Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

China Hacked Hillary’s Server, Got Her Emails


URL of the original posting site: http://www.con-alerts.com/china-hacked-hillarys-server-got-her-emails/

National security moves made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration came as no surprise to China. We’re now learning that a Chinese state-owned company – aka the Chinese government – hacked Clinton’s email server and then inserted code to forward themselves a “courtesy copy” of every email she sent or received after that. Insanely enough, the code was discovered in 2015 by the Intelligence Community Inspector General who then warned the FBI officials – and agent Peter Strzok – but the FBI says it found no such compromise and the ICIG has declined to comment. There was no follow up. Any guesses why the FBI found no evidence of the hack just before the presidential election heated up?

Here’s more from Fox News…

A Chinese state-owned company reportedly hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, then inserted code that forwarded them a copy of virtually every email she sent or received after that — a revelation President Trump is demanding be investigated.

The Daily Caller reported that the firm operating in the D.C. area wrote code that was then embedded in the server and generated a “courtesy copy” for almost all her emails — which was then forwarded to the Chinese company.

The code reportedly was discovered in 2015 by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), which then warned FBI officials of the intrusion.

A source briefed on the matter confirmed to Fox News the details of the Caller’s reporting, and said that the ICIG was so concerned by the revelation that officials drove over to the FBI to inform agents — including anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok — of the development after it was discovered via the emails’ metadata.

The source told Fox News the hack was from a Chinese company, describing it as a front for Chinese intelligence.

Cohen’s plea deal is prosecutor’s attempt to set up Trump


Reported

Here we go, from Russia with love, to campaign finance with love.

Why was Michael Cohen investigated? Because the “Steele dossier” had him making secret trips to meet with Russians that never happened, so his business dealings got a thorough scrubbing and, in the process, he fell into the Paul Manafort bin reserved by the special counsel for squeezing until the juice comes out. We are back to 1998 all over again, with presidents and candidates covering up their alleged marital misdeeds and prosecutors trying to turn legal acts into illegal ones by inventing new crimes.

The plot to get President TrumpE out of office thickens, as Cohen obviously was his own mini crime syndicate and decided that his betrayals meant he would be better served turning on his old boss to cut the best deal with prosecutors he could rather than holding out and getting the full Manafort treatment. That was clear the minute he hired attorney Lanny Davis, who does not try cases and did past work for Hillary Clinton. Cohen had recorded his client, trying to entrap him, sold information about Trump to corporations for millions of dollars while acting as his lawyer, and did not pay taxes on millions.

ADVERTISEMENT

The sweetener for the prosecutors, of course, was getting Cohen to plead guilty to campaign violations that were not campaign violations. Money paid to people who come out of the woodwork and shake down people under threat of revealing bad sexual stories are not legitimate campaign expenditures. They are personal expenditures. That is true for both candidates we like and candidates we do not. Just imagine if candidates used campaign funds instead of their own money to pay folks like Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about affairs. They would get indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes and for tax evasion.

There appear to be two payments involved in this unusual agreement. Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign violation for having “coordinated” the American Media payment to Karen McDougal for her story, not for actually making the payment. He is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make. Think about this for a minute. Suppose ABC paid Stormy Daniels for her story in coordination with Michael Avenatti or maybe even the law firm of the Democratic National Committee on the eve of the election.

By this reasoning, if the purpose of this money paid, just before the election, would be to hurt Trump and help Clinton win, this payment would be a corporate political contribution. If using it not to get Trump would be a corporate contribution, then using it to get Trump also has to be a corporate contribution. That is why neither are corporate contributions and this is a bogus approach to federal election law. Note that none of the donors in the 2012 John Edwards case faced any legal issues and the Federal Election Commission ruled their payments were not campaign contributions that had to be reported, both facts that prosecutors tried to suppress at trial.

Now, when it comes to Stormy Daniels, Cohen made a payment a few days before the election that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani says was reimbursed. First, given that this payment was in October, it would never have been reported before the election campaign and so, for all intents and purposes, was immaterial as it relates to any effect on the campaign. What is clear in this plea deal is that, in exchange for overall leniency on his massive tax evasion, Cohen is pleading guilty to these other charges as an attempt to give prosecutors what they want, which is a Trump connection.

The usual procedures here would be for the Federal Election Commission to investigate complaints and sort through these murky laws to determine if these kinds of payments are personal in nature or more properly classified as campaign expenditures. On the Stormy Daniels payment that was made and reimbursed by Trump, it is again a question of whether that was made for personal reasons, especially since they have been trying since 2011 to obtain agreement. Just because it would be helpful to the campaign does not convert it to a campaign expenditure. Think of a candidate with bad teeth who had dental work done to look better for the campaign. His campaign still could not pay for it because it is a personal expenditure.

Contrast what is going on here with the treatment of the millions of dollars paid to a Democratic law firm which, in turn, paid out money to political research firm Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele without listing them on any campaign expenditure form, despite crystal clear laws and regulations that the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds must be listed. This rule was even tightened recently. There is no question that hiring spies to do opposition research in Russia is a campaign expenditure, yet no prosecutorial raids have been sprung on the law firm, Fusion GPS or Steele. The reason? It does not “get” Trump.

So, Trump spends $130,000 to keep the lid on a personal story and the full weight of state prosecutors comes down on his lawyer, tossing attorney-client privilege to the wind. Democrats spend potentially millions on secret opposition research and no serious criminal investigation occurs. Remember that the feds tried a similar strategy against Democratic candidate Edwards six years ago and it failed. As Gregory Craig, a lawyer who worked both for President Clinton and Edwards, said, “The government theory is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. It is novel and untested. There is no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution.” Tried it there anyway and it failed.

Let us also not forget that President Clinton was entrapped into lying about his affairs and, although impeached, was acquitted by the Senate. The lesson was clear: We are not going to remove presidents for lying about who they had affairs with, nor even convict politicians on campaign finance violations for these personal payments.

With Cohen pleading guilty, there will be no test of soundness of the prosecution theories here, and it is yet another example of the double standards of justice of one investigation that gave Clinton aides and principals every benefit of the doubt and another investigation that targeted Trump people until they found unrelated crimes to use as leverage. Prosecutors thought nothing of using the Logan Act against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, but they are using obscure and unsettled elements of campaign finance law against Trump lawyer Cohen to manufacture crimes in what is a naked attempt to take Trump down and defeat democracy.

Trump should do a better job of picking aides who pay their taxes, but he is not responsible for their financial problems and crimes. These investigations, essentially based on an opposition dossier, were never anything other than an attempt to push into a corner as many Trump aides and family members as possible and shake them down until they could get close enough to Trump to try to take him down.

That is why so many of his aides, lawyers, and actions in the campaign and in the White House have undergone hour by hour scrutiny to find anything that could be colored into a crime, leaving far behind the original Russia collusion theory as the fake pretext it was. Paying for nondisclosure agreements for perfectly legal activities is not a crime, not a campaign contribution as commonly understood or ruled upon by the Federal Election Commission. Squeezing guilty pleas out of vulnerable witnesses does nothing to change those facts.

Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author of “Microtrends Squared.” He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during Clinton’s impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter @Mark_Penn.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “The Pantsuit That Cried Wolf”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2018/08/23/the-pantsuit-that-cried-wolf/

If you’ve ever wondered how Russia became America’s most fearsome enemy, long after that country gave up Communism, gulags, forced starvations and mass murder (all of which liberals were cool with), the answer is: This crackpot idea came from the same woman who blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for Monica Lewinsky.

The Russia conspiracy is classic Hillary, as detailed in my new book, Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.

Throughout her long and blemished public career, Hillary has always blamed her troubles on bad people conspiring against her.

When her husband’s mistress, Gennifer Flowers, stepped forward as Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, Hillary blamed a former gubernatorial opponent of her husband, who “has now spent the last two years doing everything he can to try to get even, and it’s a sort of sad spectacle.”

Bill later admitted to the affair.

When Hillary callously fired long-serving White House travel office employees to make room for her friends’ travel business, she responded to the public outcry by accusing the head of the travel office, Billy Dale, of embezzlement. To continue the charade, her husband’s government criminally prosecuted Dale. The jury acquitted him after about three minutes of deliberation, but Dale was left jobless and nearly bankrupt.

When Hillary’s health care bill went down in flames, hurting the Democrats and leading to the first Republican Congress in 40 years, she blamed the media for having “bought into the right-wing attack.” (You know how the media slavishly repeat conservative talking points.)

As mentioned above, when her husband was caught for the millionth time molesting the help, Hillary blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

When DNA proved the story was true, Hillary blamed the fuss in the media on “prejudice against our state” — meaning Arkansas. “They wouldn’t be doing this if we were from some other state,” she said. Even The San Francisco Chronicle hooted at that one.

When she lost to Obama in 2008, she blamed the media’s rampant sexism. In fact, a ham-handed liar like Hillary could only have survived in politics as long as she did thanks to the media’s devotion to her.

Quiz: When the Democratic National Committee’s emails popped up on Wikileaks in July 2016, embarrassing her campaign and enraging Democrats, would Hillary:

A) Apologize to Bernie Sanders for the DNC’s horrible mistreatment of him;

B) Demand an accounting of the inept computer security measures at the DNC;

Or

C) Invent a story about Russia conspiring against her?

Answer: C. Russia had to become the next Linda Tripp, a mysterious enemy undermining our heroine.

Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook launched the Russia conspiracy theory on the eve of the Democratic National Convention on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” — because who better to ask the tough questions than a former top aide to Hillary’s husband?

Mook explained:

“Well, what’s disturbing about this entire situation is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites. … And it’s troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by — by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”

Stephanopoulos may not have burst out laughing, but, at the time, every serious journalist in America did. Right up until Trump drove liberals mad by winning the election, Hillary’s Russia conspiracy theory was scoffed at throughout the media.

A New York Times story described Mook’s claim as an “eerie suggestion of a Kremlin conspiracy to aid Donald Trump.” It was, the Times reporters said, a “remarkable moment.” Even at the height of the Cold War, such an accusation had never been leveled by one presidential candidate against another. And yet, the Times dryly observed, Mook had cited nothing more than unnamed “experts.”

Los Angeles Times reporter Mark Z. Barabak also pointed out the unnamed “experts” and noted that Mook’s “allegation” served two political purposes. It tainted Trump’s boast that he’d get along with Russia and “also served the added benefit, from Clinton’s perspective, of distracting from internal party divisions over the emails.”

Russian scholars and cyber-security experts dismissed the harebrained claim:

“Experts: Hard to prove Russians behind DNC hack” — USA Today

“Why the Kremlin might not be the fan of Trump that it’s said to be” — The Christian Science Monitor

A month later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held a conference call with nervous Democrats, urging them to push the Russian conspiracy theory and also to put out the word that “the Russians” might have altered the content of the emails.

President Obama took the alleged Russian hacking so seriously that he told Putin to “cut it out.”

It was only after disaster struck and Trump won the election that the media decided maybe there was something to that Russia business, after all.

As described in the book “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” two days after the election, Hillary’s communications team met for hours “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. … Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

The entire Russian collusion gag was invented to assuage the potty pantsuit’s embarrassment at having lost a second election that was fixed for her to win.

In the two years since the media guffawed at Mook’s claim, the public has been presented with no new evidence. All that’s changed is that the media suddenly decided to demand that we all believe it.

Hillary Addresses Yale Grads: No Sane Parent Would Want Her Advice


Posted by Tami Jackson | on

Hillary at Yale 2

As an esteemed and über expensive Ivy League school, Yale draws media attention and carries weight with all the Fortune 500 companies.

Like its seven fellow Ivies, Yale was founded as “an institution to train ministers and lay leadership.” Yep. Yale was the school expected to churn out pastors and congregants well versed in the Bible and biblical theology.

Sounds like science fiction! Today the Ivies churn out almost 100% hardcore Progressive radicals.

So it would be pretty true to say Yale and most of the Ivy League colleges have literally gone to hell. No kidding.

And of course if you’re Yale and you want to invite a fantastic commencement speaker who do you ask?

Easy.

Ask the 2009 highly esteemed Margaret Sanger Award Recipient, the ardent champion of abortion, the woman renowned for selling 20% of our strategic uranium to Russia, the dame who eviscerated very women preyed upon by her infamous philanderer hubby, the presidential candidate who not only lost the election, but has since trotted the globe making excuses for her epic loss.

Yes. Of course. Ask Hill the Pill Clinton to speak!

All those impressionable young graduates can soak up the Rules for Radicals she learned at the feet of Commie Agitator Saul Alinsky!

Think of it: on top of shelling out almost $50K per year for tuition to have their little darlings propagandized with the most extreme leftist ideology, parents this year had the added bonus of words to live by from Madame HRC herself.

So what did these oh-so-very-lucky parents get for their cool $200K, commencement speaker-wise?

Ms. Clinton (who thankfully had a commencement gown over her traditional pantsuit) chortled through the story of why she chose Yale over Harvard:

Now to be honest [what? are you ever honest?] I had had some trouble making up my mind between Yale and Harvard law schools. Then one day, while we were still in that period of decision making, I was invited to a cocktail party at Harvard for potentially incoming [“INCOMING!” an apt term for the arrival of HRC] law students, where I met a famous law professor.

A friend of mine, a male law student, introduced me to this famous law professor. I mean truly…big three-piece suit, watch-chain.

And my friend said, “Professor, this is Hillary Rodham. She’s trying to decide whether to come here next year or sign up with our closest competitor.”

Now the great man gave me a cool dismissive look [you would know that look, Hill, you’ve perfected it] and said, “Well, first of all we don’t have any close competitors. and secondly, we don’t need any more women at Harvard.”

To which Hillary replied, “Well do you need any cackling witches? (or a word that rhymes with that)”

Actually I made that up. Just kidding. But it sure seemed true to character!

Next Hill regaled the grads with the story of meeting her future husband, William Jefferson Clinton:

I confess, of all the formative experiences that I had at Yale, perhaps none was more significant than the day during my second year when I was cutting through what was then the student lounge with some friends and I saw this tall handsome guy with a beard who looked like a Viking [NO! DON’T disparage all of us Vikings by assigning the nefarious Bubba to our Nordic bloodlines!].

I said to my friend, “Who is that?”

And she said, “That’s Bill Clinton. He’s from Arkansas and that’s all he ever talks about!

Yadda yadda. Just what we never wanted to hear: the Hill and Bill love story, a match not made in heaven, but someplace farther south and scorching hot.

The former FLOTUS also noted an oddly ironic tale:

One day I saw a note about a woman named Marian Wright Edelman a Yale Law School graduate, civil rights activist, who would go on to found the Children’s Defense Fund. Marion was coming back to campus to give a lecture.

I went. I was captivated to hear her talk about using her Yale education to create a head-start program in rural Mississippi. And I wound up working for her that summer.

And the experience opened my eyes to the ways that the law can protect children.

Does that strike you as odd?

Children? As in those little humans that begin life in a supposed safe zone, i.e. the womb?

The proud recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award — Sanger being the loathsome eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood (the organization responsible for the killing of 7.6 million babies since Roe v. Wade — that sure sounds like genocide!) — that same woman wants these grads to believe she is a compassionate grandmother who loves “all the little children of the world.”

Sorry. Can’t swallow that. Jesus loves the little children. Hillary, not so much.

Well, HRC loves the children if they grow up to vote for her. Maybe love is too strong a word, too foreign a word for HRH Misses Clinton? Tolerate might be a more apt word.

The moral of this story?

Nearly every graduate was enraptured by the Queen of Excuses, smiling and laughing at every phrase as though listening to a Mark Twain or Garrison Keillor…oops. Strike the Keillor. Too Bill-like.

You get the point.

Four years of liberal elitist education thoroughly transformed these Yale students into brain-dead Leftist lemmings who hung on Hillary’s every word.

God help us.

And God have mercy on the parents who chose to throw nearly a quarter of a million dollars at a once stellar institution that would invite one-half of the Clinton Deadly Duo to speak at commencement. Thus, sending the grads on their way with her words of wisdom…perverse vanity.

Oh how the Ivies have fallen!

#EpicIvyFail

Clinton Insider: To Keep Hillary from Losing, DNC Quietly Let Russia Hack DNC, Steal Data


Reported By Cillian Zeal | July 16, 2018 at 7:35am

I’ve often heard conspiracy theories bandied about, mostly on the more feverish corners of the internet, that the Clinton family has ways to get those who would talk ill about them to, um, stop talking. I personally don’t buy into these theories, if for no other reason than that Donna Brazile is still hale, hearty and still hurting the Clintons.

Brazile, astute readers will remember, was the former Clinton insider and interim DNC head after Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in the summer of 2016 for, well, reasons. Brazile also shepherded Hillary and her party through through the election. And, when Disasterfest: 2016 was over, Brazile turned around threw Clinton not so much under the bus as under every departure from the Washington, D.C., Greyhound depot.

First, there was an excerpt last year from her then-forthcoming book “Hacks” that let everyone know that the entire apparatus of the DNC was backing Clinton in order to help quash Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign. That was bad enough.

TRENDING: Dem Panic: Page May Seek Immunity Deal To Come Clean on Strzok, McCabe, Even Comey

That book, released in November, continues to haunt Clinton. Just last week, 12 Russians were indicted for breaking into the DNC’s servers in order to steal email, including Hillary Clinton’s. Yet, according to “Hacks,” the DNC knew it was being hacked but kept its servers up anyway because it didn’t want to disrupt the primary process.

“In May, when CrowdStrike recommended that we take down our system and rebuild it, the DNC told them to wait a month, because the state primaries for the presidential election were still underway, and the party and the staff needed to be at their computers to manage these efforts,” Brazile wrote, according to The Daily Caller.

“For a whole month, CrowdStrike watched Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear operating. Cozy Bear was the hacking force that had been in the DNC system for nearly a year.”

Both Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear were cyber-security firms with extensive ties to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Brazile wasn’t at the helm during this period; the primaries ended in June and Wasserman Schultz was still the chairwoman of the DNC until July, when she resigned over the hacks. In other words, top Democrats had been given due warning about being hacked and continued to use the servers for roughly a month or two.

This was all to keep the primaries running apace — and given that this was the DNC, the organization that Brazile has openly admitted did everything in its power to keep Bernie Sanders from winning, it was done so that Hillary Clinton didn’t suffer any more embarrassing primary defeats.

Now, we don’t know what data was stolen between May and June that wouldn’t have been had the servers been disassembled. For all we know, the Russians had everything they needed by the time they were even discovered inside the system. We’ll certainly learn more about that in the coming months.

Or perhaps not: The United States, pursuant to constitutional considerations, doesn’t practice trial in absentia if defendants aren’t available at the beginning of the process. And it seems unlikely Moscow is going to turn over anyone indicted last week.

However, what we do know from Brazile’s book — inasmuch as it can be trusted, given that these sorts of books are given over to self-acquittal and glorification — is that the DNC was flagrantly bad about protecting its data and that it was compromised by foreign actors. We also know that it was used as a de facto arm of the Clinton campaign before she was even nominated.

And now we know how bad things were at the DNC, thanks to Donna Brazile.

Just saying.

Terror Expert on What He Saw Going into Summit: Media Is Completely Off-Base


Reported By Ben Marquis | July 17, 2018 at 12:28pm

There was great consternation and outrage among the media and Democrats — as well as some Republicans — following President Donald Trump’s summit in Helsinki, Finland, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the harsh criticisms and shouts of “treason” from the hard left and NeverTrump right are more than a little disconcerting, they are not the least bit surprising as that sort of reaction has become rather predictable in this day and age.

Indeed, the stage was set ahead of the summit for just such a reaction by the media and Democrats, who displayed their “glaring hypocrisy” with regard to their coverage of Trump’s diplomatic meeting as opposed to the diplomatic meetings held by former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That was the message delivered on “Fox & Friends” on Sunday morning by former U.S. Army Special Forces member and anti-terrorism expert Jim Hanson, who pointed out the disparate ways in which Trump, Obama and Clinton were treated by the establishment and media following their particular dealings with Russia.

Co-host Pete Hegseth began the segment by recalling Clinton’s embarrassing attempt in 2009 to hit the “reset” button with Russia, using a hokey red plastic button that actually had the wrong Russian word printed on it to symbolize the development in U.S./Russian relations.

“And Hillary walks into that meeting asking for nothing with her giant button that actually said ‘overcharge’ in Russian, and she’s telling them, ‘ok, you can have whatever you want from us,’” Hanson said.

“Even a more glaring example was when President Obama was talking to (then-President) Medvedev of the Russian Republic and tells him, ‘after my next election I’ll have more flexibility,‘” he continued.

“Now that is him admitting that he was lying to the American public during that election cycle, and afterwards he would give Russia what they wanted. But yet, where is the outrage? Where is the press saying we should investigate that?” Hanson asked.

Hegseth asked what sort of “flexibility” Obama was referring to in that particular remark, and if it meant allowing Russia to annex Crimea, invade Ukraine or even meddle in our elections.

“All of it, and that’s the problem Pete,” Hanson replied. “You know the entire focus and entire stature of the Obama foreign policy was cringing capitulation, it was ‘America last’ — ‘what do you guys want, what can we give you’ — and it ended up making the world a much more dangerous place.”

“In that case they were actually talking about missile defense, so the security of the entire free world for any attack by any crazed person with missiles — which could have included the Russians — is being put at risk because Obama was willing to go ahead and bow down,” Hanson said.

“And now, the media at that point in time had nothing to say, now President Trump wants to have a less antagonistic relationship with the Russians, maybe get them to stop hurting us with North Korea, stop hurting us in Syria, and all of the sudden it’s the worst thing that ever happened,” he continued.

“It’s glaring hypocrisy,” Hanson concluded, to which Hegseth could only reply, “Absolutely it is, every single day of the week.”

When Obama and Clinton reached out and tried to make nice with Russia, they were applauded by the liberal media and establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle, even as Putin and Russia took full advantage of the naïve good faith extended by Obama and Clinton.

Now Trump is seeking to tone down the harsh rhetoric and smooth out the rough relationship between the U.S. and Russia and he has been attacked and smeared as some sort of Putin puppet that has sold out his own nation by the same folks who cheered similar efforts by Trump’s predecessors.

If that isn’t glaring hypocrisy, nothing is.

KARMA: After Hillary Attacked Trump Border Policy & Said He’s Torturing Kids, She Got an EPIC Dose of Karma


Reported by 

URL of the original posting site: http://www.americanjournalreview.com/hillary-attack-trump-border-policy/

Hillary Clinton recently attacked President Trump for his new “zero tolerance” policy. 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the Trump administration is separating children from their parents at the southern U.S. border and it is a “moral and humanitarian crisis.” President Trump has defended his new immigration policy, which has separated almost 2,000 immigrant children away from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. There have been accounts of children being kept in cages and parents not sure where their children are. 

The separation policy has come under increasingly strong criticism from the left. Hillary Clinton says she warned America during the campaign that this type of situation would happen. However, what people forget to remember is that Hillary ranted about needing to deport immigrant children back in 2014… Now that Trump is president, her entire opinion has changed. 

Reported by subjectpolitics:

Hillary Clinton has joined other liberals the past few days in bashing President Trump for the crisis at the border.  She said,  “every human being with a sense of compassion and decency, should be outraged,” and claimed Trump is “letting children suffer.”

This comes after spending the last 2 years calling Pres. Trump and his supporters “Racist” or “xenophobic” for wanting to enforce immigration laws.

But a video just surfaced that shows how empty Hillary’s words are and exposes her as the vile hypocrite she truly is.

While promoting her book on CNN in 2014, Hillary was asked whether or not children who arrive at our border should be deported or allowed to stay.

Watch this clip then spread it everywhere so we can expose her.

Hillary RANTS about how we have to deport them and “send a clear message” that just because children show up here “doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.” While this is a reasonable opinion shared by most Americans, Hillary Clinton in 2018 would now say that statement is racist.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fnumbersusa%2Fvideos%2F1886936001363086%2F&show_text=0&width=476

“We have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean that child gets to stay.” – Hillary Clinton in 2014

So what changed??  Hmm…

Oh, right. Trump is President so she has to change her opinion completely and blame him for everything.  Liberal playbook 101.

These are some of her tweets from the past few days. Does she not realize we there is video of her previous statements??

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: