Archive for Hillary Clinton

Hoosier Daddy?

While others lead with Trump’s finishing-off of Cruz, I prefer to report the news:

Based on analysis of the vote, ABC News projects that Sen. Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic primary in Indiana.

There are a total of 92 delegates up for grabs for the Democrats tonight, 83 of which are pledged delegates while the remaining nine delegates are superdelegates.

The 83 pledged delegates are awarded proportionally.

It is now mathematically impossible for Sanders to clinch the Democratic nomination using only pledged delegates, based on ABC News delegate estimates.

This means the only way Sanders can reach the magic number of 2,383 delegates is with the support of superdelegates.

Still, Sanders told reporters this evening, “I understand that Secretary Clinton thinks that this campaign is over. I’ve got some bad news for her. I know all the pundits thought we were supposed to lose but that apparently is not what all the people of Indiana concluded.”

Ted Cruz has been the walking dead for weeks. I know because he was my guy, and I could see the soulless look in his eyes. But Hillary? Isn’t it rather presumptuous to call her the presumptive nominee? Don’t you have to, like, win? Cruz quit because he lost, time after time, again and again. But Bernie wins—sometimes. Why should he quit? The contested convention will be the Democratic one, if any will be. And I, for one, will enjoy it immensely.

Comments

The Con v The Don

We haven’t talked much about the election lately because…well, while Hillary, Bernie, Donald, and Ted jet across the fruited plain, life happens elsewhere. Same with death. And dismemberment. And Kardashian cleavage, front and back.

But after the blowing mist and lowering clouds of yesterday (yesterday really sucked in these parts), today dawns clear. IF there was any doubt about who was to face whom in November, it’s gone. That scenario has been looking more and more inevitable in recent weeks, so not much has changed. But you know what has changed? Me.

I’ve grown accustomed to his face. Trump’s, that is. I’m fine with voting for him. In fact, when I hear about Cruz and establishment Republicans (how crazy is it that we now lump the two together) exploiting party rules to siphon off delegates (legally if not fairly), my blood boils at the outrage. And Cruz is my man. Or was.

But it’s not just me. It’s results. In state after state, all over the country, open primary or closed, Trump wins. Other than caucuses, which come down to organization over appeal, what has Cruz won? And what good is ideological purity (a creepy concept when you think about it) if it loses to a corrupt, coughing, cackling cankle-monster in the general election? Trump is winning, fair and square, so Trump it is. Make America great again? Count me in.

Did I mention corrupt?

The State Department withheld a vital Hillary Clinton email for two years that would have exposed the existence of her private email server before she wiped it, a conservative watchdog claimed Tuesday.

Judicial Watch, the group that successfully sued in federal court for Clinton’s emails, claims the Sept. 29, 2012 email was withheld from them in 2014 by the State Department because it showed she was not using a government account for State Department business. They received the document last week from the State Department.

Did they ask how their a** tastes? Because when someone so successfully treats you like a baby treats a diaper (as Norm once said on “Cheers”), you have to tip your hat. Respect.

“Upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part,” the letter, dated April 18, said.

The email in question was sent to Clinton from then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan and concerns talking points for a call with senators about the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack — an attack that left four Americans dead. The email contains Clinton’s non-state.gov address.

A State Department official called the delay an “administrative error” and added that they did not receive the email in question until July 2015 – after the Clinton email address was known.”The Department regrets any confusion and will be sending corrected correspondence to Judicial Watch,” the official told Fox News.

“Upon further review” is right up there with “I was only following orders.” Mistakes were made. The check’s in the mail. That looks good on you. I bet Lizzie Borden “regretted” hacking her parents to death “upon further review”.

“Now we know the Obama administration consciously refused to give up key information about Hillary Clinton’s email in 2014. It covered up this email both from the court and Judicial Watch,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “This cover-up provided Hillary Clinton enough time to hide potentially thousands of government records.”

It is not the first time the State Department has blamed an administrative error. Fox News reported in February that Senator Grassley was given bad information about Clinton aide Cheryl Mills’ security clearance status by the State Department, that later had to be corrected. An “administrative error” was blamed.

Betting on Hillary Clinton to take the perp walk into the Chappaqua Police HQ is like betting against the house at a casino. Soon enough, you will be the one homeless and disgraced, while Hillary makes another killing in cattle futures or “discovers” more long-sought-after records and emails, cackling all the way to the bank. But no matter how favorable the odds, I could never bet, much less vote, in her favor. I’m coming to believe that Trump is the better bet, not only as candidate, but president. When the world presents you with Putin, Xi (now promoted to Xii), Kim Jong Dumpling, and the Caliphate, who thinks Hillary is a sane response? I’m switching from the resignation of “Trump is a the president we deserve” to the vaguely hopeful “Trump is the president we need”.

Comments (2)

Where Does Edward Snowden Go to Get His Reputation Back?

Besides Ft. Leavenworth, I mean?

President Obama’s latest defense of Hillary Clinton has struck a nerve with both the GOP and government leakers such as Edward Snowden.

The president’s comments — “there’s classified and then there’s classified” — suggested some classified information is more sensitive than other classified information, uniting in scorn critics across the political spectrum.

To advocates for government transparency, the remarks stunk of duplicity by suggesting that federal classification rules are arbitrary and don’t apply to the Democratic presidential front-runner.

“If only I had known,” tweeted Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who fled the country in 2013 before leaking reams of classified documents about global surveillance. Snowden is now facing multiple federal charges for his leaks.

“It leaves you with a sense that he is reaching his thumb toward the scale,” said Ron Hosko, a former high-ranking FBI official. “I think it is, as I said, unnecessary and, from an investigators’ point of view, not at all beneficial.”

Worse, this is Obama publically signaling his AG to go easy. Actually, she already knows. (How do you think she got the gig?) This is a message to the public, and any rogue G-men, to give Hillary a good leaving-alone.

“There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of State, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source,” Obama said.

“I can’t make an excuse for someone mishandling a confidential document by saying, ‘Oh it was just confidential,’” said Moss, referring the lowest level of classification. “I’ll get laughed out of the room by security.”

The White House said on Monday that Obama has never asked for or received a classified briefing about the federal investigations concerning Clinton’s machine.

“His knowledge of the case is based on public reporting,” Earnest told reporters.

But if Obama had not been kept abreast of the investigation related to Clinton’s machine, then critics were left wondering why he would seek to characterize the contents of the roughly 2,000 emails now considered classified.

“How does he know?” said Hosko.

“For the president to weigh in on what might be the facts or might be wildly erroneous, I think it does little to help preserve the view of the integrity of the investigation and that it isn’t being politicized,” he added. “His comments certainly influence people.”

As they are intended to.

If nothing else, Obama opened his administration up for jokes at his own expense.

“Anyone have the number for the Attorney General?” Snowden tweeted on Sunday.

“Asking for a friend.”

The only person who made jokes at Obama’s expense was Jay Leno—a little. And today he sleeps with the fishes.

Comments (1)

“Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird”

Thanks to his mentor and ghost-writer, Bill Ayers, Obama knows the drill:

Wallace, President Obama told Americans not to worry, because “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case. … Guaranteed. Full stop.”

But the reason the email affair of the Democrats’ presidential front-runner is so important is that it has already been proved that she handled classified information, after categorically denying doing so, through the private server she set up at her home in New York state. Unlike protected government communications, those emails could have been intercepted or later compromised by foreign governments like those of Russia or China, or by nongovernmental personnel tied to terrorists.

So when President Obama went on to double down on his claim last year that “I can tell that you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,” he was doing, as president, exactly what he was promising not to do — interfering.

In fact, he was declaring her innocent before she has been proven guilty or not guilty.

Can’t say you’re surprised. This is his MO. Obama hears about corruption in the IRS and vows to get to the bottom of it—which he does. “Not even a smidgen of corruption”, he assures us. In a perverse twist, he even argued that Khalid Sheik Mohammed could be tried in US courts (in lower Manhattan of all places) because he was so obviously guilty. And now this.

L’etat, c’est lui. Which is French for “Who’s going to stop me?”

[…] Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, the decidedly moderate Iowa Republican, in January said Clinton’s correspondence showed a “disturbing” disregard for classified material.

Referring to her directive to an aide in one email that the State Department only released that month — to take classified material and “turn (it) into non-paper with no identifying heading and send non-secure,” simply because there was trouble with a fax machine — Grassley went ballistic.

“It raises a host of serious questions and underscores the importance of the various inquiries into the transmittal of classified information through her nongovernment email server,” Grassley said. “How long has the State Department been aware of this email?” the senator asked. “Why is it just now being released? Was her instruction actually carried out? If so, has the FBI opened a criminal inquiry into these circumstances?”

Yes, “criminal.” Negligence in handling secrets, even when unintentional, can mean jail time.

Until the president stops being his former secretary of state’s defense lawyer, this administration is indeed politically influencing the probe into her conduct.

Obama supports her with one hand, while using the back of his other to bitch-slap her across the face. How else to explain that his biggest regret was Libya, Hillary’s War? Out of an embarrassment of riches he picks that one?

