On Tuesday, Former Secretary of State and failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared that she could beat President Trump ‘again’ in 2020 if she decided to make another run at the White House.
“Maybe there does need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again,” Clinton told Judy Woodruff, the host of PBS News hour Judy, in an apparent reference to her winning the popular vote in 2016.
Clinton and her daughter Chelsea talked with Woodruff on topics ranging from the president, impeachment, and their new book, “Gutsy Women.”
“It truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me,” Clinton said, “But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my e-mails. We all know that. So he’s either lying or delusional or both … so maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously I can beat him again.”
Trump taunted “crooked Hillary” earlier in the day on Twitter, saying: “I think that crooked Hillary Clinton should try to enter the race to try and steal it away from uber-left Elizabeth Warren. Only one condition: The crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors, including how and why she deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER getting ‘C’ subpoena.”
Clinton continued, saying, “But just seriously, I don’t understand. I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him other than personal grievance, other than seeking adulation. I said during the campaign, there was no other Donald Trump. What you saw was what you were going to get, and I think a lot of Americans understandably thought, oh, no, that can’t possibly be the case. Once he’s in office, he will certainly moderate his behavior. Well, we see, no, he hasn’t.”
Although Clinton has said several times that she wouldn’t run for president for the third time in 2020, she has fueled rumors by making a ton of public appearances recently because of her book.
In recent tweets, she further intensified the idea of her running in 2020 when she responded to Trump’s taunts in a tweet, saying: “Don’t tempt me. Do your job.”
A new Rasmussen poll released earlier this week revealed that Trump and Clinton would be neck and neck in a 2020 rematch, with each candidate receiving 45 percent of the vote. The rest of the potential voters were ‘undecided’.
However, in the same poll, only 18 percent of respondents said that Clinton should enter the race.
An “unnamed Ukrainian official” has apparently shredded the “quid pro quo” claimed in the whistleblower account.
The compliant, which has caused a furor in Washington, has implied that President Trump froze nearly 5 million dollars in military aid to Ukraine, and did not release those funds until he got a pledge from the Ukrainian president to “look into” Joe Biden, and other matters of corruption.
However, Fox News is reporting that a Ukrainian official said that Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. had suspended those funds until a month after President Trump’s now infamous call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which calls into question the whistleblower’s account and Democrats’ arguments that there was a quid pro quo for the aid.
The official told The New York Times that Zelensky’s government was unaware about the aid issue until a month after Trump’s July 25 phone call in which he discussed Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The whistleblower complaint – citing U.S. officials – claimed that officials in Kiev knew that the military aid could be in jeopardy in early August, but the whistleblower admitted to not knowing “how or when they learned of it.”
Zelensky said earlier this week that he “never felt pressured” by Trump to investigate the Bidens. Trump insisted that he wanted to make sure the country was weeding out corruption before providing the funds.
Democrats insist that Trump was wrong to bring up a political opponent to a foreign leader, and that even if he didn’t explicitly make a demand, the innuendo was there. Democrats also took issue with the complaint’s claim that Trump employed his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in the matter.
As allegations swirl surrounding the complaint, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has started an official inquiry into whether the House should pursue impeachment proceedings, but Democrats have refused to hold a roll call vote to authorize the effort.
“Impeaching a President means nullifying the results of a presidential election, which is the core act of American democratic legitimacy,” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page wrote on Friday. “If Democrats are going to do this, they have an obligation to stand up and be counted in a way that the public can examine.”
Controversy over the complaint abounds. President Trump and fellow republicans point to the fact that the Whistleblower had no “firsthand” knowledge of the allegations he or she was making, and several other inconstancies in the complaint.
The New York Times has claimed to know that the whistleblower is a CIA official, and analyst, who had been assigned to the White House. There has been no corroboration of this claim.
