Why Clinton lost in one chart.
There was no “Whitelash”.
The democrats just didn’t care who won.
In an upset for the ages, Donald Trump won the election. I’m stunned.
I have been Never Trump from the start, I warned my republican friends that if nominated, I wouldn’t vote for him. I went so far as to say that if I were forced to vote for Hillary or Donald, I’d have to go with Clinton [luckily there were three options for me].
I don’t think that he has the temperament, the character or the policy platform that qualify him for the highest office in the land. Yet he won.
I am distressed.
I’m distressed that the republican party couldn’t nominate a better candidate AND distressed that the democrat party couldn’t nominate someone strong enough to sway me to vote for them. Truly a sad day in America that we woke up to.
Now, is there any good news? Yes.
It cannot be overstated how important it is that President Obama is soon too be out of power.; it’s been a brutal 8 years. Further, with control of the senate there will be consideration for the Supreme Court – and if Trump holds too his word [not a guarantee] there will be a conservative Justice to replace the conservative Justice. And perhaps another and maybe even another.
Perhaps the worst fears of the left have been realized and the racists and the bigots and the fear mongers got their man. I hope that’s not the case. If there is any hope of a ray of light in this, it’s that true blue red blooded Americans were fed up with 8 years of failed policies, were fed up with an elite republican party structure that ignored them after 2010 and were rightfully fearful of an utterly corrupt and morally empty human being that is Hillary Clinton. Let us hope that we can find the better angels of our nature.
Since Trump has been a candidate I have been #NeverTrump solidly.
With the recent Hillary scandals I am moving towards #NeverHillary.
This from the White House:
“I’ll neither defend nor criticize Director Comey’s decision to communicate to the public about the facts of this investigation,” Earnest said Monday. “I’ll do that because of the institutional role of the White House not to interfere with an ongoing FBI or DOJ investigation. I’ll also do that because I don’t have any independent knowledge of what led Director Comey to decide to release that information.”
According to Barack Obama, Hillary is the most qualified candidate to ever run for President. Near as I can tell, she has three such qualifications:
No one else had more experience?
How about H.W. Bush?
Not even close – Bush by unanimous decision.
You know it’s bad when you are a democrat and Maureen Down is piling on:
THE capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”
The conservatives appearing on Benghazi-obsessed Fox News are a damage patrol with an approach that goes like this: “Lies, paranoia, subpoena, impeach, Watergate, Iran-contra.”
(Though now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe some of the paranoia is justified.)
… a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.
And still more:
In the midst of a re-election campaign, Obama aides wanted to promote the mythology that the president who killed Osama was vanquishing terror. So they deemed it problematic to mention any possible Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack.
Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state. Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”
When the left begins to attack the left….you know it’s bad.
ABC is finally reporting on Benghazi. And the latest report from them has email showing the Talking Points went through multiple revisions, up to 12:
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Now, I’m well aware that documents go through review and editing. I’ve been part of that process. However, the changes made to these talking points are to clarify some obscure detail or correct a time stamp in a timeline. These revisions changed the story.
However, it is important to point out:
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
It does appear that the initial report contained language surrounding the events in Cairo. However, the testimony from the hearings gave no credence to the fact that anyone at anytime felt that the attacks were nothing but an organized terrorist attack.
I think that requiring law abiding citizens to submit to a background check is a solution looking for a problem. Many people feel that requiring voters to show photo ID is the same thing. They claim that voter fraud, actual “at the poll voter fraud” is rare, very rare.
They may have a point.
However, I think that there is a parallel. We require people to register to vote, to vote only one time, to be 18. To live in the precinct they are voting in. It’s reasonable to ask for proof of ID. Reasonable in the same way that asking people to submit to a background check is reasonable.
Even if neither is really very effective at targeting abuse.
I’m just saying that maybe before we get all worked up about checking the backgrounds of people willing to submit to background checks, we should admit who commits crimes with guns and work to remove the guns from them.
In the same vein, I think it’s important to admit that vote fraud may not be taking place at the polling station, but it IS taking place in other places:
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
Fraud occurs all over the place. We should go get it where it occurs.
After watching a good portion of the hearings this afternoon I was struck by three facts:
Let’s focus on the first; the knowledge within the administration that this was a terrorist act carried out by an organized enemy.
A top State Department appointee told Libya’s ambassador to the United States one day after the military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that the terror group Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.
But four days later, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said on television that it was the product of a spontaneous protest.
During a fiery and emotional congressional hearing on the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy read aloud from an email dated Sept. 12, 2012 to senior State Department officers, from Elizabeth Jones, the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that ‘I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.’
The next day.
The acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs told the Libyan Ambassador to the United States that the group that conducted these attacks was affiliated with Islamic terrorists.
What this means is that every single word that Obama, Clinton and the rest of the administration regarding the YouTube video, not to mention the arrest of the man who posted it, was flat out untrue.
This wasn’t a fog of war type situation. There was no careful couching of words due to a potential lack of clarity. This wasn’t a “all indications seem to validate the strong likelihood of an element of organization, possibly linked to known terrorists, again possibly Islamic in nature…yada yada yada”.
No. This was a clear and sure statement from a ranking American diplomat to the Libyan Ambassador to the US that, in fact, we know what this was and here it is.
But who saw this email?
Her email, Gowdy said, went to ‘almost everyone in the State Department,’ including spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
They all knew. And then:
Nuland, according to a report in The Weekly Standard, was instrumental in raising red flags about the CIA’s candid assessment of how and why the consulate was attacked, which the agency prepared as talking points for members of Congress.
And according to a report from House Republicans released in April, Nuland wrote in an email that ‘my building leadership’ at the State Department wasn’t happy with those talking points.
In the ensuing 24 hours, the talking points were edited heavily, reportedly by White House deputies, and all references to Islamic terrorism were removed.
Jones is clean I suspect. Nuland? She’s complicit. She saw the email and took demonstrable actions. Further, she implicates “my building leadership” in her response.
After the hearings today, there is no longer any doubt that the administration knew these attacks were not the result of a spontaneous protest. It is very clear that full knowledge of the actors in Benghazi were known and little, if any doubt, existed.
What remains is the “So? What?” aspect of this story. So the administration knew. So the administration sent Susan Rice on 5 Sunday morning talk shows claiming the events were the result of a YouTube video. So Obama mentioned the video for days and for days after the events of September 11, 2012.
Indeed. That’s the question.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.
“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews.
How so very wonderful for her.
Marbles – Huevos
Whatever language you choose, the meaning is the same:
I am no fan of Obama. And I don’t think it took extraordinary strategery to know you have to take out Bin Laden. But what DOES impress me is having the MARBLES to sit and watch the thing in real time:
Look at Hillary Clinton for real time reaction to a man being shot in the head.