Comments

“Shiftless”-gate

Did they serve fried chicken and watermelon?

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton were forced to defend a joke made by the mayor at a charity dinner that critics considered racially offensive.

The incident occurred Saturday night, when Clinton and De Blasio took part in a skit at the Inner Circle dinner, a black-tie event in which New York City’s political press corps and politicians spend the evening making fun of each other.

Clinton took the stage ostensibly to thank De Blasio, a former aide, for his belated endorsement of her for the Democratic nomination.

“Took you long enough,” Clinton said.

De Blasio responded, “Sorry, Hillary. I was running on C.P. time.” The phrase, popular in pop culture, is a reference to the stereotype that African-Americans are typically late for appointments.

Broadway actor Leslie Odom Jr., who was also on stage with Clinton and De Blasio and appeared to be in on the joke, said, “That’s not – I don’t like jokes about that, Bill.”

Clinton then turned to Odom and delivered the punch line, “Cautious Politician Time. I’ve been there.”

I’ll confess I’ve never heard the phrase “C.P. time”. For “colored person”, presumably? To the extent I’ve ever heard of chronic lateness applied to an ethnic group, it’s been to Latinos. See the song “Mañana”.

But then, that might have offended Hispanic voters. So, instead they resorted to Steppin Fetchit stereotypes of lazy, shiftless (and tardy) black folks shucking and jiving across the vaudeville stage. I’m surprised they didn’t wear blackface.

But I kid. Hillary and De Blasio couldn’t have had any racist intent. They’re liberals. That’s why this isn’t a story.

The joke was widely criticized in the media, with New York magazine calling it “amazingly unfunny, terribly executed”. Left-leaning website Salon called it “cringeworthy”, as did The Root, which bills itself as a site for “Black News, Opinion, Politics, and Culture.”

De Blasio told CNN Monday evening that critics of the skit were “missing the point.”

Exactly. You outraged are missing the point. Whatever it was.

Comments (1)

Better Late Than Never

But is it?

Was not MadSec prescient with her “what difference, at this point, does it make” crack?

The State Department on Friday turned over more than 1,100 pages of records to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, over a year after the committee first requested them for their ongoing investigation into the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., also criticized the State Department’s delayed response to the request.

The records released included emails from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and Clinton aides Jake Sullivan, Human Abedin, as well as then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, according to a statement from the Congressional committee.

Also included were files stored on computer networks used by senior employees within Clinton’s office.

There was no immediate information available on the content of the emails and network files.

Gowdy slammed the State Department over the length of time it took for the records to be released, following the initial November 2014 request.

“It is deplorable that it took over a year for these records to be produced to our committee,” Gowdy said, criticizing his Democratic colleagues for “never lifting a finger to help us get them.”

Following Gowdy’s 2014 request, the committee filed subpoenas for the records in March and August of 2015.

“This investigation is about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans and it could have been completed a lot sooner if the administration had not delayed…at every turn,” he said.

Earlier this morning, I challenged Obama to a match of “dueling unacceptables”, a la Deliverance’s dueling banjos. (He condemned Mitch McConnell’s adamancy against SCOTUS hearings as “unacceptable”.) This would have been one of my unacceptables.

And, whaddya know, here’s another!

The Justice Department said Friday that it had given to Congress additional documents related to the botched gun-smuggling operation known as Fast and Furious.

The Obama administration had for the last four years refused to provide the records to House Republicans, invoking a claim of executive privilege.

But a federal judge in January turned aside that argument, saying a blanket assertion of executive privilege was inappropriate since the Justice Department had already disclosed through other channels much of the information it had sought to withhold.

House Republicans sued in 2012 to obtain thousands of emails related to the failed effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to track guns across the Southwest border. Under that operation, ATF allowed gunrunners to buy weapons in hopes of tracking them and disrupting Mexican gun-smuggling rings.

Revelations of the operation created a political firestorm and set off a documents dispute between then-Attorney General Eric Holder and Congress that resulted in Holder being held in contempt of Congress.

The Justice Department had already produced tens of thousands of pages of documents, but Congress continued to seek records that the department argued it was entitled to withhold.

The department said that, in producing the documents Friday, it had completed its obligations under the court order.

Chaffetz said in a statement that while the department had turned over “some of the subpoenaed documents,” the committee remains entitled to “the full range of documents for which it brought this lawsuit.” He said the committee was appealing in hopes of getting additional documents.

Some say better late than never. I say justice delayed is justice denied. This illegal regime has been operating outside the law throughout—but especially in its second term. Even the first-term crimes of the IRS scandal have been exacerbated by the second-term lies and cover-up.

