Search Results

I’M PRETTY SURE SHE WAS ALREADY INFECTED: Christie: Clinton caught ‘disease’ of lawlessness from Obama White House.

Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) said on Sunday that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is careless for using a private email server at the State Department.

“No one is above the law,” Christie told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Unfortunately with the Obama administration, there has been lawlessness in this country,” said Christie, a 2016 GOP presidential contender. “Apparently Hillary Clinton has caught this disease as well.”

Christie argued on Sunday that Clinton’s actions as secretary of State flaunted her disregard for the laws governing transparency and national security.

He added that she is now presenting a haughty attitude while defending her technology habits on the 2016 campaign trail.

Well, that’s certainly true.

JONATHAN LAST: Hillary Is In The Zone Of Maximum Danger. “It’s never good when a candidate is being linked to an ongoing FBI investigation, as Clinton is with her private State Department email system. And you can see this in Clinton’s poll numbers with Democratic primary voters: She’s gone from 63 percent in late July to 49 percent today. She’s not just sub-50 percent right now, but at her lowest ebb since a year ago and with a surging Bernie Sanders, who’s at 25 percent and climbing.”

DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY: Sanders: DNC using debates to rig primary.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes the Democratic Party is using its meager primary debate line-up to rig the nomination process.

“I do,” Sanders reportedly responded when asked Friday whether he agrees with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s assertion that the debate schedule is “rigged.”

The two Democratic presidential candidates were speaking at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Summer Meeting in Minneapolis on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” O’Malley said in his speech earlier Friday.

The DNC has drawn criticism for scheduling only four debates before the early primary states cast their votes, and six total throughout the election cycle.

Hillary performs badly in debates, so the process was structured to protect her.

SHARK SANDWICH: “2016: The Coming Train Wreck,” as spotted by “Comrade” Robert Kuttner (as Mickey Kaus likes to call him) at the Huffington Post, mixing his metaphors in Dan Aykroyd’s Super-Bass-O-Matic ’76 blender as he flails about to warn his fellow lefties of the danger on the horizon:

And a self-declared socialist [curiously, Kuttner sounds like he doesn't mean that as a compliment -- Ed] could defeat her in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even as she tacks left to excite the base, there is no way she can out-Sanders Sanders.

If she could just vault over the rest of the pack and claim the nomination, as she hoped when she declared her candidacy, Hillary Clinton might still be a strong nominee. But that’s not going to happen. As best, the fight for eventual nomination will be a long slog, with Clinton in the role of piñata.

As sharks are drawn to blood in the water, Hillary’s miseries are attracting other candidates. The latest is Joe Biden.

There is much that is admirable in Biden; but if anyone will be a weaker candidate than a wounded Clinton, it has to be Biden.

The man will be 74 years old on Election Day. That’s five years older than Ronald Reagan was at the time of his first election, and Reagan’s age was a liability in the campaign. Clinton, like Reagan will be 69 — youthful next to Biden.

Worse, Biden has proven himself on two occasions, 1988 and 2008, to be a dreadful presidential candidate. He has been a competent vice president, but that is no reason to think that he will be a more effective candidate now than in his previous outings. But he could well draw off enough of the anybody-but-Hillary support to make the nomination quest even more of an ordeal.

And if Biden gets in, others may. Well-placed sources say John Kerry is tempted. He’s been a surprisingly good secretary of state. But he blew a very winnable election in 2004. Like Biden, he’s a better public official than a candidate.*

Can you imagine the geriatric Democratic field? Sanders and Biden at 74, maybe Kerry at 73, and the young sprite of the pack, Hillary Clinton at 69. Jesus wept!

Gosh, how did that happen? As Jeff Greenfield warned last week at the Politico, “Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression—even if Hillary wins.” And the Huffington Post went all in to nominate him in 2008.

Speaking of which, going forward, why would anyone want to vote for a woman whom the Huffington Post described as a stone cold racist in 2008, along with her core Democrat supporters?

* Kuttner really is a vicious man, isn’t he?

(Via James Taranto and Iowahawk who add, “If someone offers you the role of piñata in a hard slog, beware of sharks.” “Especially when you’re a shark slog piñata in a coming train wreck.”)

HILLARY: THESE REPUBLICANS WANT TO ROUND UP ILLEGALS AND PUT THEM IN “BOXCARS:” Say, is this first Godwin’s Law violation of the 2016 campaign? It won’t be the last:

Via Mediaite, a little Nazi allusion to go with yesterday’s terrorism slur from someone who once said, as a United States senator, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Not only was she adamantly against illegal immigrants, she called for creating a national entry/exit ID card to keep track of people who’ve been admitted to the country legally — and maybe not just those people. Quote: “Although I’m not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

Hillary’s prior support for cracking down on illegals will come up during this campaign, rest assured, although we’ve learned from the gay-marriage debate that Democratic voters have a seemingly limitless capacity for forgiving ideological heresies. (Then again, as we’re seeing with Trumpmania, so do Republican voters.) Here’s a Daily Beast reporter watching an RNC oppo researcher hard at work sifting through archives in the Clinton Library:

Today is already a good day.

He found something while perusing through the first lady’s press office records: an old interview in which she appears to talk about the importance of keeping undocumented immigrants out of the country.

“It’s a complete change from what she’s trying to do now where she wants everybody to come in—it’s just something we could possibly hit on,” he says.

So for our Orwellian would-be next president, Republicans have gone in short succession from being “terrorists” on abortion because they’re pro-choice to Nazis on illegal immigration. This flailing about is not the look of someone who knows she has the election locked up.

What’s next, ISIS comparisons? Oh right:


RELATED: Did I say “locked up?” Perhaps I wasn’t referring to the Democratic nomination: “We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Stray Voltage: Hillary Clinton Now Being Investigated Under the Espionage Act.”

LIBERAL MEDIA REFUSES TO REPORT TRUTH ABOUT TRUMP’S EVENT… SO TRUMP SHOWS THEM UP WITH VIDEO: And note that Hillary is now starting to publicly humiliate reporters as well, following the Trump model. But since most of them are her non-official campaign staff – to borrow from the phrase used on Ezra Klein’s JournoList in 2008 when the media went all in to elect Obama, they’ll happily go along with the kabuki.

DOES HILLARY CLINTON THINK BILL CLINTON’S PRESIDENCY WAS A DISASTER? That’s a quite a needle she’s going to have to thread — appealing to moderate voters by running on the happy fun time memories of the 1990s, while denouncing all of her husband’s relatively centrist policies that helped make them happen, in order to placate her hard left base.


In 2008, the Democratic Party in the U.S. nominated one of its youngest candidates ever, and its first African-American. Everyone assumed that the choice of Barack Obama, 47, meant a new day and a new era.

But seven years later, the party’s 2016 contest is shaping up as a battle of aging white Baby Boomers for control of an ancient organization desperately in need of a fresh identity and a new wave of ideas, leaders and voters (though Hillary would be the first woman to win the nomination).

Democrats like to brag that they have been in continuous operation for two centuries, longer than any other major political party in the free world.

It certainly feels like it. . . .

If Biden is to have a chance, he’ll have to somehow reach out to minority voters, who so far seem cool to or even estranged from Sanders and Clinton.

He’d also have to somehow reach out to a new version of the party that is out there waiting to be born. It is a yet-to-be-defined mashup of Black Lives Matter; pro-immigration activism; non-European cultural consciousness; tolerance of all religions, lifestyles and genders; genuine urgency about the fate of the planet; confidence in technology, social media and the sharing economy; and skepticism about America’s right, power and duty to lead the world.

Forging and leading that new coalition is not going to be easy, no matter what your age. It seems unlikely that the Three Musketeers of the Baby Boom can do it.

To paraphrase the Rolling Stones from 1964, time isn’t on their side.

As Richard Fernandez comments:

In the wake of worldwide trends it may be reasonable to ask whether Fineman hasn’t got his compass exactly upside down. Suppose his poles are reversed and his vision of the Democratic Party hoping to be born is actually the one waiting to die. How would that change the calculus?

The actual world of 2015 is the image negative of Fineman’s dream.

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

ACTUALLY, IT’S JUST SINCE 2008: “The long, slow death of the rule of law in America.”

The most disturbing aspect of the scandal around Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure as secretary of state is not the former first lady’s penchant for secrecy. . . .What’s truly unsettling is that it has been widely taken as read among both the media and the general public that Mrs. Clinton will likely avoid serious legal consequences for her behavior because the Justice Department is ultimately answerable to President Obama – and Democrats will not use the instruments of government to destroy one of their own. Whether that eventually proves true, the sentiment itself reveals a troubling trend in American politics. . . .

While this trend has been at work for decades – you can thank both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton for hastening the decline – it has reached escape velocity during the Obama years. The Justice Department, for example, already took a pass on prosecuting Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the scandal in which conservative groups were singled out for special scrutiny by the federal government on the basis of their political beliefs. If there’s anything that ought to be a matter of consensus in American politics, it’s that holding the reins of power doesn’t give you carte blanche to turn the power of the state against your partisan rivals. Yet Ms. Lerner, having done that very thing, doesn’t seem to be much worse for the wear.

