At least some of it is funny:In the State Department email scandal a Former U.S. attorney says Clinton could face criminal indictment. Though why anyone would think this Justice Department would actually enforce those particular laws, when they have decided to not enforce whole areas of law is a mystery; but hey, cling to hope. Apparently, the Clinton cabal had very little cyber-security training, as the State Department has narrowed down the number of relevant cyber-security documents responsive to an CEI FOIA suit for information on Hillary, Huma and Cheryl's (to name a few) cyber-security training from 38,000 to get this, 1. What, one reminder to take the online cyber-security course that the mail room employees also take? It certainly makes their plea of ignorance more believable. Meanwhile the latest revelation from Hillary's last email dump is that she Met At State Department With Sidney Blumenthal, who had been banned from her State Dept. staff, but who was on her payroll at Clinton.com as a consigliere.
Althouse blogs about how The WaPo Fact Checker checks "What Benghazi family members say Hillary Clinton said about the video" and comes up empty. Instead of Pinocchios, we're left with "No Rating": Apparently Glenn Kessler's standard is that if she didn't say it to all the families on film, it's unknown. However, we have Hillary on
Michael Bay, of Transformers and Pearl Harbor fame is doing a movie about the Benghazi attack called "13 Hours". Hillary Clinton receives no mention it. For all the good that she did, that may be appropriate. As far as we know, she was sleeping of a drunk while Benghazi burned, and her personal friend Ambassador Chris Stevens was being shot at, smothered in smoke and then raped after death.
Why Hillary Can’t Shake Bill’s Affairs. Because she publicly claimed Bill's innocence, and verbally and legally attacked the women who made claims against him. And now she proclaims that all women who accuse men have a right to be believed. What ‘buy one, get one free’ really means with the Clintons.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton are skillful spinners of their record, but as the campaign grinds on to the November election, some voters may weary of the potential for history to repeat itself with them. When you vote for a Clinton, you do indeed “buy one and get one free.” And both of then have shown through their past misbehavior that they carry with them a substantial danger that they will bring the exact opposite of dignity and honor to the Oval Office.Bill Clinton Privately Mocked Paula Jones as an Attention-Seeking ‘Floozy’. It seems to be his type. But now Hillary is keeping the "Big Dog" on a short leash with a prong collar:
It was a muted Bill Clinton who stumped for his wife in New Hampshire on Monday.Altouse comments The big dog that didn't bark.
Only a few weeks back, Mr. Clinton was thought to be Hillary Clinton’s “secret weapon.” Well, he has just made his first two appearances of the 2016 campaign—and the Associated Press describes him as “subdued,” while the New York Times says he “seemed to be on a tight leash.”
Not to mention how adrift he looked when a reporter asked him about Donald Trump’s slams about his treatment of women.
Very little coverage of that Bill Clinton rally yesterday. What's up? What does the press silence mean?We know he has no shame, so it has to be a tactic. One notable comment that Bill did make was to describe "the ideas and work ethic of immigrants as potential “meal tickets” for the American economy". Which is true, as far as it goes, but not a cogent argument for open borders. A commentor at Althouse suggests that women attend Bill Clinton speech attending mattresses, Althouse suggests that is not appropriate because Lewinsky didn't need one. So they suggest knee-pads and or cigars. Meanwhile Bill’s female 'fan club' backfires: As Hillary Clinton’s husband hits stump for the first time the women on stage behind him scowl, grimace and look like they'd rather be ANYWHERE else. Ace is pissed that the media refuses to discuss The Jeffrey Epstein Case (What the Media Thought the Duke Lacrosse and UVA Frat Cases Were). So Why Aren't They Covering it?
I wrote about it yesterday, here, thinking I'd have a transcript to work from later, but I can barely find anything.
The NYT has 2 write-ups by Patrick Healy (one a "first draft" and the other more fleshed out): "Bill Clinton, in Restrained Mode, Returns to Campaign Trail in New Hampshire." and "Bill Clinton, the Subdued Spouse, Makes His Campaign Debut."
Jeffrey Epstein took a plea after being charged with paying underage girls for sex -- statutory rape in Florida. This plea involved the slap on the wrist sentence of 13 months -- and he got to spend his waking hours at his Palm Beach mansion. That is, he only had to check into his "jail" eight hours a day.On a lighter side, and speaking of two for the price of one, did you know that Bill Clinton believes we've been visited by aliens, and Hillary Clinton talks to ghosts? Hillary promises to look into Area 51. I'm sure the Air Force brass is thrilled. The party of science, doncha know.
. . .
Why no interest in a case in which federal prosecutors fought to hide the easy-peasy conditions of the sentence from the underage victims?
Well, take a guess. It involves Bill Clinton palling around with Epstein, taking the Lolita Express to Pedophile Island, and local Democrat prosecutors who don't seem as interested in a Democrat mega-donor's statutory rape as they were in Rush Limbaugh's pain pill addiction.
Just remember, Clinton takes credit for Obama gun plans. Both Clinton and Obama would happily gut the 2nd amendment. It's just that Obama also likes having the issue, and given his semi-retired status and intrinsic laziness, he really just won't do very much. Hillary, the other hand, may do badly but she makes up for that by trying hard. A Clinton Administration will be much worse on this issue.
And finally, a reminder of how the Clinton.com Clinton Foundation Money Laundering Scheme works:
1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case one in Canada.These are deeply crooked people. Under no circumstances should they be allow access to power in the United States.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did — contributing mega millions. I’m sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted. As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting U.S. security t risk.
5. The Clinton Foundation then spends some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Experts estimate that The Clinton Foundation has donated no more than 15 percent of the donations to charitable pursuits. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton’s lavish salaries, and lavish lifestyle, particularly travel, and virtually all tax free. In on year alone, the foundation spent over $8 million in travel expenses.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result — foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.
If you’re still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton’s, ask yourself these questions: Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?