Re: Bash "The Bitch" Thread!
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:13 pm
Home of Racing's Best and Brightest
President Trump's approval numbers may be unflatteringly low, but Hillary Clinton's are worse.
In his six months in office, Trump has hit historically bad approval ratings, clocking in at just 39 percent. The media has reminded us of the unflattering polls constantly. However, Bloomberg just reported on a poll that the president is sure to like.
Trump’s 2016 Democratic rival is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans in the latest Bloomberg National Poll, two points lower than the president. It’s the second-lowest score for Clinton since the poll started tracking her in September 2009.
A drill down of the unflattering numbers are worse - even among those who voted for her.
More than a fifth of Clinton voters say they have an unfavorable view of her. By comparison, just 8 percent of likely Clinton voters felt that way in the final Bloomberg poll before the election, and just 6 percent of Trump’s voters now say they view him unfavorably.
Maybe that will keep the mainstream media quiet for awhile.
The Clinton camp's arrogance perhaps accounted for why they ignored much of America's Rust Belt and preferred the company of liberal elites in major cities. She was the first major party nominee since 1972 to ignore Wisconsin - and she paid for it. Compound her neglectful campaign schedule with her ever changing email story, and you can see why voters said no thanks.
Instead of humbling herself and taking the majority of the blame for defeat, Clinton has thrown just about everyone else under the bus. She has claimed that the email investigation, sexism, and a "bankrupt" Democratic National Committee accounted for her loss.
If voters weren't turned off to her during the campaign, they certainly are now.
Would she have fared any better as president?
From THIS article.
The List Rev ABack in May of this year, we heard news that a Republican operative had been found dead. Now, months later, more of the story is coming to light.
As reported in The Chicago Tribune:
A Republican donor and operative from Chicago’s North Shore who said he had tried to obtain Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from Russian hackers killed himself in a Minnesota hotel room days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his efforts, public records show.
In mid-May, in a room at a Rochester hotel used almost exclusively by Mayo Clinic patients and relatives, Peter W. Smith, 81, left a carefully prepared file of documents, including a statement police called a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and a life insurance policy was expiring.
Furthermore, we now have access to the contents of the suicide note left behind:
A former employee of Mr. Smith told the Tribune that he had chosen to go to the Mayo Clinic to address a heart condition, but the Clinic itself was unable to confirm due to privacy laws.In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that “NO FOUL PLAY WHATSOEVER” was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a “RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017” and timing related “TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5 MILLION EXPIRING.”
Last year, Smith had put together a team in order to acquire the emails that the team believed had been stolen off of the private server that Hillary Clinton had used while she was still the Secretary of State under Obama, in particular the 30,000 emails that Clinton had deleted. The deleted emails were claimed to all have been personal in nature, while many other emails were made available online.
Smith had just given an interview before his death, describing why he was so interested in finding these emails. He told a reporter that he was not a part of the Trump campaign and that he thought that the missing emails had been picked up by Russian hackers, and that the emails were not personal but rather had to do with Clinton’s official job duties. At the time of the interview, just a few days before his death, he said that his team had found five different groups of hackers (two of these groups were Russian) that were claiming to be in possession of Hillary’s missing emails.
And to make things even more suspicious, before his death Smith posted two blog posts:
One argued against American intelligence reports that Russia had interfered with the election and the other blog post said that due to other concerns, the Russian hacking story will “die of its own weight.”
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced that on August 8, 2017, D.C. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ordered the State Department “to search the state.gov e-mail accounts of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jacob Sullivan,” former aides of Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. The State Department is ordered to search in those accounts “for records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] March 4, 2015, FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request.” (A separate Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit first broke open the Clinton email scandal.)
Judge Mehta described Judicial Watch’s Clinton Benghazi FOIA lawsuit as “a far cry from a typical FOIA case. Secretary Clinton used a private e-mail server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as Secretary of State.” Further:
f an e-mail did not involve any state.gov user, the message would have passed through only the Secretary’s private server and, therefore, would be beyond the immediate reach of State. Because of this circumstance, unlike the ordinary case, State could not look solely to its own records systems to adequately respond to [Judicial Watch’s] demand.
[The State Department] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov e-mail server. If Secretary Clinton sent an e-mail about Benghazi to Abedin, Mills, or Sullivan at his or her state.gov e-mail address, or if one of them sent an e-mail to Secretary Clinton using his or her state.gov account, then State’s server presumably would have captured and stored such an e-mail. Therefore, State has an obligation to search its own server for responsive records.
State has offered no assurance that the three record compilations it received [from Secretary Clinton and her aides], taken together, constitute the entirety of Secretary Clinton’s e-mails during the time period relevant to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request. Absent such assurance, the court is unconvinced “beyond material doubt” that a search of the state.gov accounts of Abedin, Mills and Sullivan is “unlikely to produce any marginal return.”
Accordingly, the court finds that State has not met its burden of establishing it performed an adequate search in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA Request and orders State to conduct a supplemental search of the state.gov e-mail accounts of Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan.
“This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal – and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it – as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is remarkable that we had to battle both the Obama and Trump administrations to break through the State Department’s Benghazi stonewall. Why are Secretary Tillerson and Attorney General Sessions wasting taxpayer dollars protecting Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration?”
Judicial Watch asked a federal court to compel the Trump State Department to undertake a thorough search of all emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the terrorist attack on Benghazi, including those of Clinton’s closest advisors. Judicial Watch also specifically asked the court to compel the agency to produce all records of communications between Clinton and top aide Jake Sullivan relating to Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” the Sunday following the 2012 Benghazi massacre.
The State Department has until September 22, 2017, to update the court on the status of the supplemental search and production of additional emails to Judicial Watch.
On May 6, 2015, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit when the State Department failed to respond to a March 4, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00692)), seeking:
All emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton relating to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The timeframe for this request is September 11, 2012 to January 31, 2013.
The part about the video that's really funny is she insinuates that Trump was trying to "do something" with her??? Yup, a WTF moment for sure especially when you look at Trump's Trophy wife!! I wouldn't "boink" "The Bitch" with YOUR ddick and I'd bet that Trump wouldn't either! Gauwd, the thought of that makes me want to puke !1989TransAm wrote:Lock her up, lock her up.
The List Rev AIn a letter from Senator Chuck Grassley to new FBI Director Christopher Wray (full pdf below) the senator outlines some disturbing information discovered in documents reviewed by the judicial committee.
Chief among the issues was a discovery that fired FBI Director James Comey had already drafted a preliminary conclusion that Hillary Clinton was not going to be held responsible; the FBI Director’s position was created in April and May 2016 before sixteen key investigative witnesses, including Mrs. Clinton herself, were even interviewed.
The revelations within the documents provides even more evidence that FBI Director James Comey was running a political investigation and using the FBI to cover-up for the Clinton email crimes.
WASHINGTON DC – […] The Judiciary Committee reviewed transcripts, which were heavily redacted, indicating Comey began drafting the exoneration statement in April or May 2016, before the FBI interviewed up to 17 key witnesses, including Clinton and some of her close aides.
Comey’s work on the statement also came before the Justice Department entered into immunity agreements with Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff while she was Secretary of State, and Heather Samuelson, who served as the State Department’s White House liaison.
Comey announced in July 2016 the FBI wouldn’t recommend criminal charges against Clinton.
Democrats in Congress alleged last fall that Comey’s actions in the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email use violated the Hatch Act, which caused the Office of Special Counsel to launch an investigation. (Read More)
And you can see the PDF documents HERE.