This hands-off trend isn’t limited by any means to the DOJ. Consider the current debate over the nuclear deal with Iran. By any reasonable reading, the agreement should have been presented to Congress as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to take effect. The White House, however, has refused to classify it as such, leaving Congress to haggle its way into an arrangement whereby the president can have his way with the support of just one-third of either house of Congress. . . .

That’s the organizing precept of this era in American politics: The rules apply until they put those in power at a disadvantage. Because we’ve arrived at this point incrementally, perhaps we’re not conscious of how sweeping the transformation is. So let’s be clear about what’s at stake: This is a wholesale abandonment of the foundational American principle of the rule of law.

Yep. The rule of law has been D.O.A. since 2008. It has suffered some injuries and insults prior to the Obama Administration, of course, but somehow it survived because both political parties seemed to care about it. That’s just no longer the case for the majority of Democrats today, who repeatedly vote for party interests over the  rule of law.

The only real question is whether, assuming a Republican wins the White House in 2016, can the rule of law be revived through some prolonged CPR? Or are we past the point of no return? Time will tell.

TANNED, RESTED, READY: Biden donors lying in wait.

Major fundraisers for Joe Biden’s past campaigns have not committed to Hillary Clinton, leaving the vice president’s allies convinced he can win the financial support necessary to challenge her.

Biden would face a financial giant in the Clinton campaign, which has won over many of President Obama’s fundraisers and already had a vast financial network.

But a number of big donors with ties to Biden have not thrown their support to the Democratic frontrunner.

And Clinton, who already faces an unexpectedly tough challenge from liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has seen doubts creep into her campaign as she has dealt with the controversy surrounding her use of a private email account as secretary of State.

“If VP Biden decides to run I will support him 100 percent,” New York attorney Richard J. Davis, a campaign bundler for Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign, told The Hill. Davis is a long-term Democratic supporter who served as assistant secretary of the Treasury Department during the Carter Administration.

The organization urging Biden to run for President – Draft Biden 2016 – would not comment specifically on its fundraising challenges.

I’m sure Hillary is thrilled.

TROLL LEVEL: GRANDMASTER. “Snooty Californian Wine Train Liberals Horrified By Black Book Club,” writes Milo Yiannopoulos.

But considering the amount of racism in the left-dominated TV news industry, in Hollywood (just ask any leftwing movie critic), and in other leftwing enclaves such as Manhattan (just ask Ta-Nehisi Coates), Chicago (as Michelle Obama herself has noted), Washington, and particularly among Hillary Clinton and her supporters, perhaps it’s time for the left to take a good hard look in the mirror about its rampant structural racism.

I’m sure MSNBC, aka “Jim Crow TV,” will get right on this topic.


CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Hillary Pulls In Contributions From Twice As Many Lobbyists As Nearest Candidate.

In early March, lobbyists were fretting over whether Hillary Clinton would allow K Street contributions to flow into her campaign. Now, Hillary is leading the pack when it comes to money pouring in from Washington-based lobbyists.

Hillary tops not just her Democratic rivals, but also Republicans. In fact, her nearest threat to K Street donations received contributions from half as many lobbyists as she did thus far into the election cycle.

Remember, she’s running as the candidate of the middle class.



“Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together…Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

Hollywood mogul David Geffen, via Drudge.

MARC THIESSEN: An Ominous Precedent For Hillary Clinton. “Hillary Clinton likes to point out that she is not the first senior national security official to conduct official business on a home computer system. She’s right about that, but the precedent should not give the Democratic presidential front-runner much comfort. Former CIA director John Deutch was also found to have stored classified documents — including top-secret intelligence — on computers in his homes in Bethesda and Belmont, Mass., leading to an investigation by the CIA inspector general and a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. Deutch was stripped of his security clearance and ended up reaching a plea agreement admitting to his crimes — but was saved by a last-minute pardon from none other than . . . President Bill Clinton. The parallels between the Deutch and Clinton cases suggest that come January 2017, instead of planning her presidential transition, Clinton may find herself lobbying for a last-minute pardon of her own.”

To be fair, I think her plan is to pardon herself.

BLOGGINGHEADS: Matt Lewis: Hillary Doesn’t Have Bill’s Talent For Escaping Scandal. “I think she looks fake, she looks phony. . . . a grandmother who’s not hip, who’s screeching.”

THE BRIDE AT EVERY WEDDING, THE CORPSE AT EVERY FUNERAL: White House won’t rule out Obama primary endorsement.

The White House on Monday said President Obama may offer an endorsement in the Democratic primary, which could pit his former secretary of State against his vice president.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the party’s nomination, but Vice President Biden is looking at the race.

“I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of an endorsement during the Democratic primary,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday.

But Earnest offered few clues about which candidate the president might ultimately endorse.

“I have indicated that the president does plan to vote in the Illinois primary, and that ultimately it will be Democratic voters who are responsible for choosing the Democratic nominee,” he said.

The spokesman heaped praise on Biden, reiterating Obama’s decision to make Biden his running mate “was the smartest decision that he’d ever made in politics.”

He also said there is “no one in American politics today” who better understands what it takes to run for president than Biden, who has run twice previously for the nation’s highest office.

Citing Biden’s own end-of-summer deadline to make a decision, Earnest said he expects the vice president to make a decision within the next month.

He also cited Obama’s “respect, appreciation and admiration” of Clinton’s service as secretary of State.

If I were Hillary, I’d be nervous.

WAR ON WOMEN: Fiorina supporters slam ‘ludicrous’ CNN debate methodology.

Carly Fiorina supporters are criticizing CNN’s debate criteria that could prevent the former Hewlett-Packard CEO from grabbing a spot on the main stage at the second debate despite her surging poll numbers.

They say that CNN’s decision to include polls from before the first presidential debate will work against Fiorina, who didn’t make the main stage at the Aug. 6 Fox News debate in Cleveland but surged after a strong performance during the undercard debate.

“Ludicrous,” was how Katie Hughes, communications director for CARLY for America super-PAC supporting Fiorina’s campaign, termed it.

“The political class is *still* trying to keep her off the main debate stage, if you can believe that,” argued Sarah Isgur Flores, Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager, in a fundraising email to supporters on Friday.

A CNN spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

A cynic might conclude that this is CNN protecting Hillary. Hillary’s only claim to fame, after all, is that she has a vagina. To admit that there’s another woman in the race would undercut her.

SOMEHOW, THIS HEADLINE PUT ME IN MIND OF WORMTONGUE: Left whispers to Warren: It’s not too late to run.

Liberal activists and strategists argue Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would be beating Hillary Clinton in the polls by now if she had opted to run for president as a champion of Wall Street reform.

At a time when nervous Democrats are eyeing 72-year-old Vice President Biden and former Vice President Al Gore — who left office 15 years ago — as potential alternatives, some liberals say it’s not too late for Warren to jump in.

Related: Jerry Brown: I ‘don’t know’ if Hillary is nominee.

Come on, Jerry, jump in! There’s always room for another septuagenarian of pallor in today’s Democratic Party!

IT ALWAYS IS: “So now it’s Instapundit’s fault?”

YA THINK? Howard Dean: Hillary email answers too ‘lawyerly.’

SCOPING OUT POTENTIAL RIVALS: Biden meets with Warren in Washington. Joe Biden is ramping up his overt exploration of taking on Hillary Clinton for the Democrats’ presidential nomination. He met with the Godfather Sen. Elizabeth Warren yesterday at the VP’s mansion in DC:

Warren and Biden discussed economic policy during a meeting that lasted about two hours, a person familiar with the discussion told CNN, adding that the presidential campaign or Biden’s future was not a particular focus of the discussion.

The meeting, confirmed by two people familiar with the session, is the biggest indication yet that Biden is feeling out influential Democrats before announcing his intentions.

Beloved by liberal Democrats, Warren decided to sit out a campaign of her own, but she has yet to formally endorse a candidate. In an interview on Friday, she told WBZ in Boston: “I don’t think anyone has been anointed.”

Other than kissing Warren’s ring, I’m sure Biden wants to make sure Fauxcahontas isn’t pondering throwing her own bow and arrow into the ring. I kind of like the idea of a scintillating Sanders-Chafee ticket once Hillary is indicted.

INSIDE: ONE OF HILLARY’S EMAILS. World’s oldest message in a bottle ever found finally washes up after 108 years.

A TALE OF TWO MEDIA SOURCES: Donald Trump’s last minute decision to change the venue of a political rally in Mobile, Alabama has caused some outlets in the mainstream media to fully reveal their inability to report simple facts without mind-numbing spin. CNN, to their credit, seems to have (mostly) resisted the urge with “30,000 turn out for Trump’s Alabama pep rally“:

The event was previously planned to be held at the nearby Civic Center but was moved to the 43,000-seat Ladd-Peebles Stadium — a venue normally home to high school football games — to accommodate the crowd. The City of Mobile confirmed late Friday that 30,000 people attended.

At least CNN accurately reported the 30,000 attendance. But they failed to mention that Trump’s campaign team altered the venue late Thursday from Mobile’s approximately 2,000 seat Civic Center to the 40,000 Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Notice also that the CNN reporter couldn’t help but snark that the stadium was “a venue normally home to high school games.” While the stadium does host some of the bigger local high school football playoff games (and high school football is very big in Alabama), it is actually principally a college football venue, being the home stadium of the University of South Alabama football team and the GoDaddy Bowl.

The New York Times, as usual, couldn’t resist spinning and twisting the facts in its effort to make Trump (as with all things GOP) look as bad as possible, its headline reading “Donald Trump Fails to Fill Alabama Stadium, But Fans’ Zeal is Undiminished”:

Before Donald J. Trump arrived at a college football stadium here on Friday evening, the colorful guessing games that often accompany his campaign were very much in the air.

Would Mr. Trump actually fill all of the tens of thousands of seats at Ladd-Peebles Stadium, the home field for the University of South Alabama Jaguars? How would one of the largest cities in one of the country’s most conservative states respond to a candidate whose bombast and brashness can sometimes seem limitless? Would Mr. Trump wear a “Make America Great Again” baseball hat, perhaps to conceal the effects of the wilting Gulf Coast heat and humidity on his much-remarked-upon mane?

As usual, the answers — no, loudly and yes — came amid the trademark gusto of both Mr. Trump’s personality and his evolving campaign for the presidency.

“Now I know how the great Billy Graham felt, because this is the same feeling,” Mr. Trump, referring to the celebrated evangelist, thundered from a stage built for the night’s rally, where the vast stretches of empty seats indicated that attendance had fallen short of the more than 30,000 people he had predicted.

Aside from the fact that the New York Times reporter, Alan Blinder (apt name), didn’t realize that his piece had asked three questions but proceeded to answer only two “no, loudly and yes,” he answered his initial, irrelevant question about filling the stadium “no.” Mr. Blinder felt the need to go even further and “report” that there were “vast stretches of empty seats” and that “attendance had fallen short of the more than 30,000 people he had predicted.”

The title of the  New York Times’ piece and its failure to mention the last-minute venue change leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Trump had planned a rally in a large stadium all along, and had miserably and embarrassingly failed to fill it. This, of course, is 180 degrees from the actual truth. Can you imagine how the Times would have slobbered all over itself if Hillary Clinton had scheduled a rally in a 2,000 seat venue and, due to overwhelming interest, had changed the venue at the last minute to a 40,000 seat stadium, filling 30,000 of the seats? The Times would have been so excited it would have wet itself.

Look, whether you’re a fan of Trump or not isn’t the point here. The point is that, love him or hate him, the man is drawing unexpectedly large crowds, which is something no other Democrat or GOP candidate is doing. When reporters can’t seem to report this simple fact accurately, we all realize (once again) that we are being treated like little children who need to be “protected” by those who think they know better.

CHARLIE MARTIN: Hillary’s Air Gap Problem:

There is no (legitimate) way that a computer system could be connected to TS//SI//TK//NOFORN data and to the outside world.

What can happen is that someone copies information, onto a piece of paper or a thumb drive (actually systems that can handle TS shouldn’t have thumb drives either, but it’s too easy to sneak one in or out) and then copied into an email in an uncontrolled system – a cell phone or a laptop or an iPad. The person doing it has to know that it’s coming from a secure system, has to know how sensitive the data really is; they go through lots of training, repeated reminders, and come and go to the office through a freaking vault door that would do credit to a bank.

It has to be done on purpose, and it has to be done knowingly. There has to have been conscious intent to do it.

That, folks, is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, for which the prescribed punishment is to be “fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Which applies both to the sender, and to the recipient.

Well, the sender may do time, but the recipient is Hillary, and she’s above the law.

PROOF IN THE PUDDING: Hillary’s Air Gap Problem. The very fact that TOP SECRET information made it to Hillary’s email shows a crime was committed.

HILLARY SUPPORTER: I’M REALLY JUST VOTING FOR BILL CLINTON: Yes, of course. But Hillary is specifically running against the centrist, post-1994 policies of her husband, who in effort to triangulate against Newt Gingrich, inadvertently helped to bring you the 1990s economy you enjoyed so much.

Unfortunately, should a Hillary administration actually come to pass, it will resemble far more the disastrous eight years of the Obama administration instead — which makes sense, given her central role in his many foreign policy debacles.


VODKAPUNDIT: Your Thursday Clinton Email Scandal Roundup.

It looks like you’re going to need a bigger blog — and plenty of Vodka for Hillary.

OOPS: Former Top Hillary Aide Accidentally Tells The Truth About Libya War:

It takes a tough person, and a tough nation, to accept the reality of limited power. It is so much easier to pound our chests and declare that the United States bestrides the world like a colossus and should be able to dictate any outcome it wants. That is no longer true, if it ever were. We found that out the hard way by launching a war in Iraq that we could not win. By prolonging a war in Afghanistan in ways that often made the domestic political situation worse rather than better. By toppling a government in Libya without any idea of what might come next.

Hillary 2016: Because Poor Judgment Is Still Judgment.

DON’T BLAME ME, BLAME THE WHOLE DAMN SYSTEM: Hillary’s latest defense: What is classified information, anyway?

DEMOCRATS AND THE ISLAND OF MISFIT TOYS: The Democrats are increasingly looking like a political Island of Misfit Toys, where nothing is “quite right,” and everyone is just a little “off.”

An increasing number of the Island’s occupants–evidenced by progressive activists Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King–outwardly appear black, though they are genetically white. Some of them are genetically one gender, but believe they are another “inside.

Still others espouse respect for choice and “women’s rights”, yet oppose GOP lawmakers’ attempt to make birth control pills over-the-counter, support brutal, murderous late-term abortions (that kill female babies, too), oppose attempts to educate women about alternatives to abortion, and want to force people who oppose abortion–including female health care providers and taxpayers–to provide/pay for abortion against their conscience. They also routinely demean female pundits and politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, calling them *itch, *unt, whore, twat, etc.  If you’re going to go around making “women’s rights” one of the defining planks in your political platform and fighting an imagined “war on women,” you might want to start supporting and respecting all women, including those that disagree with you.

Democrats uniformly proclaim fidelity to “diversity,” tolerance, and cry out against even “micro” aggressions against other individuals. But they have no tolerance whatsoever for diverse ideas, particularly when they emanate from minorities who wander away from the Democrats’ plantation. Black conservatives, for example, routinely are the subjects of macro-aggression by being labeled  ”Uncle Toms” and “Oreos.”

Today’s Democrats are like the Jack-in-the-box on the Island of Misfit Toys: they appear to be a Jack-in-the-box (and maybe they really want to be), but they’re really a messed up Charlie-in-the-box, and that’s just not the same.

Now, if only we had an Island where we could send them, so they could think for awhile and (hopefully) become more self-aware before they’re ready to be re-integrated into society.

ROGER SIMON: The Presidency Is Trump’s To Lose. “Oh, sure, Bernie Sanders is drawing twenty or thirty thousand here and there, but this is a huge country and, as I can personally attest having been around in 1972, over two hundred thousand attended anti-war demonstrations with McGovern when he was running and he ended up winning exactly one state against Nixon. As for Hillary, her big problems are legal, not electoral. And now, with the Benghazi emails beginning to dribble out and Huma’s cell phone gone missing, no one can even imagine where this will end, but we can assume nowhere good for her Chappaquaness. The Democrats would be complete idiots to run this woman for president.”

ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY: A group of Special Operations vets and intelligence officials have asked Sec. of State Kerry to immediately strip Hillary Clinton and her top State Department aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan of their national security clearances.

In their letter to Kerry, the group–the Special Operations Educational Fund–assert:

The reason our organization brings this matter to your attention is our belief that national security classified information was transmitted in emails by senior State Department officials that ended-up resident on the server. This belief is clearly supported by the recent actions of two independent Inspectors General (State and DNI) who have referred the matter to the Department of Justice for further investigation. !he State Department IG, General Linick, stated that emails contained classified material when generated. It is now apparent that there were breaches involving five intelligence agencies.Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that this private server was inadequately protected from foreign intelligence penetration and malicious “hacking.” Indeed, the existence of this server and its use by senior State Department officials to send and receive official emails was first disclosed publically [sic]  by a hacker from Romania.

We at OPSEC strongly believe that every email passing through the server has been compromised and is now available in the raw intelligence data files of a number of hostile security services around the world. This is a serious breach of our nation’s diplomatic, operational and strategic security.

OPSEC further states that a suspension of security clearance is “standard practice” when allegations regarding the mishandling or potential exposure of classified national security information are made, and cites the six recent examples involving Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration, Foreign Service Officer Peter Van Buren, CIA Director John Deutch, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and General David Petraeus.

I find it hard to believe that Clinton’s (and her aides’) security clearances were not immediately suspended after the first IG report was issued, documenting that Clinton’s unsecured server contained classified information. Why on earth would individuals who have mishandled classified national security information be allowed–for even one day–to continue to have access to such information?

ATTENTION, HILLARY: The Right Dose of Exercise for the Aging Brain.

WELL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT AMUSING: “Judge Grows Irritated with State Department Foot-Dragging on Clinton Emails.”  The federal judge presiding over Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking Hillary Clinton’s emails while Secretary of Stat has denied DOJ’s motion to delay a hearing to explain DOJ’s obstinance:

President Obama’s administration asked a federal judge for a one-week delay of a hearing convened to discuss why the State Department hasn’t been more forthcoming about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. The motion was denied, but the judge moved the hearing back an extra hour, making clear that the move was his prerogative and not State’s. “Due to the Court’s calendar, the status hearing will take place at 1:00 p.m. on August 20, 2014 in Courtroom 24A, rather than 12:00 p.m. as originally scheduled,” U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote Tuesday afternoon. . . .

“The Department does not believe that a reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request requires a search of former Secretary Clinton’s server,” administration officials wrote in a status report to the judge.

The State Department also demurred when ordered to find out if there were other servers that might hold work-related records created by Clinton or two of her top aides, saying they were “not currently aware of any personal computing devices issued by the Department to former Secretary Clinton, Ms. Abedin, or Ms. Mills that may contain responsive records.”

That wasn’t good enough for Judicial Watch or, apparently, Judge Sullivan. “Taking this sworn statement on its face, it appears as though the declarant made no effort whatsoever to find out what electronic devices the former head of the agency and two of her closest advisors used to conduct official government business for four years and where these electronic devices may be located or if they are still in existence,” the group wrote in its request for the new hearing.

It’s not just foot-dragging. It’s obstruction of justice, providing Clinton with plenty of time to play hide-and-scrub. The Administration has been wildly successful at avoiding Congress’s investigations like the plague but is finally being held accountable by the courts. Congress is ineffectual and afraid of its own shadow. Federal judges, not so much; they don’t take kindly to being ignored or played.


Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 8.01.28 AM

UPDATE: Or another.

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 8.59.31 AM

ANOTHER UPDATE: IowaHawk invokes the English Beat:

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 9.33.33 AM

MORE: Heh.

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 9.36.03 AM

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Mark Cuban informs Hillary her college tuition plan won’t work. Because economics.

CLINTON ATONES TO BLM FOR “US SINNERS”: Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller reveals “Hillary Clinton Accused of ‘Victim Blaming’ During Tense Black Lives Matter Meeting“: The “sinners” are, of course, white people, and Clinton assures the BLM representatives that she is committed to helping convince “us sinners” that what she calls “the original sin”–aka slavery–is erased by legal changes, including changing the “allocation of resources” in the country:

Video from Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Black Lives Matters activists last week in New Hampshire has been released, showing an at-times tense exchange in which the Democratic presidential candidate was accused of “victim blaming.”

Clinton also referred to herself and other whites as “us sinners” during the Aug. 11 meeting with the activists, which was held after Clinton’s speech at a campaign event in Keene. . . .

“The consciousness-raising, the advocacy, the passion, the youth of your movement is so critical, but now all I’m suggesting is, even for us sinners, find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives,” Clinton said. . . . “I don’t believe you change hearts,” Clinton said. “You change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”

Watching the videos is entertaining, so I will post them below (two parts). The BLM spokesperson uses a very respectful tone, but look at the smarmy smirk on Clinton’s face throughout. It’s patent that she is simultaneously annoyed at being questioned (typical), and yet desperate to keep BLM’s votes by saying whatever they want to hear. If BLM believes anything Clinton says, they are insane. Pathological liars don’t keep promises.

Part one:

Part two:

OBAMA JUSTICE: Hillary Clinton: Too Important To Make An Example Of?

JOURNALISM: CNN Forgets to Mention Op-Ed Writer Is a Million Dollar Bundler For Hillary.

USA TODAY: Clinton’s shaky email defenses: Campaign proves she doesn’t lie by citing fact-checkers who point to clever deceptions. “After Hillary Clinton provided her much-discussed private server to the proper authorities last week, her campaign sent out an email blast to supporters and posted on its website a fascinating briefing to bring all the ‘facts’ about the email “nonsense” together. Yet, the links the briefing provided to clear Clinton’s good name are a bit curious. If you follow them, you’ll find that when Clinton is given every benefit of the doubt, she is innocent of specific deliberate falsehoods. At the same time, the links indict her for a campaign of deliberately misleading statements, dating to a news conference in March.”


Yet another reminder that as in 2008, the Democratic operatives with bylines at Time-Warner-CNN-HBO will be going all-in to get their party’s boss over the finish line.

AN INSTA-READER ON HILLARY’S EMAIL SCANDAL: With Glenn on the road today, he forwarded a letter from an Insta-reader:

 I am a federal employee and I would appreciate you not referring to me by name.

The appearance of TS/SCI information in Hillary Clinton’s unclassified email led me to immediately ask, “who down-domained the information?”

Classified material with SCI caveats only resides on JWICS. That is an air-gapped computer network. While there are systems that allow users to send file from lower domains to higher ones, there is no such system to take information and send it to a lower domain.

If I have unclassified information on a classified system, I have to burn the data to a CD and carry it (“sneaker-net”) to an unclassified computer. Of course, this was after a second party reviewed the data and it was electronically scanned for hidden data. This is all logged on paper. The network also logs every time something is burned to CD.

Who burned the classified data found on Clinton’s email and used sneaker-net to email it to her? If I was investigating this, that is the person that I would like to ask some questions.

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward is comparing the Hillary scandal to Watergate on MSNBC, much to the chagrin of the rest of the Post and NBC. And as with Watergate, look for the president to stonewall any Congressional investigation. “Just in case you thought Hillary might be indicted, Obama spent the weekend socializing with her and Bill,” Allahpundit writes at Hot Air. “Not just socializing, I should note, but socializing in public, an implicit reminder to the DOJ and intelligence community that Hillary Clinton’s prospects are important to him and his party. When was the last time the subject of an FBI investigation that’s on the front page of newspapers across the country got to party with the president the same week?”


Clinton maintains she followed the rules. But she’s been proven wrong before. Who knows what the FBI and intelligence community might find—or how it might affect her campaign.

What Clinton needs most of all is a way out, a means of escape. Before she can recover politically, the legal uncertainty must end. And the only way to end it is a presidential pardon. Clinton’s future isn’t only tied to President Obama’s job approval and economic performance. It’s also tied to his compassion. Obama alone can resuscitate Hillary’s campaign. . . .

The most famous preemptive pardon in American history was of Richard Nixon. President Ford absolved his predecessor of all crimes he “has committed or may have committed or taken part in” between inauguration day 1969 and resignation day 1974. Obama could do better than Ford by absolving Clinton of all crimes she “has committed or may have committed or taken part in” between, say, January 20, 2009 and January 20, 2025. That would give her some wiggle room. And why not pardon Huma, too. She’s suffered enough. . . .

Not only would a pardon have legal consequences. It would have political ones. It would be a tacit endorsement of Clinton, a message to Biden not to run. Scrutiny of Clinton would fade. A few news outlets might continue to dig around—we at the Washington Free Beacon will never, ever stop—but most reporters, who’d rather not be writing about this scandal anyway, would turn elsewhere.

Obama would look magnanimous. The country would be spared years of Clinton drama it doesn’t want. A pardon would be a final display of Obama’s moral superiority to the woman he defeated long ago—exactly the sort of self-righteous gesture that most appeals to him.

Continetti is being mischievously playful, of course. Obama could, indeed, pardon Clinton prophylactically and given the mainstream media’s bias, any crimes she has committed would be immediately relegated to their “yesterday’s news” pile and forgotten. But we all know Obama viscerally hates Hillary about as much, or more than, a conservative, Southern white male, so no one will be holding their breath waiting for this to happen. It would be fun–just for kicks and giggles–for someone in the press to to inquire about the possibility. 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT: With a chilling cameo from Margaret Sanger, whom Hillary Clinton has gushed that she’s admires “enormously,” based on Sanger’s “courage, her tenacity, her vision . . . And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”

UPDATE: Broken first link now fixed.

EMAIL SCANDAL UPDATE: Former CIA spy on Clinton emails: ‘You and I would get fired and possibly jailed’ for this.

If Hillary Clinton allowed classified information onto her private server or personal phone, she should be disqualified from becoming president, former CIA spy Bob Baer said Saturday.

Baer, a former CIA officer and commentator on national security issues, said that sending or receiving top secret information is a “transgression that I don’t think the president of the United States should be allowed to have committed.”

In an interview with CNN International, Baer claimed that the markings on emails believed to have crossed the private server Clinton maintained as secretary of state represented the highest levels of secrecy in the government.

“You don’t get any more secret than that,” he said.

“Even Snowden didn’t get into that,” Baer said. “If this in fact was on a private server, you and I would get fired and possibly jailed. This could be a felony.”

Baer said that when he was on assignment, he wasn’t allowed to receive messages at that level of classification, and that putting it on a private server or handheld device was a major mistake.

“If this was on her server and it got into her smartphone, there’s a big problem there,” he claimed. “Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet, I’d get fired the same day — escorted to the door, and gone for good, and probably charged with mishandling classified information.”

Laws are for the little people.

SO WE CAN EXPECT A LOT MORE “WAR ON WOMEN” AGITPROP AS LONG AS HILLARY IS IN THE RACE: Independent groups allied with Hillary Clinton launching effort to mobilize female voters. One of Hillary’s top surrogates in this venture? Failed Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

DAN MITCHELL: Hillary’s Hard Left Turn on Social Security.

Defenders of Social Security often make a point of stating that the retirement system is a form of “social insurance” because people become eligible for benefits by paying into the system.

Welfare programs, by contrast, give money to people simply as a form of income redistribution.

Proponents of the status quo are right. Sort of.

Social Security is an “earned benefit.” The payroll taxes of workers are somewhat analogous to a premium payment and retirement benefits are somewhat analogous to a monthly annuity payment.

But “somewhat analogous” isn’t the same as real insurance. Money isn’t invested and set aside to pay benefits. Instead, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program, which means the payroll taxes of current workers are paying for the benefits paid to current retirees.

If a private insurance company did the same thing, its owners would be arrested for operating a Ponzi Scheme.

But the government can get away with this kind of system because it can coerce younger workers to participate.

Or, to be more accurate, the government can get away with this approach so long as there are a sufficient number of new workers who can be forced into the program.

The problem, of course, is that the combination of longer lifespans and fewer births means that Social Security is promising far more than it can deliver.

And we’re talking real money, even by Washington standards. According to the Social Security Trustees, the cash-flow deficit over the next 75 years is approaching $40 trillion. And that’s after adjusting for inflation!

Don’t worry, we have the finest minds working on this.

NO NEED TO “WONDER,” SHE’S NOT: CNN National Security Analyst Unloads On Hillary Over Email Scandal: ‘I Wonder Whether She Is Capable Of Being President.’  Former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, whom the Daily Caller describes as “not known for being a political partisan,” had this to say about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to send and receive classified matter while Secretary of State:

“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.

“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good — and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.

“If this in fact were on her hand held [phone] — was sent to her or she forwarded it in any way — I wonder whether she is capable of being president,” he added.

“If” it were on her phone? Of course these emails were on Clinton’s phone–her initial, lame excuse for using a private email server rather than the secured, State Department server, was that she didn’t want the horrible inconvenience of carrying two different phones for her official versus personal emails.  Any ordinary government employee would already be wearing an orange jumpsuit in federal prison by now. Clinton’s cavalier actions evince a reckless disregard for top secret U.S. national security information. She is utterly unfit to be President, and no “ifs” or other qualifiers are required. Simply put. anyone who supports her candidacy after this revelation is more interested in protecting the Democratic party than American national security.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hillary Clinton Isn’t the Only One Who Should Be Facing Charges. “Joe Scarborough blasted not only Hillary Clinton, but the entire federal law enforcement community under Obama, charging that they gave the former sec. of State special treatment by allowing the ‘unprecedented’ mishandling of classified documents.”

Related, from Ross Douthat in the NYT:

And here I’m afraid that I am a bit cynical: While the email scandal is a serious business, I simply do not believe that the Obama Justice Department is going to indict the former secretary of state and Democratic front-runner for mishandling classified information, even if the offenses involved would have sunk a lesser figure’s career or landed her in jail.

Laws are for the little people.

OF COURSE THE SHOW WAS ‘APOCALYPSE NOW’: Hillary Clinton steals the show at Iowa Democrats meet.

WHO ARE TRUMP’S SUPPORTERS? Not Who You Think. I think to some degree it depends on what you mean by “supporters.” Lots of people support Trump’s kicking sand in the faces of the media and GOP establishment who don’t actually support him for President.

UPDATE: It’s paywalled for some people, apparently, but I can get through fine. But here’s an excerpt for the gist, for those who can’t read the whole thing.

Today’s prototypical conservative base voters are infamously principled. Their views are hardened, their heels dug in. They are armed with all kinds of litmus tests and purity tests to make sure the “fake” conservatives are weeded out from the good ones, often to the chagrin of the party.

It shifts with time, but at the moment the ideological guillotine falls on issues like immigration (are you for a pathway?), abortion (are you for exceptions?), guns (are you for universal background checks?), education (do you support Common Core?) and climate change (do you think it’s real?). Departing from doctrine on just one of these can cast a foreboding shadow of skepticism upon an otherwise devout and disciplined conservative.

For Republican base voters, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are unforgivably moderate. While to the rest of the country people like John McCain and Mitt Romney are sufficiently conservative if not “severely” conservative, to use Romney’s phrasing, to the hardened base voters the 2008 and 2012 presidential losses were proof that voting for the so-called electable candidate, instead of the principled one, leaves them with nothing to show for it. They got neither the satisfaction of voting their conscience — be it for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum — nor the consolation of a less than conservative Republican in the White House.

The idea that in 2016 these voters would simply turn off their hard-wired orthodoxy and support a guy who has voted for Democrats, said “the economy does better under the Democrats,” refused to pledge to support the Republican nominee if it’s not him, openly defended Planned Parenthood, approved of exceptions to abortion bans, supported a single-payer health care system, backed an assault weapons ban and advocated a one-time 14.25 percent mega-tax on the wealthy to erase the national debt is, to put it in Trumpian language, really, really stupid.

Base voters will stick with candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who demonstrated their conservative bona fides by shutting down the government, filibustering the Patriot Act and pledging to repeal Obamacare. The more evangelically inclined will support Huckabee and Santorum, or maybe even Marco Rubio, who recently said he personally opposes any exceptions — rape, incest, health of the mother — for abortion.

So who is the Trump supporter, if not the conservative base? I’d argue it’s mostly disaffected moderates who no longer strictly identify with either party. They think the political system is rigged. They think politicians are corrupt. They want a total collapse of the ruling political class.

While Trump probably gets more support from the right, running as a Republican, he attracts from the left as well.

So there.

HILLARY VOTER: I Didn’t Wear Deodorant for a Week and Here’s What Happened. Plus, the predictable conclusion: “So it turns out I could have saved myself, and everyone around me, a lot of trouble if I has just talked to an expert first.”

“PARDON HILLARY NOW:” Quote of the Day, Trolling Level: Master edition.

RELATED: And speaking of trolling, New York Observer columnist and former GOP speechwriter Lisa Schiffren charts ‘Hillary’s Path to Greatness.’

LAWS ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE: The government’s nonchalant response to Hillary’s security breaches. “[Petraeus] was tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance. Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no ‘leak.’”

Also: The government’s nonchalant response to Hillary’s security breaches, Part Two.

The Obama administration’s nonchalant response to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of sensitive, classified, and even top secret information extends to its treatment of her lawyers. The Justice Department allowed emails and other sensitive information from Clinton’s server to remain in her lawyers’ hands even though they lack the requisite security clearances.

Now, finally, the Justice Department has taken possession of the thumb drive containing work emails that Clinton’s personal attorney David Kendall improperly held. Yet its nonchalance persists.

Ask yourself what the government would be doing in response to this security breach if the lawyer and the law firm in question weren’t well-connected and Democrat-leaning. A friend (formerly an attorney with a big firm) suggests that the government would be demanding the following, and more:

– Names of all Williams & Connolly personnel who had any role in the review of Clinton’s emails with a listing (by date and/or other identifier) of emails, and names of all persons with whom the reviewing personnel discussed the contents of those emails.

– All computers that any time contained on their hard drives any Clinton documents or material related thereto.

– All paper documents related to the review of Clinton’s documents, including all handwritten notes.

– All precautions Williams & Connolly took to ensure the confidentiality of documents turned over by Clinton and related documents.

Cheryl Mills is represented by another big, well-connected law firm — Paul, Weiss (where Secretary of the DHS Jeh Johnson was a partner). Mills provided its lawyers with emails that likely contain sensitive and perhaps classified (or even top secret) information. Paul, Weiss should also be subject to the procedures described above.

Read the whole thing.


HILLARY’S IT FIRM WASN’T CLEARED BY DOD TO HANDLE CLASSIFIED MATERIALS. So why would the nation’s chief diplomat use an obscure firm in Denver that wasn’t certified by the Pentagon as being capable of protecting national security secrets? This story keeps getting more amazing by the minute. Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has the story.

LAMEST. ENDORSEMENT. EVER.: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) endorses Hillary Clinton in the Des Moines Register.  It’s strangely mostly about Harkin, not Hillary, but he does manage a paragraph and a sentence or two about her:

Hillary Clinton’s commitment to public service stems from the same values. Her mother, Dorothy, was abandoned by her parents and sent to live with relatives who did not want her. By age 14, she was working to support herself just to get by. Guided by her mother’s experience, Hillary has devoted her career to championing the needs of children. She has been a tireless advocate for women and families since I first met her. As First Lady of the United States she was instrumental in advancing the idea that health care should be a right and not a privilege. As my colleague in the Senate and as Secretary of State, she made women’s rights and economic opportunity central to American foreign policy. Hillary has never forgotten who she is fighting for. . . .Today, too many talented children face limits on their futures. They need a champion in the White House. I know Hillary Clinton will be that champion.

Um, okay. So we should elect Clinton because (1) her mother had a tough childhood; (2) she loves children; (3) she is a feminist; and (4) she supported socialized medicine as a “right”? Geez, Tom, is that all you’ve got?

CHARLES C.W. COOKE: Why Hillary’s Wiping Her E-mail Server Clean Matters More than It Might Seem.

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Scandal Exposes Hillary’s Disregard For Security.

USA TODAY: Federal aid drives up college tuition. “The more federal grant money that’s made available, the higher the college tuition will go. High college costs are partly the federal government’s fault.”

Do tell.



Hillary will be totally blackmail-able if elected. Here’s the logic:

1. It’s safe to say that there were things on that server which could cause Hillary tremendous harm politically – which is why she destroyed the evidence that would have been exculpatory if you believed her explanation. In my mind, it’s also why she used a private server to begin with.

2. She is lying about what was on that server, potentially to include while under oath in her upcoming congressional testimony.

3. If someone had all the copies of her emails and those of her staff, they could readily blackmail her because of the above. They’d have proof of her wrongdoing and her lying about it.

4. Hillary Clinton, as both a future Presidential candidate and a sitting Sec. of State would have been one of the Top 100 intelligence targets in the world and probably one of the top 10.

5. It’s thus certain that the Chinese and Russians would each have had a team focused on accessing her communications.

6. Every security expert I know of has said it’s a virtual certainty the Chinese and Russians both gained access to her server and all her emails. From what I know about their capabilities, I’d agree.

There are probably a bunch of folks in China and Russia who are praying (even if they’re atheists) for Hillary to be elected. If she wins, they own the President of the United States. I can just imagine in a meeting with Putin, Hillary being told to back off supporting Ukraine or he’ll release her emails (as he hands her a folder containing the most damaging ones for her to peruse). Put in that position, would Hillary fall on her sword or sacrifice a country like Ukraine? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t want to be living in Ukraine…

Someone with that kind of vulnerability to blackmail shouldn’t be allowed to sweep the floors of the NSA, much less run our country.

Good point.

ROGER SIMON: Will Huma Fall on Her Sword for Hillary? “They say it’s not the crime, but the coverup. But sometimes it’s the crime and the coverup. Hillary Clinton’s metastasizing email scandal is beginning to look more and more like a case of both.”

CHARLES LIPSON: “The political class is seriously underestimating the impact of Hillary Clinton’s email controversy. They see it mainly as a problem of public opinion and electoral politics, where it has been increasingly costly but not yet fatal. The political damage—the drip, drip, drip of revelations—has been bad, but there is worse to come. Hillary Clinton’s big problem now is legal, and it could well be insurmountable politically. Here’s why. Once a ‘political’ issue finally moves into the legal system, as the Clinton email server has, it moves forward with an independent logic. That logic will slowly ensnare Secretary Clinton. You can already see it happening.”


Tanned, rested, Ray-Banned and ready:

Joe Biden

(AP Photo.)


WRONG COLORS: Larry Elder explains why it’s “not news” when “Unarmed White Teen Killed by Cop; Two White Cops Killed by Blacks.

The media enthusiastically remind us that it’s the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, “The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.”

Never mind that both a grand jury and the federal Department of Justice exonerated the officer who shot and killed Brown. Never mind that neither the physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony corroborated the assertions that Brown had his hands up or that he said, “Don’t shoot.” . . .

The media enthusiastically remind us that it’s the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, “The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.” . . .

In just the last two weeks, two cops, who happened to be white, were killed by two suspects, who happened to be black. And an unarmed white teen was killed by a cop.

In Tennessee, Memphis police Officer Sean Bolton approached an illegally parked car, apparently interrupting a drug deal that was taking place inside. The car’s passenger got out, engaged Bolton in a physical struggle and shot the officer multiple times. Bolton, a 33-year-old Marine vet who served in Iraq, died at the hospital. . . .In Louisiana, Shreveport Officer Thomas LaValley was dispatched to investigate a potential prowler, an armed man reportedly threatening a family member inside a house. When LaValley arrived, he was shot multiple times, and pronounced dead at the hospital. . . .

In South Carolina, an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a cop. Zachary Hammond, 19, was out on a first date when he was fatally shot by a Seneca police officer during a drug bust. . . .The Hammond family wonders why so little national attention has been focused on their son’s death. “It’s sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen,” said Eric Bland, the family’s attorney.

We all know that it’s #BlackLivesMatter, with the emphasis being on black. It’s an overtly racist movement, focusing on police killings of blacks, not any other race, and without regard to any actual statistical data or evidence in particular cases. Instead of shunning such overt racism in 2015, top Democrats are embracing it, and Republicans are trying to stay as quiet as possible, lest the racist ire be directed toward them, as it was recently with Bernie Sanders.

#BlackLivesMatter is racially divisive at a time when this country desperately needs unity, and its votaries have on blinders about the biggest problem of all in the black community: black-on-black murder. The only candidate who seems to have the courage to acknowledge this is Ben Carson.  So far, the Black Lives Matter movement has left Dr. Carson alone, presumably because of his race. How typical of them. Perhaps they are also afraid that a thoughtful, fact-based response by a black Republican candidate might take away some of the momentum of  their self-righteous, divisive, racist indignation?

DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY: Black lawmakers stand behind disruptions of Sanders, Dem events. So they’re still on Team Hillary. Note that her events have faced no such disruptions.

IT’S GETTING HARDER AND HARDER FOR HILLARY TO DISMISS: Poll: Most want criminal probe of Clinton emails.

More than half of registered voters say a criminal investigation should be launched into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system while serving as secretary of State, according to a new poll.

The Monmouth University survey, released Wednesday, was conducted before Tuesday evening’s revelation that Clinton had turned over to the government her personal email server and USB thumb drives containing copies of the emails, following news that at least two emails had been classified as “top secret.”

According to the poll, 52 percent of voters say that Clinton’s emails “should be subject to a criminal investigation for potential release of classified material.”

Plus: “Republicans are paying closest attention to the story, the poll found, though a majority of Democrats and independents also said they had heard a lot about the controversy.”

RON FOURNIER ON HILLARY: The Queen of Paradox and Her Crumbling Stone Wall.

For once, Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to be a decent candidate. Taking aim at weak spots in the GOP lines, she attacked Jeb Bush on women’s health, Marco Rubio on abortion, Scott Walker on college costs, and Donald Trump on sexism.

Then the stone wall crumbled around the Queen of Paradox: Hillary Clinton, both a political colossus and a catastrophe. We learned Tuesday night:

—She will give the FBI a private, illicit server that housed her official email during her four years as secretary of State, including thousands that she covertly deleted.

—Her attorney will give agents a thumb drive containing copies of the self-selected emails she returned to the State Department after discovery of the rogue server.

—A top intelligence official reviewing just a handful of those emails told Congress that top-secret information had been contained in two emails that passed across the server.

Where do I start? How about with the Clinton campaign’s ridiculous suggestion that coughing up the server and email were voluntary acts. We know that’s bunk—because Clinton herself said she wouldn’t surrender the people’s records without a fight.

Well, she lies a lot.

THE HILL: Turmoil mounts surrounding Clinton emails. Did Hillary really make a “decision to give the FBI her private email server?” Decision? I thought they were “seized.”

COMIC CANARIES IN THE POLITICAL COAL MINE: Steven Hayward at Power Line ponders how the “Late-Nite Comic Indicator” portends trouble for Hillary Clinton:

I don’t know if any quantitative political scientist has ever devoted the time to see whether there is any correlation between the frequency of jokes by late night TV comics and the fortunes of a political figure, but my hunch is if the data are waterboarded long enough, you’ll find one. In any case, given that pop culture is a leading indictor, Hillary is in trouble.

From last night, first, Conan:

A new poll shows that Hillary Clinton is only six points ahead of Bernie Sanders. Today a very confident Hillary said, “Oh, please. Like I’m going to lose the Democratic nomination to a left-wing senator nobody’s ever heard of?”

Well, we know that the late night funnymen like Letterman, O’Brien, Fallon, Stewart are all thinly disguised Obama shills, possessing the typical Hollywood/journalist self-identification as liberal/progressive Democrats. When you lose this crowd, you’re definitely in trouble.


Four of the country’s largest newspapers on Wednesday kept the latest developments in Hillary Clinton’s growing E-mail scandal off the front page (one kept it out of the paper completely). The revelation that the Democratic candidate had top secret information on her server was relegated to the bottom of page A13 in the New York Times.

The Washington Post managed to place the news that Clinton will finally turn over her server on A2. The Los Angeles Times hid the story on A9. All of these newspapers, however, did better than USA Today, which completely skipped Clinton’s scandal in the print edition. 

Fortunately, the London Daily Mail is on the case. Note this interesting detail, which is consistent with what Roger Simon and Victor Davis Hanson have recently been writing about the Hillary-Obama relationship: “Washington sources say Vice President Joe Biden is waiting in the wings for the Obama administration to run her over so he can step in and run for president.”

Or to put it another way…Soon:

Joe Biden

(AP Photo/Jessica Hill)

WHEN DOES A CANDIDATE BECOME A CANDIDATE? It’s an interesting legal question, posed by law professor and former FEC Chair Brad Smith in this Daily Caller piece:

A group supporting more campaign regulations called the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that four candidates violated federal law by not declaring their presidential candidacies until June.

When one officially becomes a candidate matters because becoming a “candidate” triggers a host of legal requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). A candidate has to publicly disclose detailed, personal financial information. A campaign’s fundraising is heavily regulated, along with a candidate’s ability to raise funds for other causes, to be reimbursed for travel to speak at colleges or to civic groups, and even to accept volunteer help.

CLC’s main target is Governor Jeb Bush. CLC complains that, well before his June announcement, Bush had been raising money, not for his campaign, but for two political action committees, Right to Rise PAC and Right to Rise Super PAC, which promote issues and candidates aligned with his political agenda.

However, raising money for other candidates and issues, even if it might indirectly help a person run for office, doesn’t make one a candidate. In fact, FECA specifically defines a “candidate” as someone who raises or spends more than $5,000 to run for office. . . .

In September of 2014, for example, Hillary Clinton appeared at a “Steak fry” in the early caucus state of Iowa. Does paying for a flight to Des Moines, buying a tank of gas, and eating a steak, more than two years before an election make one a candidate? Under CLC’s bizarre approach, it might. Or it might not. Guess wrong, and Secretary Clinton could be fitted for an orange pantsuit.

Smith is adept at pointing out the inconsistency in CLC’s approach to interpreting the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). And as much as I like the idea of seeing Hillary Clinton in an orange jumpsuit surrounded daily by large, short-haired and heavily tattooed inmates, I’m not willing to restrict her First Amendment speech and association rights to classify her informal candidacy explorations as the legal equivalent of an actual candidacy (nor is Smith). That principled stance, however, is never shared by liberal/progressive campaign finance “reform” groups like CLC, whose rage is never directed at leftist ideological comrades.


The Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders draws 10,000-15,000 people at every event, while his rival Hillary Clinton’s largest crowd was only 5500. However, Sanders isn’t telling Americans how great the Obama years have been, but how bad things are. Yet you won’t hear any of that on the networks or read about it on any news sites…they only focus on the crowd size.

Gee, I wonder why?

Sanders also noted that millions of Americans are in desperate need of jobs as he said the unemployment numbers coming from the Obama administration aren’t to be trusted.

“Every month government comes out with a statistic on unemployment. Last statistic said that official unemployment was 5.3 percent but what they forgot to tell you is that statistic doesn’t include those people who have given up looking for work, those people who are working part time. Add it all together and real unemployment is over 10 percent.”

Whoever ultimately is the Democratic nominee (or perhaps a stranger from Indian country…) that soundbite should be prime fodder for his or her GOP opponent, which even beyond his opposition to Hillary, explains why it’s not getting traction in the media. But for those tasked to create the B-roll for GOP campaign video, here you go:

KLINTONERDÄMMERUNG: This is a great parody of Hillary’s email scandal. But isn’t there buried lede here that there’s more than one scene from Downfall that can be recaptioned?

KA-BOOM: Hillary Tweets: Republicans like Gov. Walker are making it harder to afford college & pay off debt. Hillary says that’s wrong.

Scott Walker replies:

Screen Shot 2015-08-12 at 1.38.30 PM

I do believe that the GOP field is getting feistier.

SANDERS +7 OVER CLINTON IN IN N.H.: The latest Boston Herald poll conducted Aug. 7-10 has Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton by 7 points in New Hampshire among likely voters in the Democrats’ primary. The poll revealingly showed that a majority of Democrats–51%–described Clinton’s candidacy as “you could support her, but you’re not enthusiastic about her candidacy.” 46 percent of those polled thought Joe Biden “should” challenge Clinton for the nomination, with 42% saying he “should not,” and 12% “unsure.”

Clinton’s support should dip even further now that it’s been confirmed that she did, in fact, receive/send top secret classified State Department emails using her unsecured home email server.

RELATED: The Washington Post, “Bernie Sanders’ big challenge explained in 2 charts.” Apparently, it’s blacks. They don’t really like him.

HE’S ON SOLID GROUND HERE: Jeb Bush faults Hillary Clinton for ‘premature’ Iraq withdrawal.

On Tuesday night, Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, attacked President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton for their “premature” decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq — a move he describes as a “fatal error.”

“It was a case of blind haste to get out, and to call the tragic consequences somebody else’s problem,” he said. “Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.”

That’s absolutely right. In fact, I think I’ll repeat this post again:

BOB WOODWARD: Bush Didn’t Lie About WMD, And Obama Sure Screwed Up Iraq In 2011.

[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.


Woodward was also asked if it was a mistake to withdraw in 2011. Wallace points out that Obama has said that he tried to negotiate a status of forces agreement but did not succeed, but “A lot of people think he really didn’t want to keep any troops there.” Woodward agrees that Obama didn’t want to keep troops there and elaborates:

Look, Obama does not like war. But as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let’s keep 10,000, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war. When you are a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies. And he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor.

We had some woeful laughs about the insurance policies metaphor. Everyone knows they make sense, but it’s still hard to get people to buy them. They want to think things might just work out, so why pay for the insurance? It’s the old “young invincibles” problem that underlies Obamcare.

Obama blew it in Iraq, which is in chaos, and in Syria, which is in chaos, and in Libya, which is in chaos. A little history:

As late as 2010, things were going so well in Iraq that Obama and Biden were bragging. Now, after Obama’s politically-motivated pullout and disengagement, the whole thing’s fallen apart. This is near-criminal neglect and incompetence, and an awful lot of people will pay a steep price for the Obama Administration’s fecklessness.

Related: National Journal: The World Will Blame Obama If Iraq Falls.

Related: What Kind Of Iraq Did Obama Inherit?

Plus, I’m just going to keep running this video of what the Democrats, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, were saying on Iraq before the invasion:

Because I expect a lot of revisionist history over the next few months.

Plus: 2008 Flashback: Obama Says Preventing Genocide Not A Reason To Stay In Iraq. He was warned. He didn’t care.

And who can forget this?

Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.

Related: Obama’s Betrayal Of The Iraqis.

UPDATE: A reader emails: “Thanks for revisiting everything we were saying about Iraq/Obama/Dems in 2008/10/11 in today’s posts. Bonus Bush never lied. Can’t be said enough. They wanted a Vietnam and when Bush refused to give it to them, they grabbed it and made it one.”

NEWSWEEK: THE POW-MIA FLAG IS TOTALLY RACIST: “It’s Tuesday, so you know what that means: it’s time to get outraged about something stupid and inconsequential,” Sean Davis wrote yesterday at the Federalist in response:

If you’re wondering where the proof is of the POW-MIA flag’s racist heritage, you’re not alone. It turns out there is none, nor does the author attempt to make anything approaching an argument on the topic. At least outlets like Salon and Slate humor their readers with convoluted arguments that make no sense. Newsweek, accurately realizing that it’s probably not worth the effort to cobble together anything approaching coherent content for what’s left of its dwindling readership, apparently figured that stupid headlines are even cheaper to produce than stupid articles.

Since late 2007, when Barack Obama overtook Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential campaign, it’s been obvious that anyone or anything can be temporarily weaponized as racist. Bill, Hillary, and even their rank-and-file Democratic primary voters were declared racist in 2007 in 2008; this year, Bill and Hillary are being offered a ticket back to the White House in 2017. (Engraved by those who declared “Hillary ‘White Power Clinton” as “spouting Klan-style talking points” in 2008.) John McCain was declared racist in 2008, and then welcomed back to polite society as soon as he returned to bashing his fellow Republicans. Mitt Romney was smeared as racist, and then once the 2012 campaign was over, was seen as the GOP’s sane, sensible elder statesman. Words such as “golf” and “Chicago” were declared racist until they weren’t. And now, for no particular reason other than click bait, the POW-MIA flag is racist.

I hope Democrats understand that implications of their scorched earth campaign, which has long since denuded the R-word of the sting it once carried: Ultimately, if everything is potentially racist, then in reality, nothing is.

BERNIE SANDERS DOESN’T HAVE A BLACK LIVES MATTER PROBLEM. HE HAS A GEORGE SOROS PROBLEM: Readers School Politico Writer on Real Reason for Sanders BLM ‘Problem.’ “Seems a bit odd it hasn’t happened to Hillary, doesn’t it?”

