 year was the highest of all 50 states,
according to a 2014 U.S. Census Bureau report.
Again, the easy Scott Walker answer is freezing tuition at public
universities. But cost conscious conservative voters should ask themselves why they
should trust expensive for-profit private colleges more, when they lack accountability
for promises made to students. Their record isn’t good, and victimized students
are swimming in debt.
Walker is pushing that business model. He's asking for easy accreditation for private
colleges, not for the benefit of students, but for increased profits and fatter
bottom lines:
Scott Walker, in a post
on Red State, called her a “deceiver-in-chief” when it comes to her higher
education policies:
“America needs real reforms in higher education, including
putting in place incentives to keep costs low, confronting the accreditation
cartels that limit options, and improving federal government data so students
and families have the information they need to make the best decisions
possible.”
As Think Progress rightly pointed out in a case that should give pause to tightwad conservative voters:
Their mention of accreditation is likely a reference to
making accreditation easier for for-profit colleges. Corinthian Colleges
have been guilty of misrepresenting job
placement data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education and have closed
campuses afterward.
RNC Chair Reince Priebus has rediscovered the alphabet, and the 8th letter! He also plans to exploit its multiple uses against Hillary Clinton, whether it makes sense or not.
As you can see by the mob of similarly dressed Borg like GOP supporters, Hillary's symbolized “H” is the first letter of a lot of words…including hypocrite.
Because “hypocrite” is synonymous with the word
Republican, it makes sense to try and rebrand it in time for the election. Yes, it’s
all about marketing. And that's what Wisconsin embarrassment and huckster Priebus is all about.
Is Hillary really a renowned hypocrite? Has she taken hypocrisy to such an extreme level
that the RNC would print signs and organize photo op protests (remember, Republicans don’t
protest) to get the message out?
Reince did offer one example of hypocrisy that will leave
you scratching your head:
Staged much? A few lawbreakers crossed the
police tape barrier...
Hillary’s hypocrisy is unparalleled. Clinton has sent mixed
signals, explicitly contradicted herself … On the economy, Clinton declared:
“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create
jobs.” But at campaign events she said she wants to be a “champion” for small
businesses.
Ouch...but still not hypocritical. Hey it’s a word, a bad sounding
word too. Plus it’s a nice way to divert
attention away from the idea that consumers drive the economy and job creation, not
business. And small businesses can’t survive without first, consumers earning a
decent wage, and second businesses having access to startup funding.
Hypocrisy…I don’t think so. But the alphabet campaign,
starting with “H,” is so…so simple to understand.
The RNC lists issue
after issue that miss more than hit Hillary for her position on trade. I share Hillary's hope that the TPP would
be a ground breaking agreement for worker rights and the environment. But historically, these agreements have been a disaster. And Hillary's hesitations and hopes are listed right
there on the RNC’s blog, which clearly shows she is not being hypocritical. She had been very wrong about other deals that show her corporate leanings (GOP positions) and will have to answer for them in her campaign. But that's not Priebus' point.
In fact, the RNC considers "not having a position" to be hypocritical as well. That would put every major GOP candidate for president ahead of Hillary in the number of "H"'s! Hyperbole could be another word....
This is an unusual but welcome challenge to the various untested regulations designed to suppress votes in Wisconsin, especially when you consider who's taking Walker on. It looks like Democrats are ready to put up a fight and highlight Republicans attempts to keep people from voting. Surprised too by the challenger:
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer has filed a new legal
challenge to a slew of restrictive voting laws signed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker. If successful, the suit could knock down barriers to voting
in a key 2016 battleground. The complaint, filed Friday in federal court, charges that the
“right [to vote] has been under attack in Wisconsin since Republicans gained
control of the governor’s office and both houses of the State Legislature in
the 2010 election.” The campaign itself isn’t officially involved. “The lawsuit was
not filed on behalf of the campaign, but we are aware of it and strongly
support its goal of ensuring the right to vote is not unduly burdened,” Clinton
campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement. Last month, Elias brought
a similar lawsuit against restrictive voting laws in
Ohio. Walker isn’t named as a defendant in Friday’s challenge against
Wisconsin’s voting laws (but) it (does) accuse Walker of making a “racial
appeal” during his 2012 gubernatorial recall election, when he declared: “We
don’t want Wisconsin to become like Milwaukee.”
Here's what might be more unique, and even successfully litigated this time:
But the other challenged
provisions haven’t yet been considered by a court. In addition to the voter ID
law, the GOP-led legislature has passed, and Walker has signed, measures that: Also
being challenged is the state’s requirement that early voting can take place
only at the clerk’s office. The restriction, which has existed since early
voting began in the state, means Milwaukee will have hundreds of thousands
more voters at its single early voting location than some smaller
municipalities will have.
I'm fascinated by the intense right wing criticism over Hillary and Bill Clinton's lucrative speaking fees (free market?).
It's not like republicans didn't just try to elect a one percenter as president.
The Week's Paul Waldman picked up on this absurdity, examining Scott Walker's incessant rambling about cheap clothes at Kohl's, writing:
Scott Walker loves Kohl's. I mean loves Kohl's. Can't stop talking about the deals he gets there. He bragged so much about the time he used coupons and discounts to get a sweater at Kohl's for $1, Politifact did an analysis of the claim (verdict: "True"). Scott Walker isn't some high-falutin' elitist in fancy clothes — he's just like you, a regular fella who gets you and what you go through.
So forget about Walker's corporate handouts and overreaching tax cuts devastating the state's general revenues. Draconian spending cuts, overwhelmingly opposed by Wisconsinites, will always make supply side look like its working. Walker's just like any one of us who's future is guaranteed, as either president or a million dollar Koch Industry lobbyist. Not bad for a career politician with no technical training whatsoever.
It's Hillary's "spread the wealth," help the poor, get the money out of politics message that makes her a nasty 1 percent elitist:
Republicans are planning to paint Hillary Clinton as a representative of the 1 percent, with her high-flying lifestyle and lucrative speaking gigs estranging her from ordinary folks. If you put the argument explicitly — "It would be bad to have a president who has too much money" — it sounds ridiculous, particularly coming from Republicans who simultaneously argue that the pursuit of profit is almost a divine calling and wealth a sign of virtue.
This is not a Hillary endorsement, even though I'm encouraged by her move to the "left." I also think her charity is an easy area to create controversy. Despite the full and transparent disclosure of the charities donors, this same openness has helped foster the current controversy (which is why dark money is always preferred-it won't be used against you). In a nutshell:
Although the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity and not required to reveal its donors, the Clinton Foundation has done so, revealing information about the size of their donations in ranges on its website, including these foreign governments: Money, even in philanthropy, is not a purely philanthropic endeavor. It buys access, which goes both ways. Truth be told, the messy charity involvements of John McCain, Rick Santorum, and even Newt Gingrich never figured into their presidential campaigns ... Unlike the small but compromised fundraising of these other politicians’ charities, the Clinton Foundation is big, with a quarter-billion in assets, a track record of having raised $2 billion, and influence with power brokers around the world. It is where difference of size really is difference of kind when it comes to the potential significance of the Clinton Foundation questions.