I am old enough to remember the very first season of Saturday Night the Live. The original “Not Ready for Prime Time Players,” led by the likes of Chevy Chase and Gilda Radner, lived up to their name. The show was smart, edgy, and pushed the envelope of the NBC Censors to their limits, and often performed bits that would never, ever fly in today’s climate of “political correctness.”
I can say that with confidence, because newcomer to SNL, comedian Shane Gillis has been fired from one of the most coveted gigs in comedy for making “ethnic jokes” about Asians and gays on a podcast unrelated to SNL, that aired long before he started working on the show.
Gillis’s may be the shortest-lived gig for an SNL player. His departure comes just four days after the producers of SNL announced that Gillis was joining the cast for the show’s new season, set to start Sept. 28. “After talking with Shane Gillis, we have decided that he will not be joining SNL,” a show spokesperson said on behalf of producer Lorne Michaels, in a statement.
“We want SNL to have a variety of voices and points of view within the show, and we hired Shane on the strength of his talent as comedian and his impressive audition for SNL. We were not aware of his prior remarks that have surfaced over the past few days. The language he used is offensive, hurtful and unacceptable. We are sorry that we did not see these clips earlier, and that our vetting process was not up to our standard.”
Gillis was fired despite issuing an apology last week.
“I’m a comedian who pushed boundaries. I sometimes miss,” Gillis said. “If you go through my 10 years of comedy, most of it bad, you’re going to find a lot of bad misses. I’m happy to apologize to anyone who’s actually offended by anything I’ve said. My intention is never to hurt anyone, but I am trying to be the best comedian I can be and sometimes that requires risks.”
The PC backlash against Gillis began almost immediately after Saturday Night Live announced that he was joining the cast. A video clip from Gillis’ Matt and Shane’s Secret Podcast resurfaced in which the comedian is heard talking about New York’s Chinatown.
“Let the fucking ch-nks live there,” Gillis said, adding that a restaurant was “full of fucking Chinee [sic] in there.”
The podcast series also featured Gillis using the words “retard” and “faggot.”
It didn’t matter to anyone that Gillis was playing a character that was supposed to be a bigoted, insensitive, asshole.
Despite numerous calls for him to be fired, Gillis found one surprising defender — Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang.
“For the record, I don’t think he should lose his job,” Yang tweeted. “We would benefit from being more forgiving than punitive. We are all human.”
People need to lighten up and stop being so sensitive. It seems to me, that in the days some 20, 30, 40 years ago, when we all laughed not only at each other, but with each other, to the likes of the original cast of SNL, and Don Rickles, Jackie Mason, Richard Pryor, Buddy Hackett and of course Archie Bunker… we all got along a lot better then, than we do now!
Rep. Ilhan Omar’s husband, Ahmed Hirsi, wants out and is ready to file for divorce from the controversial freshman congresswoman. This according to a longtime friend of the couple, who has been speaking to the New York Post.
The unnamed source told the New York tabloid that Hirsi is disgusted with Omar’s behavior and is poised to file for divorce after the revelation in a bombshell court filing that she allegedly had an affair with DC political consultant Tim Mynett.
The Minnesota congresswoman and her husband allegedly separated in March, and Omar asked Hirsi to divorce her around that time because she didn’t want to file the papers — but Hirsi refused, telling her if she wanted a divorce she should do it herself, said the source, who has known both parties for 20 years.
But now, the husband allegedly changed his mind after Tim Mynett’s wife last week filed bombshell divorce papers claiming her husband was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative. The source tells the Post that Hirsi is angry that he had been made to look the fool by the allegations of the extramarital affair.
“I’m surprised he hasn’t filed already,” the source told The Post, adding that Hirsi was “very confused” in the wake of the bombshell allegations, but that he claims that he still loved his wife and was reluctant to expose their three children to a public divorce battle.
The freshman congresswoman, 37, insisted she and Hirsi, 39, were still together and denied the charge she was dating Mynett in an interview with CBS affiliate WCCO, on the day back in August that Mynett’s wife filed for divorce.