We may yet see Obama and Hillary led away in manacles. And I may yet find a leprechaun and his pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Comments

Smidgen of Corruption Watch

As pointless as it seems to follow the daily revelations of Hillary Clinton’s venality and corruption, I feel I should carry on. Like flossing, there may be a payoff down the road:

After interviewing any Clinton aides who choose to be interviewed, the DOJ personnel on the case will move their investigation into its final phase, in which they will ask Clinton herself whether she wishes to speak with them. The prosecutors will basically tell her lawyers that they have evidence of the criminal behavior of their client and that before they present it to a grand jury, they want to afford Clinton an opportunity blindly to challenge it.

This will be a moment she must devoutly wish would pass from her, as she will face a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma.

Here is her dilemma.

If she were to talk to federal prosecutors and FBI agents, they would catch her in many inconsistencies, as she has spoken with great deception in public about this case. She has, for example, stated many times that she used the private server so she could have one mobile device for all of her emails. The FBI knows she had four mobile devices. She has also falsely claimed publicly and under oath that she neither sent nor received anything “marked classified.” The FBI knows that nothing is marked classified, and its agents also know that her unprotected secret server transmitted some of the nation’s gravest secrets.

The prosecutors and agents cannot be happy about her public lies and her repeated demeaning attitude about their investigation, and they would have an understandable animus toward her if she were to meet with them.

If she were to decline to be interviewed—a prudent legal but treacherous political decision—the feds would leak her rejection of their invitation, and political turmoil would break loose because one of her most imprudent and often repeated public statements in this case has been that she can’t wait to talk to the FBI. That’s a lie, and the FBI knows it.

That’s Judge Napolitano.

Here’s Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter. Lamberth ruled that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.”

Not only is the judge not protecting Hillary, he’s citing her “wrong-doing and bad faith” as cause to throw her to the wolves, as wolfish as Judicial Watch can be.

Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials. Whether the State Department’s actions will ultimately be determined by the Court to not be “acting in good faith” remains to be seen at this time, but plaintiff is clearly entitled to discovery and a record before this Court rules on that issue.

“This remarkable decision will allow Judicial Watch to explore the shifting stories and misrepresentations made by the Obama State Department and its current and former employees,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This Benghazi litigation first uncovered the Clinton email scandal, so it is good to have discovery in this lawsuit which may help the American people find out why our efforts to get Benghazi answers was thwarted by Clinton’s email games.”

Howie Carr interview Tom Fitton two days ago. It’s good listening.

I don’t how you feel after reading this post, but I feel virtuous for having written it.

Comments

Don’t Vote for the Codger, But for the Wife of the Draft Dodger

The Democrats are fond of saying that “every vote should count”.

What they don’t say, but apparently believe, as long as it’s for Hillary.

[Some accounts have Bernie being summarily tossed off the DC ballot. We’ll offer a more nuanced account.]

[T]o dispel with the rumors: Any D.C. resident who feels the Bern, will be able to vote the Bern.

That’s not to say it won’t be a little complicated. And some D.C. Democratic party officials still have some explaining to do. Here’s the story:

Somewhere in the course of raising $140 million for his White House bid, Sanders chose to use a tiny fraction of his haul to skip the hassle of collecting 1,000 signatures to get on the D.C. ballot.

The self-described Democratic socialist instead went the capitalist route. He took advantage of a rule allowing any candidate running for president to buy a spot on the District primary ballot with a $2,500 donation to the D.C. Democratic State Committee.

The Sanders campaign submitted a check at 3 p.m. on March 16th, the deadline to do so, according to signatures on a party document.

March 16th was also the day for the party to certify its list of candidates for the June 14 primary to the D.C. Board of Elections.

But the party did not forward Sanders’s name until it sent an e-mail at 1:31 p.m. the next day, March 17th.

A D.C. Democratic activist challenged Sanders’s status as a legitimate candidate because of the delay and that has forced the Board of Elections to take up the matter later this week, according to D.C. Democratic Party Chair Anita Bonds.

An “activist”, huh? Active for anyone in particular, or just hyperactive in general? And why isn’t the FEC investigating this clear violation of voting rights? Many if not most DC voters are African-American; this reeks of Mississippi in the 60s, without the lynchings. Disenfranchising black voters in 2016 is not “who we are”.

Comments

Great News for Hillary Clinton!

That figure of 151 G-men working round the clock to indict Hillary Clinton’s ass appears to be pverstated. Al Capone, Whitey Bulger, and the Unabomber combined probably didn’t consume that much manpower.

Her corruption and venality demands a more modest commitment:

Update March 29 8:10 pm: The article cited in this piece said that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, citing a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50. The headline has been corrected accordingly. I apologize for the error.

About halfway through Robert O’Harrow’s terrific — and terrifically detailed — WaPo piece on the origins of Hillary Clinton’s email problems, there is this paragraph:

One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.

W-H-A-T?

One hundred and forty seven agents? Doesn’t that seem like a ton for a story that Clinton has always insisted was really, at heart, a right-wing Republican creation?

Fewer than 50, fair enough. But anything more than one is an issue, isn’t it? Mulder and Sculley nearly toook down decades of secrecy and conspiracy just by their lonesomes!

Call me an incurable romantic, but I still believe in the Tooth Fairy and in Hillary Clinton’s demonstrable guilt.

Comments

The Seven Words You Can’t Say About Hillary Clinton

I forget what they are: shrill, bitchy, grating, castrating—along those lines.

Here’s two you definitely can say—indeed, have to say: haughty and entitled:

Sanders and Clinton camps also tussled on Monday about the idea of further debates, especially whether one should occur before the New York primary.

Benenson claimed that the Vermont senator has reneged on his promise to avoid running a negative campaign and therefore does not get to dictate the terms of any future debates.

“Because I think the real question is what kind of campaign is Sen. Sanders going to run going forward,” Benenson remarked. “He pumped $4 million in the weekend before March 15, and he lost all five states on March 15. They spent about $4 million running negative ads.”

“This is a man who said he’d never run a negative ad ever. He’s now running them, they’re now planning to run more,” he continued. “Let’s see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions.”

CNN’s Kate Bolduan then inquired why the campaign would not agree to debate in New York despite agreeing in January to more debates. Benenson responded, “Because we agreed to debates up to a certain point. We’re now out campaigning in these states.”

“What’s the risk?” Bolduan asked.

“There’s no risk. She’s done very well in the debates. The debates have been very good, but Sen. Sanders doesn’t get to decide when we debate, particularly when he’s running a very negative campaign against us. Let’s see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we’ll talk about debates,” Benenson said.

“So no chance of a New York debate?” Bolduan pressed.

“I didn’t say that,” Benenson said. “I said we’re going to see what kind of tone he sets.”

Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Sanders, hit back at Benenson on Monday afternoon. “Sen. Sanders has never run a negative ad in his life,” he said, adding, “Some people this year wanted a coronation instead of a campaign in which we debate our rigged economy and corrupt campaign finance system. But despite what the pundits and establishment politicians wanted, our grassroots supporters are giving us a political revolution. I can see how that might put Mr. Benenson in a bad mood.”

I wouldn’t vote for Bernie if you put a gun to my head (which may well happen if somehow he were to win). But God bless the commie codger for making Hillary’s life just a little bit more miserable. Lord knows, the FBI isn’t.

“Tone.” Get over yourselves. Let me add three more words to whatever list we’re compiling: officious little sh*t.

Comments (2)

Clinton Aids To Be Interviewed By FBI

According to LA Times

Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.

Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries.

No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.

Some cynical people think this is all necessary to make it look as if an investigation had been done, before declaring her completely innocent. I’m wondering if they aren’t going to go after her because she is such a weak candidate. Maybe we’ll get Plagiarizing Joe Biden instead?!

– Aggie

Comments

Does She “Disavow”?

When you finish that coughing fit, MadSec, may we have a comment?

Hillary Clinton is working hard to consolidate support during a tougher-than-expected Democratic primary, but there’s one backer she may wish to back away from: a Ku Klux Klan grand dragon.

“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Will Quigg, the grand dragon of the KKK’s California chapter, said during an interview with The Telegraph.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump was recently criticized for a perceived reticence to disavow the endorsement of former KKK leader David Duke. Trump has since clearly disavowed Duke’s vote of confidence. Clinton has yet to be asked about Quigg’s endorsement.

Quigg bases his support on his belief that Clinton is pushing false promises on the campaign trail. Once she gets elected, he contends, her agenda will completely shift.

“Border policies are going to be put in place,” Quigg said. “Our second amendment rights that she’s saying she’s against now, she’s not against. She’s just our choice for the presidency.”

This story hit the web at about 10:30 Monday morning. Has she been asked about it? I only have this to say:

I said before, and I am pleased that others — others are also joining in making clear that [her] rhetoric, [her] demagoguery, [her] trafficking in prejudice and paranoia has no place in our political system. especially from somebody running for president who couldn’t decide whether or not to disavow the Ku Klux Klan and [Will Quigg].

Come on, lame stream media. Nut up and ask her a couple of questions. She won’t bite. (That’s Bill’s perversion.)

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »