[CNSnews] Seventeen years ago, as a Republican-controlled Senate concluded its impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., expressed her concerns about how future generations would perceive what had happened.
Feinstein -- along with every other Senate Democrat and five Republicans -- voted on Feb. 12, 1999 that Clinton was "not guilty" of either of the two Articles of Impeachment the House brought against him.
"Clinton acquitted but tarnished forever by impeachment," said an Associated Press headline the next day.
"[T]he Senate, with Democrats solidly in his camp, acquitted him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice," said the AP story.
But Feinstein had recruited 37 other senators, including some Republicans, to co-sponsor a resolution she hoped the Senate would pass to "censure" Clinton.
"[D]uring these trying days," Feinstein said, according to the Congressional Record, "the question has been asked of many of us: 'What will we tell our children about this sordid period in our Nation's history?'"
New York City's WPIX aired a round up segment Monday morning on Sunday's presidential debate, and ended it with the reporter and the morning show anchors taking photos with disposable cameras.
The report made note that electronic cameras were banned from the event at Washington University in St. Louis.
"Whoa, gah," reporter Kirsten Cole said as the flash went off in her eyes. "This is why it was banned apparently. "The Secret Service did not trust people to disable the flashes on they’re cameras, and they were afraid it would sort of inspire Hillary’s seizure disorder."
The female anchor looked stunned.
"Wow, I did not know," she said.
Debate attendees were ridiculed on Twitter for using the archaic technology.
#9
During the 2nd debate, Hillary looked on the verge of flipping out without the phone cameras. She appeared rattled. She has never had to deal with someone like Trump--she was hoping for the usual p*$sy boys to show up this election. P*$sy is used as a modifier here, not a noun.
#12
black, womyn, gay are all public employees/welfare recipients?
I read that as an additional characteristic of the present and would-be next presidents, g(r)omgoru, not a general description of those sets of the population. Certainly gay men as a group have a much higher income range than the general public, and do not cluster in governemnt employment.
#16
The disaster is going to happen, we gotta mitigate down ticket and wait for the implosion after the election. I don't think Bill is up to being Mr. Stand in. We will see. Crap I wish I could live to be a hundred and read about the next 8 years, it's going to be hilarious, ugly and existentialy dangerous.
#17
#3 The Progressives are checking off the boxes with each election: black (2008, 2012 check), womyn (2016, check), gay (check, already got that one)
I only meant that the left is enamored with electing a POTUS who is from one of their usually constituent groups which they deem politically correct. We got Obama in 2008 and 2012 because a great number of people thought that would be "cool." They want to elect a womyn because we have not yet had a woman and it is time for a woman. Next a gay POTUS but then I thought well, maybe we've already got one. Same with welfare recipient, Muslim, etc. In their minds, no white men are allowed anymore.
#18
Crap I wish I could live to be a hundred and read about the next 8 years, it's going to be hilarious, ugly and existentialy dangerous.
I think Shipman is correct about the existential dangers of the next 8 years. If Hillary wins, she will be crippled as the result of the run up to the election and all the criminal crap and incessant lying she has engaged in--she will be all-the-more dangerous to her enemies (here and abroad). We have already seen what is like weaponizing the government against citizens under an Obama regime. The IRS goes after enemies and the DOJ presents roadblocks to justice. She will have trouble governing. Trump, if elected, will likely be fighting internal struggles with RINOS should which will make it hard for him to govern.
[WAPO] It was not one of the 2016 primary's major moments.
At a CNN-TV One town hall event on March 13, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton went face to face with Ricky Jackson, a man who was wrongly convicted of murder in 1975. He was just a teenager then.
His exoneration came after spending 39 years in prison. His question for Clinton: "I came perilously close to my own execution, and in light of that, what I have just shared with you and in light of the fact that there are documented cases of innocent people who have been executed in our country, I would like to know, how can you still take your stance on the death penalty in light of what we know right now?"
Clinton responded at length, expressing a lack of confidence that the states could capably manage the ultimate penalty. However: "Where I end up is this, and maybe it is distinction that is hard to support, but at this point, given the challenges we face from terrorist activities primarily in our country that end up under federal jurisdiction for very limited purposes, I think that it can still be held in reserve for those," said the candidate.
On the campaign trail, candidates need to be ready for any sort of question -- and perhaps Clinton had a bit of extra preparation for this one. In a leaked trove of emails concerning Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, there appears one with the heading, "From time to time I get the questions in advance." The email was written by Donna Brazile, who was then a CNN contributor and a reputable Democratic strategist. Here’s the text of the email, which was sent a day before the town hall:
Con't.
#1
Its comical how we continue to pretend to discuss tiny elements of the big picture.
We either believe that there are (multiple) external enemies (and with it, internal supporters), or we don't.
If we believe that, one candidate seems to take that possibility more seriously than the other.
If we don't eliminate that possibility, then what good could ever come from having the backing of the Chamber of Commerce when we're all dead and buried?
I don't even pretend to understand why some otherwise "normal" people consider this to be a hard calculation to make.
#2
Points taken, Crusader, but I'm just wondering how many men she had to blow to get the DNC chair. I'm betting lots. I'll stop it right there, 'cuz I'll get banned otherwise on certain protein ingestion speculation.
I cannot stand these obviously corrupt to the core SOB's any longer.
#10
Yes, and sometimes confidential corporate information of publicly-traded companies makes its way into inappropriate hands.
If action (trading) takes place as a result of this information received, it becomes a criminal matter. At least in the fantasy world of law and order.
[The Last Refuge] Excerpt - We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed "Operation Zero Footprint" that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.
This is lengthy (and yet unconfirmed) but it is the most detailed treatment of events in Benghazi that I have read to date. Recent revelations and claims from (alleged) gun dealer Marc Turi appear to corroborate this story. Among many others, House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman ‐ Mike Rogers (Rep) appears on the list of people 'read on' to Operation Zero Footprint.
The irony here is, it would appear Benghazi is actually HRC's ticket to the White House. Her illness will insulate her from attack. An eventual succumbing to the illness will provide much sympathy, a plausible scapegoat, as well as convenient closure to the 'operation.'
Manuscript undoubtedly in development. Stand by for info on Premium Memberships.
Emails taken from the inbox of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, and published this week by WikiLeaks shed light on the campaign's efforts to confuse voters by blurring the lines between separate controversies over Benghazi and her private email use.
For example, one Oct. 2015 email from Oren Shur, Clinton's director of paid media, showed the campaign used a focus group to test whether voters would believe their attempts to paint the two scandals as one and the same.
"I feel like we really need to understand whether voters will believe that we can credibly conflate Benghazi and emails," Shur wrote to a group of high-level campaign aides.
Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, expressed his optimism that the message could "cut through" the "crap they hear about her on the news" with the message Shur proposed for ads slated to run in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The conversations took place just weeks ahead of Clinton's highly-anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, where she testified for 11 hours about her role in handling the 2012 terror attack.
Later, when pressed to explain her misstatements about the email controversy amid an expanding criminal investigation, Clinton consistently pointed to her Benghazi testimony as evidence that she had already answered for her emails.
The two controversies are unrelated.
Shur's email, which was published by WikiLeaks on Tuesday, was not the only indication that the Clinton campaign tried to make the email scandal disappear inside the Benghazi probe.
In a conversation from March of last year, Podesta told aides to steer the media's attention back to the House Benghazi investigation, which the campaign had already framed as a Republican witch hunt. Witch hunt? You be the judge. Cold, calculating and devious, conniving and dishonest. No doubt on that one. One could almost believe the left/Dems are the enemy of all Americans (sarc).
#1
I am beginning to see the advantages of Wikileaks.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/12/2016 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When "Shadow governments" operate without transparency, WikiLeaks dumps are helpful. Podesta claims his emails were "altered" and Hillary said the Russians did the hacking. That said, I don't see a lot of people on the left denying they said what is in WikiLeaks.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[CNSnews] Seventeen years ago, as a Republican-controlled Senate concluded its impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., expressed her concerns about how future generations would perceive what had happened.
New York City's WPIX aired a round up segment Monday morning on Sunday's presidential debate, and ended it with the reporter and the morning show anchors taking photos with disposable cameras.