WELL PAINT ME GREEN AND CALL ME ESMERALDA: Hillary Clinton agrees to provide private e-mail server to FBI. You mean that server is not pining for the fjords?

POLL: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37. “Sanders leads Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters. Vice President Joe Biden got 9 percent support in the test primary match-up. The other announced Democrats in the race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Gov. Jim Webb, barely register at 1 percent or below.”

WHY HILLARY SUPPORTS THE IRAN DEAL: “Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive,” Roger Simon writes.

As Victor Davis Hanson wrote on Sunday, Hillary is “hoping that she can stay on the Obama reservation and not earn a David Petraeus-like indictment from the Obama Justice Department.” Will anyone in the MSM ask her — or Obama himself — about the threat he wields over her campaign?

READY FOR HILLARY? “Millennials are no longer going to night clubs,” according to the London Independent, adding that “once costly high-end audio equipment can be easily and inexpensively sourced online, meaning that the house party represents a better value option, as indeed do the entertainment offerings from Netflix, Amazon Instant Video or games companies.”

Of course, in America, that house party is likely to be in the basement of mom and dad’s house. “More young adults are living at home than five years ago, despite the economic recovery, according to a new report by Pew Research Center that crunched U.S. Census bureau data from 2010 to 2015,” Forbes recently reported.

And they’re driving a lot less, as Ann Althouse noted in 2012, linking to a New York Times article which reported, “Back in the early 1980s, 80 percent of 18-year-olds proudly strutted out of the D.M.V. with newly minted licenses, according to a study by researchers at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. By 2008 — even before the Great Recession — that number had dropped to 65 percent.” As Althouse reminded the Gray Lady, “Isn’t that what the Boomer generation told them to do? Cars are bad. They are destroying the planet. Then, when they avoid driving, we scold them for being — what? — sedentary? unambitious? incurious?!”

So they’re not going out to night clubs, they’re not driving, and they’re staying home watching TV. Congratulations, millenials – you’re already leading the sedentary lifestyle my parents led in their 70s and 80s; and have we got an exciting, wild and crazy candidate whose lifestyle matches yours!

(Or perhaps, the millenials’ abandonment of night clubs makes them more attracted to this candidate whose anti-dance policies are straight out of Footlose.)

NBC NEWS: CHINA HAS BEEN READING PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNTS OF “MANY” TOP US OFFICIALS SINCE 2010: “No word yet on whether this includes Hillary, but she is a top US official, and she did of course use private email.”


Obama stenographer Charles Blow had some rare moments of insight in his latest New York Times column on the “Black Lives Matter” movement and the GOP. As usual, however, Blow confused the cart for the horse and thus offered the complete wrong solution for the problem he is attempting to solve.

Blow noted, correctly, that a large driver of hostile interactions between police and black citizens is increased pressure from municipalities on police to become revenue generation machines:

I’m not a full-fledged capital-L libertarian, but this ad by the Libertarian Party at the peak of the left’s obsession with Occupy Wall Street in 2012 sums up the disparity in graphic terms simple enough for even a Timesman to understand:


But then, the whole dichotomy ongoing between Hillary, Obama, and Bernie Sanders supporters who demand bigger and bigger government and yet are concurrently waging war against the police as its enforcers is one of the curious paradoxes of the American left.

OF COURSE IT IS, IT’S A CORONATION, NOT A NOMINATION: O’Malley: Sparse debate schedule ‘undemocratic.’

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is keeping pressure on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to increase the number of Democratic presidential debates.

“We’re making a big mistake, as Democrats, if we try to limit debate and have an undemocratic process,” O’Malley said Monday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

“Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate and prevents us from being able to put forward a better path for our people that will make the economy work for all of us again,” he said.

O’Malley — who trails front-runner Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in recent polling — has sharply criticized the schedule of six Democratic primary debates this cycle.

During an interview with The Hill last week, O’Malley accused party insiders of attempting to steer the race in favor of Clinton. Sanders similarly said he was “disappointed” in the limited number of debates.

DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman reiterated on Monday that the party sees its current schedule as more than sufficient.

Like I said, it’s a coronation, not a nomination.

CHRIS STIREWALT: Sanders Trumps Hillary:

If Sanders can pack nearly 30,000 souls into a Portland, Ore. arena it’s fair to say that he is doing even better than Trump into harnessing the outrage that animates voters, particularly older, white ones, who believe that America is truly at the abyss. And remember that both Trump and Sanders share the view that a conspiracy between business and politics is at the core of the problem.

It may be Portlandia, but still…

The biggest difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, or between Clinton and Bush, if you prefer, is that on the GOP side there are lots and lots and lots of viable alternatives. As Thursday’s debate showed, Republicans have plenty of credible choices with reasonable electoral paths.

If Col. Sanders’ army succeeds in either scuttling Clinton’s nomination or pushing her so far to the left that she can’t scamper to the center next year, there’s no place for the party to go.

Stay tuned.

CLINTON FEEDS OFF MEGYN KELLY’S “WAR ON WOMEN” QUESTION: Hillary Clinton has unsurprisingly begun to capitalize on the “war on women” narrative amplified by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly during the GOP presidential debate. Kelly reignited the narrative with the following question posed to Donald Trump:

Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.

You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” . . .

Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

Afterwards, Trump amped up the rhetoric and made matters worse when he told a CNN host,”You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”

It was utterly predictable that Clinton would eventually capitalize on this #waronwomen opening, and today she did so, according to the Daily Caller:

At a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Monday Hillary Clinton slammed Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Fox News host Megyn Kelly as “outrageous” but said that other Republican men running for president have made equally “offensive” remarks. . . .

“But I think if we focus on that we are making a mistake,” Clinton said of Trump’s remarks. “What a lot of the men on that stage and that debate said was offensive.”

“When one of their major candidates, a much younger man, a senator from Florida, says there should be no exceptions for rape and incest, that is as offensive and as troubling a comment as you can hear from a major candidate running for the presidency.”

So Clinton is equating Trump’s crude comment directed at a woman with Rubio’s substantive position on abortion? Nice move. Because, you know, those Republican men “offend” women by supporting human life. And while a recent Gallup poll shows that a slim majority of women presently self-identify as “pro-choice,” longitudinal polling has shown that women’s views shift, with pro-choice versus pro-life majorities altering from year to year. Presumably, according to Clinton, women who hold a pro-life position are “offending” women?

I’m no fan of Trump’s post-debate comments about Kelly. It wasn’t “presidential,” and it was unnecessary. But his initial response to Kelly’s debate query was fundamentally correct, that he (and the country) doesn’t “have time for total political correctness.” And Kelly is a professional woman in a high profile position, and she can certainly handle some insults. She has appropriately said that she is a “big girl” and can “take it.

The thing that bothers me most about the Kelly-Trump exchange is that Hillary Clinton is now going to accept the invitation–issued by Kelly–to reopen and amplify the “Republicans hate women” narrative. In an overt attempt to bring down Trump a notch or two, Kelly’s query has reignited Hillary Clinton’s key campaign issue.

ROGER SIMON: “Although not surprising these days, news this morning that China has been reading the emails of top U.S. officials should provide yet more impetus to the emerging campaign of that ‘other woman candidate,’ Carly Fiorina. . . . Getting a hold of Hillary’s emails during all this should have been a walk in the park for the Chinese. In fact it should have been a walk in the park for just about anybody, including precocious seventh graders in Sandusky, Ohio. Mrs. Clinton, it will be recalled, informed us she wasn’t even aware you could have two email accounts on one cellphone. Of course, that was a lie, but the kind of lie only a technological illiterate would make. It was absurd and almost daffy. Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, is the only presidential candidate with any kind of real tech expertise.”

IT’S ONLY MONEY: Hillary Clinton Proposes Debt-Free Tuition at Public Colleges: Plan, which would cost $350 billion over 10 years, is way for Democratic front-runner to woo young voters and provides ammunition against surging Bernie Sanders.

It’s a vote-buying scheme that also rewards the higher education industry, perhaps the Democratic Party’s largest source of donations and foot soldiers.

That said, notice this, where she adopts some proposals that I’ve been pushing for quite a while:

In another bipartisan signal, Mrs. Clinton also is calling for colleges to be held liable for aid when their students default on loans, an idea that has gained traction among members of both parties as a way to control costs. . . .

In addition, public universities would be required to spend the new money on instruction and learning, as opposed to administration or the student experience, such as building new athletic facilities. To address concerns that universities could game that requirement through creative accounting, new rules would ensure a certain portion of total spending is directed to instruction, officials said. States and colleges would be encouraged to come up with innovative cost savings, such as offering more online classes.

This addresses a common concern from members of both parties that if the government gives schools more student aid without reforms, the cost of education will simply rise. . . .

Hillary, you magnificent bastard, you read my book! I don’t think she really means to follow through with this, but hypocrisy is the tribute, yada yada.

Nonetheless, Dan Mitchell’s critique is on-point: Hillary Clinton’s Plan To Increase The Cost Of College.