However, the Post has confirmed that Omar and Hirsi have been living apart since March — around the same time she was spotted having dinner with Mynett at a California restaurant — with Omar moving into a luxury condo in downtown Minneapolis and their split an “open secret” in town.
The family home they shared in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood — nicknamed “Little Mogadishu” for its large Somali population — appears to be abandoned, with the curtains drawn and cobwebs growing over the front porch, when a Post reporter visited last week.
Hirsi, a senior policy aide to a Minneapolis city councilwoman, is reportedly bouncing between friends’ houses and stays at the luxury condo when Omar isn’t in town, with the kids also spending time with a grandfather, the source said.
Omar’s Marriage History a Tangled Web
Omar and Hirsi were first engaged in 2002. But the duo never legally married; instead, they wed in a traditional Muslim ceremony and had two children before splitting up in 2008, Omar has said.
The next year, she married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom she described as a “British citizen,” records show. They split up in 2011 and Omar and Hirsi got back together and had a third child in 2012, records show.
In 2017, Omar finally officially divorced Elmi. She legally wed Hirsi the next year. But they began experiencing marital problems shortly after Omar assumed office, said the source.
However, public documents obtained by The Post raise discrepancies in the timeline of Omar’s marriages to Hirsi and Elmi.
Documents suggest Omar never stopped living with Hirsi — even after they ended their religious marriage and she was legally married to Elmi. In February 2009, when Omar legally married Elmi, she listed their marital address as a property in Columbia Heights, a suburb in Minneapolis.
However, just three months later, Hirsi used the same Columbia Heights property as his personal address on business filings for his One on One Cafe Lounge.
Two months later in August 2009, Omar began studying political science at North Dakota State University.
Omar and Hirsi moved to North Dakota together with their two children, according to a 2013 article in Twin Cities Daily Planet, even though she was supposed to be estranged from Hirsi and married to Elmi.
In traffic violations from 2008 to 2012 — the entire time Omar was married to Elmi — the congresswoman and Hirsi also listed their address as the family home in Cedar-Riverside, suggesting they never stopped living together.
The congresswoman has refused to comment on both the affair allegations and the discrepancies in her marriages — dodging questions from a Post reporter at an event in Minneapolis last week.
Gee, what a surprise! News outlets are reporting that video security footage from the corridor outside of Jeffrey Epstein’s cell from the night he “committed suicide” is “unusable.”
The Washington Post was the first to report that “some video footage taken outside criminal financier Jeffrey Epstein’s cell the night of his death was deemed ‘unusable’ by investigators.”
Epstein died allegedly by his own hand in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) earlier this month, prompting a federal investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. Both the FBI and the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office are investigating.
According to the Washington Post story one of the cameras in the hallway outside of Epstein’s cell captured “unusable footage,” though it is unclear what about the footage made investigators deem it “unusable.” Clearer footage was apparently captured in the vicinity by other cameras, The Post’s report said.
Since Epstein’s death, the MCC has been under fire for several incidents of alleged broken protocol, including guards reportedly sleeping on their shift, Epstein being housed alone, and the prison facing severe staffing shortages.
Epstein’s Lawyers Not Confident In ME’s Conclusion of Suicide
After the cause of death was deemed a suicide by the New York chief medical examiner, Epstein’s defense team said in a statement that they were “not satisfied” with the conclusion and blasted the “medieval conditions” of the federal prison, blaming their employer’s death on those alleged broken protocols.
Soon after the ME’s conclusions, Epstein’s defense team announced that they would be conducting an independent investigation alongside the federal probes, saying that they would use legal action, if necessary, “to view the pivotal videos — if they exist as they should — of the area proximate to Mr. Epstein’s cell during the time period leading to his death.”
Now, it is some of those very videos that “coincidentally” are found to be “unusable.”
Epstein was charged in July with conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors. He was transferred to suicide watch after he was found unconscious with bruises around his neck but was taken off constant observation in late July.
He was found dead in his cell a little less than two weeks later.
White Republican men are the ‘greatest terrorist threat’ in the US, according to CNN commentator.
Last week, during a heated exchange with a Republican strategist, leftist CNN commentator Angela Rye said that the “greatest terrorist threat” in the United States are “white men” who think like he does.
The conversation really got fiery after GOP campaign strategist Patrick Griffin triggered Rye by arguing that the so-called “Squad” of far-left, Antifa-loving Democrats – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib – had “hijacked” the Democratic Party from California Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Rye, the former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus, responded saying, “It’s so interesting that you use the term — the only two Muslim women in Congress, the term you chose to use, sir, is ‘hijacking,’”
Griffin hit back, saying, “It has nothing to do with whether they’re Muslim or not,” Griffin responded. “Nothing to do with that… They’ve hijacked from their own principles.”
“That’s a real interesting word choice, and you understand why,” Rye interrupted while asserting that Griffin had purposefully employed the word to link the far-left Democrats to radical Islamic terrorists.
Rye, clearly perturbed, continued, saying, “You can talk over me all you want to but the bottom line is the greatest terrorist threat in this country is white men, white men who think like you. That is the greatest terrorist threat in this country.”
Griffin dismissed her remarks as “silly rhetoric.”
“No, it’s not!” Rye replied.
“You know what’s silly? The fact that you’re on here knowing how dangerous times are right now defending this nonsense,” she retorted.
While addressing Rye’s comments, Dr. Steve Turley, a prominent National Conservative academic and YouTube commentator attributes this widely proliferated meme of white men or ‘white supremacists’ being the single greatest threat to the United States, to a so-called study conducted by the far-left, Soros-funded, New America Foundation.
Dr. Turley contends that the study’s purpose was to “undermine national, cultural, and historical integrity of the United States in the name of left-wing globalism.”
The study found that of the all 26 post-911 terror attacks that occurred on US soil, 19 were committed by non-Muslims. Furthermore, the study found that 48 people were killed by so-called “white terrorists” compared to 26 people killed by jihadists.
Of course, it didn’t take very much time for this meme to spread via the mainstream media propaganda apparatus.
And, that’s why we’re constantly hearing far-left progressive news commentators like Angela Rye and Don Lemon parrot this talking point.
But the Soros-funded study only included the attacks that were successfully carried out. After taking into account all of the terror attacks that were planned within the United States by jihadists, but which were thwarted by authorities, we discover that we aren’t just dealing with 26 attacks, but well over 100 attacks by jihadists,74 percent of which were stopped by police.
This means that radical Islamic terrorism is far greater a threat than any dangers posed by “white supremacist” terrorists. The far-left globalist news media is only telling part of the story to back up their narrative. The whole story, which of course doesn’t support their narrative must be hidden from the public.
The friendly relationship between the United States and Germany has taken a turn for the worse. A new survey authorized by the Atlantik-Brücke and carried out by the polling firm Civey discovered that 85 percent of respondents assessed relations between the countries as poor to very poor.
According to a Der Spiegel editorial, US-German relations have plunged to perhaps an all-time low over deep political, social, and economic disagreements.
In the editorial, the author says that since Richard Grenell took over the reins as the American ambassador to Germany, both countries have been engaged in a kind of diplomatic ‘silent game’.
The article also quotes a statement made by the ex-president of the European Parliament and prominent SPD politician, Martin Schulz.
Schulz, when speaking of the US Ambassador, said: “Grenell is behaving not like a diplomat, but like a right-wing extremist colonial officer”.
According to Der Spiegel, Grenell’s behavior has led German officials to keep their distance. Apparently, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas prefers to keep encounters with the US ambassador as brief as possible, while Chancellor Merkel has never even spoken with him.
The editorial cites existing policy differences between Washington and Berlin on Iran, NATO defense spending, and unresolved trade disagreements.
US President Trump and US Ambassador Germany Richard Grenell have repeatedly and harshly criticized Germany’s unwillingness to comply with the NATO voluntary goal payment obligation of 2% of GDP.
In an interview with the German news agency DPA, Grenell went as far as to say that Germany abuses its friendship with the US.
“It is really insulting to expect that the US taxpayer pays for more than 50,000 Americans in Germany, but the Germans use their trade surplus for domestic purposes,” Grenell said.
The US has also considered moving some of its troops stationed in Germany to Poland.
Despite 85 percent of surveyed Germans having expressed their attitudes toward the US as negative or very negative, Berlin still hopes that the “good old days of the transatlantic partnership” will eventually return after Donald Trump’s presidency ends.
However, since current geopolitical trends seem to suggest that National Populism is here to stay, the Germans may be engaged in misplaced optimism and extreme naivety.
Is the long-standing love affair between Fox News and President Donald J. Trump hitting some rough waters?
The President said over the weekend that he “was unhappy,” with Fox News, and that “something is going on over there.”
The comments came in response to a question tossed at Trump about the network’s recent survey showing the President losing head-to-head matchups against four of the top Democratic presidential primary candidates. Trump’s full reply to the reporter was “There’s something going on at Fox [News], I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it.”
The President quickly added that he didn’t “believe” the poll, adding, “Fox has changed. My worst polls have always been from Fox.”
He then went on to complain about how Democrats had barred the network from hosting or televising the party’s 2020 primary debates and signaled a warning about the general election cycle.
“And I think Fox is making a big mistake,” the president said when asked about the polling and the network’s leadership. “Because, you know, I’m the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates.”
A New Target?
President Trump railing against the news media is nothing new, but the usually “Trump Friendly” Fox News has rarely been the target of his ire. But, lately, Trump has increasingly lumped in Fox News with the rest of his “enemies” for what he views as unfavorable coverage.
Earlier this year he had admonished his “favorite network” for providing a forum for 20202 Democratic candidates. Trump took jabs at Fox News over the network’s town halls with Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders in April and Pete Buttigieg in May.
The polls in question that caused the current spat between Trump and Fox showed Trump’s approval rating in the low 40s and had him losing by six or more points to Democratic 2020 rivals Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Of course, Trump questioned the veracity of the polls, but he seemed more upset that Fox had the audacity to report the actual results of its own poll.
The President also teed off on Fox News political analyst Juan Williams, who Trump said, “has never said a positive thing” — following up on a tweet earlier in the day in which he called Williams “pathetic,” “nasty” and “wrong.”
However, like all lovers that have a bit of a falling out, Trump went on to list “his partner’s” good qualities, following up his comments outside of Marine One on Sunday with, “I’m certainly happy [with]– I think Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs, and I think Tucker Carlson and Laura and Jesse Watters, and Jeanine. We have a lot of great people.”
In a lengthy response to last week’s mass shootings which claimed the lives of 31 people in Ohio and Texas, Barack Hussein Obama laid out his case for who it is that we all should blame. The former President, who most Democratic presidential candidates would prefer not to have their name associated with, attributed the country’s violent culture on President Trump, ‘white supremacist websites’ and guns.
The former president, in a message shared to Twitter, called on U.S. lawmakers to enact more gun control measures to prevent more mass shootings, as if that would do anything at all.
In the statement, Obama wrote, “Until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.”
In a fashion no different than any other liberal politician, Obama laments that “no other nation on Earth” has the degree of violent gun crime as the U.S. does. Of course, he fails to take into account the other kinds of extreme violence other countries like the UK or Germany suffer from, but that’s beside the point I guess.
From his letter, the former president seems to think that we can just legislate this problem away.
Obama also called for increased censorship of so-called ‘what nationalist websites’ to help combat ‘radicalization’.
He writes, “There are indications that the El Paso shooting follows a dangerous trend: troubled individuals who embrace racist ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy.” Obama then goes onto draw false parallels between the radicalization of ISIS terrorists and the radicalization of white nationalists. “That means that both law enforcement agencies and internet platforms need to come up with better strategies to reduce the influence of these hate groups,” he adds.
Although Mr. Obama didn’t call out President Trump’s rhetoric by name, he urged Americans to “soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments.”
Additionally, he condemned rhetoric designed to “demonize those who don’t look like us” or which suggests immigrants are a threat to America. He suggested that this kind of rhetoric has been the source of his worst events in human history.
“It has no place in our politics and our public life. And it’s time for the overwhelming majority of Americans of goodwill, of every race and faith and political party, to say as much — clearly and unequivocally,” he concluded.
Democrats and their media allies spent the better part of two years falsely convincing much of the American public that Trump was guilty of criminal collusion with Russia and subsequently, obstruction of justice. You may recall how Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff stated that he had seen the evidence among the documents that were provided to the Congress – although he was prohibited from sharing the details and the documents.
Democrats predicted – as fact – that Special Counsel would present the evidence. He did not – neither in his long-anticipated Report, his one and only press conference nor during his testimony before two committees of Congress.
Coming off the much hyped but ultimately disastrous congressional hearings with Mueller, Democrats are already looking for yet another bite at the apple. They are hoping to get former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify. They are now claiming that he will provide the evidence that failed to surface in the Mueller Report, the press conference and the hearings. They simply cannot accept that there is no there, there – at least in terms of criminal culpability.
What can be added that has not already been reported in the media ad infinitum?
Of course, the answer is “not much.” Many Democrats have long ago lost all hope of finding some smoking gun that will have the public clamoring for impeachment. But they have made some progress. Various polls suggest that public sentiment has shifted from 60 percent against impeachment to approximately 53 percent.
Democrats seem to believe that the more they can stage political performances with the same old script and the same characters, there is a chance that the public will bite on their stale bait.
So, how does McGahn fit into that strategy? A bit of retrospective will help.
As counsel to President Trump, McGahn was privy to Trump’s legal issues – official and personal. His more important role, however, was selecting all those conservative judges that Trump has been putting on the federal courts in record numbers – including two Supreme Court justices. But that is another story.
In terms of the Mueller investigation, McGahn is the person who advised Trump not to fire Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the chef at the Trump Tower.
Now this is where the plot thickens. Democrats contend that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller– and they allege that such a command would constitute obstruction of justice. A more benign explanation is that Trump discussed such a possibility to gain McGahn’s legal advice. At any rate, despite every effort by Democrats to put words into Mueller’s mouth, the Special Counsel has refused — again, refused – to say that Trump is guilty of criminal obstruction. He left that decision to the Department of Justice.
The only thing that can be said for sure – factually – is that no one got fired. Mueller stated in his Report and subsequently testified that no one had hindered his investigation. In fact, Trump allowed McGahn to be interviewed by Mueller for more than 30 hours even though he could have claimed executive privilege to prevent such interrogation.
McGahn is mentioned 72 times in the Mueller Report – which in and of itself is not damning. To Democrats, that alone makes him an important witness. On the other hand, with so many references, it is unlikely that there is anything that McGahn can tell the Congress that has not already been summarized in the Report.
McGahn has shown no desire to testify and it is not certain that even a subpoena will get him before the committees of Congress. Even though McGahn is now a private citizen, Trump can exert executive privilege on information relating to McGahn’s days in the White House.
So far, McGahn is not responding to the congressional subpoena. Whether he will eventually be compelled to testify will have to be decided by the courts – and that could take months, even years to determine. But for now, McGahn appears to be the Democrats best chance to regurgitate the collusion and obstruction issues.
Maybe McGahn will testify before Congress. Maybe not. But in pursuing yet another staged event to put on the same production may be wearing thin with the public. It is starting to look like … excuse the expression … a witch-hunt.
So, there ’tis.