David Cohen notices that the media got it all wrong on Donald Trump:
As someone who has given decades to the media life, may I just say what a disgraceful job my fellow Scribes and Pharisees in the biz did this year. Rather than trying to explain, understand or sensitively report on the Trump uprising, they ran and ran and ran with a narrative based on their own set view. Now they stand revealed as total chumps. So really, if any soul-searching is to be done, it ought to start with this crowd of mountebanks.
Still wondering why Ukip is so reluctant to let go of Nigel Farage? The Herald reports:
Ukip leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans has suggested judges should face the prospect of being sacked by MPs in the wake of the Article 50 case in the High Court.
Ukip wants politicians to have control over the judges? What lunacy.
She warned about judges increasingly intervening in political decisions and suggested the judiciary should face being grilled by a Commons select committee with the power to recommend sacking them.
What a terrible idea. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.
The fundamental concept of judicial independence came into being in England and Wales in 1701 with the enactment of the Act of Settlement. This statute formally recognised the principles of security of judicial tenure by establishing that High Court Judges and Lords Justice of Appeal hold office during good behaviour. Appropriate and formal mechanisms had to be in place before a judge could be removed.
Before 1701 senior judges held office at the sovereign’s pleasure and there are many examples of judges being removed from office for failing to decide cases in accordance with the wishes of the King or Queen. Since the Act of Settlement it has only been possible to remove a senior judge from office through an Address to the Queen agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
But, yeah, better to let the MPs decide on their own who is fit to uphold the law as they see it. We trust our MPs implicitly, don’t we? That question to you, Nigel Farage.
I will only accept Brexit on MY terms says Jeremy Corbyn as he tells Theresa May he’ll force a spring election if she doesn’t agree
Brave, isn’t he. Trouble is, of course, that Corbyn’s terms are not worth a jot because Labour will be thrashed in a General Election.
The BBC adds:
Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would block the triggering of Article 50 if Mrs May did not guarantee access to the single market.
So we get a General Election. May wins a landslide. Labour get a new leader. The country gets an effective opposition. The will of the people is done and the country leaves the EU. As May writes in the Telegraph:“The people made their choice, and did so decisively. It is the responsibility of government to carry out their instruction in full.”
Jeremy Corbyn gives Theresa May ultimatum: Agree to Labour’s Brexit terms or I’ll force election in spring
Corbyn says access to the single market should be a red line for the Government.
He says: “Sorry, but we live in a democracy and the Government has to be responsive to Parliament. It’s not my timetable so it’s up to her to respond.”
Mr Corbyn’s bottom lines are:
UK access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market.
No watering down of EU workplace rights.
Guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment.
Pledges on Britain picking up the tab for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit
Government has to be responsive to Parliament. And Parliament has to be responsive to the will of the people. We voted to leave the EU.
The idea bveing that don’t vote and get Predient Trump. Do vote and gt PResident CLinbton. Or, better, yet, just take a bus and tell the driver to take you back in time to when the US President had gravitas and the people’s trust.
The ruling on article 50 is a huge opportunity. It would not be anti-democratic to try to stop what many other countries see as economic suicide.
It would not be undemocratic to prevent a democratic vote. Got it?
Stephen Phillips,Tory MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, has stepped aside. In an open letter he writes:
The campaign to give parliament the right to determine our future relationship with the EU is not about reversing the referendum result. Nor is it about subverting the will of the British people, or having a second bite of the cherry. It’s about the sovereignty that I and others cherish, a sovereignty that resides principally in the House of Commons and in its ability, when given the opportunity, to inform and direct the government of the day.
And did you get that, peeps? Westminster gets to make the final decision on Brexit. Parliamentary sovereignty was earned the hard way to ensure the will of the people won the day. Parliament should not be bound by the rule of the monarch. Parliament should support and ensure the will of the people. If MPs now subvert the vote, what purpose do they serve?
Do you trust MPs, like Paul Flynn (Labour MP for Newport W), who opined, “The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as Boaty McBoatface…
The Brexit vote deserves the same respect as the vote which chose to name a state-of-the art ship Boaty McBoatface (it was named RRS Sir David Attenborough instead).
Ah, TV’s Voice of God, Sir David, who opined:
The veteran broadcaster, 90, said the decision about the future of the UK should have been left to MPs who could have voted on behalf of the electorate. Attenborough said allowing the public to vote on the monumental decision earlier this year has created a “mess”. In an interview with Emily Maitlis for Radio Times he said: “I mean, that’s why we’re in the mess we are with Brexit, is it not?
“Do we really want to live by this kind of referendum?”
Nick Clegg is a LibDem MP. You need to carry that idea in your head as Clegg talks about Brexit in the Guardian:
Melton Mowbray pork pies, stilton cheese and British-made chocolate such as Cadbury’s could be under threat from Brexit, the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned.
Speaking to a food and drink industry conference on the impact of leaving the European Union, Clegg said it was possible that European rivals would start producing lookalikes to British foodstuffs if they lost the legal protection from imitation offered by EU rules.
The French will start producing fake bars of sugar-rich CHOMP in a devious Brexit-fed plot to wean their population off delicious chocolate and onto junk food. Bulgarians will be free to make blue cheeses and serve them in bell-shaped pots.
It’s carnage, readers!
“Outside the EU they won’t enjoy the appellation bestowed on those products and I would have thought other countries would take advantage of that pretty quickly and put products into the European market that directly rival those protected brands,” Clegg said.
And sell them to, what, holidays Brits? Maybe Bulgarians can cook up a Marmite copy and sell it back to us cheaper.
The wife of the Deputy Director of the FBI got a wad of campaign donations from Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
The embattled director of the FBI has been accused of covering up evidence of Donald Trump’s links to Russia while inflicting severe damage on Hillary Clinton, as Democrats hit back in a growing scandal involving her email server.
Having links to Russia is a crime?
Harry Reid, the Democrat leader of the Senate, accused James Comey of “a disturbing double standard” and, in a remarkably forthright letter, said he regretted supporting a man who he once believed was “a principled public servant.”
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and several conservative attorneys and legal scholars held a private forum last month in which they harshly criticized FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation just eight days before Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing his bombshell decision to review new emails in the probe. The event, billed as a discussion on “The Law after Comey’s decision,” featured several speakers including Mukasey, who served in the George W. Bush administration, hammering Comey over the legal precedent he set in concluding the email probe three months ago without charging Clinton with a crime.
FBI Director James Comey stressed in his letter to Congress Friday that investigators don’t know how significant the new emails may be. But even if they don’t implicate the Democratic presidential nominee, their mere existence could call into question testimony Abedin gave months ago about the email system.
FBI records reflect that she told investigators “that she lost most of her old emails as a result of the transition.”
During a June 28, 2016 deposition with the conservative Judicial Watch, Abedin also swore she looked for and turned over all devices she thought contained government work to the State Department.
“I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned – returned – gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents,” Abedin said. “And gave them devices and paper.”
Why would she have 600,000 emails on a compute she shared with her dick pics husband?
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
Let us turn the magnifying glass on them for a change, by sorting through the hacked personal emails of John Podesta, who has been a Washington power broker for decades….
I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.
So the FBI has found more emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret server. Apparently 1,000-odd emails were found as part of the Anthony Weiner investigation.
Emails, eh. You can accidentally (on purpose) wipe your own emails but the trouble is if they were sent, then they sit on the recipients server; if you received them, they’re on the sender’s electronic log book. These emails were on Weiner’s laptop.
Mrs Weiner, Huma Abedin, works for Hillary. She and Anthony are estranged.
What have the FBI found?
Mrs Clinton was supposed to have handed over all evidence relating to her use of a private email server – something she instigated in 2009, when she was appointed secretary of state. The Weiner investigation shows she did not.
Career politician misspeaks the truth. Read all about it!
In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said the emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, which law enforcement officials said was an F.B.I. investigation into illicit text messages from Mr. Weiner to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, is married to Huma Abedin, the top aide.
The Guardian says the emails have nothing to do with Clinton:
Anthony Weiner takes center stage in presidential race about men’s sex lives
About men’s sex lives? Or about a woman who wants to be President lying?
It remains to be seen just what is in the emails, although whether Hillary sent emails with confidential content herself, or directed, or simply allowed her closest aide, Huma Abedin to forward such emails to her outside unsecured email address (where they subsequently ended up on Anthony Weiner’s notebook), is what this latest case will be all about and how it will be defended and prosecuted in the media, by the water coolers and perhaps, in court.
Howie Carr considers the (lack of) evidence in the Boston Herald:
Before he toppled over from the vapors, Paul Krugman called to cancel his nomination of FBI Director James Comey for next spring’s Profiles in Courage award for having the “courage” to broom the obstruction-of-justice rap against Hillary Clinton.
I’m not a big James Comey fan, to say the least. My feeling is, if you want to hide something real good, just stick it in one of his law books. He’s proven he’ll leave no stone unturned, except the one Hillary Clinton is hiding under.
But let’s be real. A bottom feeder like Comey would never have taken this high-stakes gamble if there were any way he could have kept sweeping the dirty laundry under the rug.
What they’ve already turned up from Carlos Danger’s cellphones obviously ain’t about yoga schedules and Chelsea’s wedding plans. Of all people, Comey knows what happens if you take a shot at these people and miss. Ken Starr, anyone?
As he says: “I Did Not Have Classified Relations With That Woman, Mrs Clinton.”
Even a fool like Trump can milk this.
Expect to hear more of Trump’s words two months ago:
“I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told?”
Why did the Democrats go with Clinton? It looks like a massive error.
Baroness Jenny Tonge has been suspended by the Liberal Democrats. Yes, we know, some news there that Tonge and the LibDems still exist. And when you hear the story you might suppose that Tonge has been auditioning for membership to the un-anti-Semetic Labour Party.
Today, a LibDem spokesperson tells media: “The party has suspended the membership of Jenny Tonge. We take her comments very seriously and have acted accordingly.”
Suspended. Not kicked out. Put on hold. That’s how big a deal anti-Semitism is nowadays among the elite. It is not their problem. Of course, nothing is fact. As the Guardian states: “Jenny Tonge quits Lib Dems after suspension for alleged antisemitic comments.”
Tonge noted on Facebook:
“In the course of the evening one member of the audience made a ‘rant’ against Israel quoting some very confused history which I confess I did not hear or understand! I then called the next member of the audience and moved on. The contribution was ignored by the audience after a few claps of relief! Apparently this is my sin! I am at last free of being told what I must and must not say on the issue of Palestine, lest it offends the Israel lobby here, who like to control us, as they do in the USA.
“They are trying to destroy the Labour Party with spurious accusations of antisemitism and now they have set their sights on the Lib Dems. I have never been antisemitic, and never will be. I am anti-injustice and that is why I criticise the Israeli government’s flagrant disregard for international law and human rights in the Occupied territories of Palestine and Gaza.”
The story goes that earlier this week Baroness Tonge hosted an event in the House of Lords run by the Palestine Return Council. The events was part of a campaign for Britain to apologise for the 1917 Balfour Declaration that led to the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine.
The Jewish Chroniclenotes: “Attendees applauded when another member of the audience claimed that “if anybody is antisemitic, it’s the Israelis themselves.”
The paper adds:
Last week Baroness Tonge published a letter online which she said she had sent to The Guardian. In the letter, she discussed the Home Affairs Committee’s report on antisemitism, saying: “It is difficult to believe that a 75% increase in antisemitism it reports, have [sic] been committed by people who simply hate Jewish people for no reason.”
An audience member was applauded after suggesting that Hitler only decided to kill all the Jews after he was provoked by anti-German protests led by a rabbi in Manhattan. The speaker… said that in the 1930s Rabbi Stephen Wise, whom he described as a heretic, “made the boycott on Germany, the economic boycott… which antagonised Hitler, over the edge, to then want to systematically kill Jews wherever he could find them”.
The speaker went on:
“As opposed to . . . make Germany free of Jews, a Jew-free land. He became a madman after this boycott. Judea declares war on Germany. In Manhattan they had 100,000 people marching in the economic boycott in 1935, it was the same heretic rabbi who caused that.”
The speaker also said that Rabbi Wise told the New York Times in 1905 that there were “six million bleeding and suffering reasons to justify Zionism”. He urged the audience to note the number. This famous quotation is regularly used by Holocaust deniers to suggest that the figure of six million Jews later killed by the Nazis was a myth.
Another audience member opined:
“Chaim Weizmann [a founder of Israel] did a confidence trick back in 1917/1918. He made the British establishment think that world Jewry had power that it just didn’t have. The trouble is, 100 years on, I am not talking about world Jewry, I am talking about that segment which we called the Zionist movement, has that power and it has that over our own parliament.”
David Collier notes on his blog: “This is the transference of classic antisemitic tropes, from the hand of the Jew to the hands of the Zionist.”
The Times adds: “Lady Tonge made no attempt to challenge the provocative comments.”
David Aaronovitch observes:
“Ten years ago the baroness did the old one about Jewish financial power in the form of “the pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. She got a reprimand from her party leader for it. Six years ago it was the ancient blood libel (Jews kill gentiles for their blood or body parts, see also under Shylock), when she demanded an inquiry into absurd allegations that an Israeli aid mission to Haiti was harvesting organs from Haitians. She lost a front bench job for that.”
And no, she was not booted out of the LibDems. He conbtinues:
Before she resigned, Baroness Tonge was suspended, not expelled, from her utterly complacent party. Because actually many people don’t care that much about antisemitism any more. They say they do, but they don’t. They cluck but secretly they think antisemitism isn’t really a problem, that Jews are generally rich and can look after themselves and that — one way or another — they probably have it coming.
Lady Tonge, the Liberal Democrat peer, is calling for Israel to set up an inquiry to disprove allegations that its medical teams in Haiti “harvested” organs of earthquake victims for use in transplants…
Attacking Israel’s policies is one thing; insinuating that the army of the Jewish state is stealing organs or – as the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published last year, that the IDF was killing Arabs for their organs – is to repeat what antisemites were saying about the Jews in the darkest periods of history. A blood libel, in short.
One hundred and seventy years ago, the Damascus blood libel shocked the world. On 5 February 1840, Father Thomas, the superior of the Capuchin house in Damascus, and his Muslim servant disappeared. The local Jews were immediately accused of murdering the two for the intention of using their blood for making Passover Matzot. Several Jews were arrested and tortured, and some of them died, not before producing “confessions”.
The Guardian says:
The peer has a long track record of making trenchant criticisms of Israel. In 2004, when she was an MP, she was sacked from the frontbench by then party leader Charles Kennedy after she suggested that she would become a suicide bomber if she was Palestinian. At the time, Israel had endured repeated suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians during the second intifada. She was made a peer the following year.
In September, the Sunday Times noted:
A PROMINENT peer is considering defection to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party after “a lifetime” in the Liberal Democrats. Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”.
We know there is no anti-semitism in Labour because Jeremy Corbyn commissioned an investigation led by Shami Chakrabarti, and she found only a “minority hateful or ignorant attitudes and behaviours”.
Hatred of Jews was bundled in with all other forms of racism. Chakrabarti has since become a Labour peer and shadow attorney general. As Nick Cohen muses: “Can’t think of anyone who has destroyed her good name as thoroughly as Shami Chakrabati has? Paying for peerage would’ve been less shameful.”
Today a committee of MPs says there is anti-Semitism in Labour. The Home Affairs Select Committee says Corbyn has failed to display “consistent leadership”. Corbyn’s acquiescence to bigots has aided the spread of “vile attitudes” towards Jewish people.
But isn’t Corbyn just the head of a group that do the same, a representative of the liberals who turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism, who consider disliking Jews an acceptable part of normal, polite dinner-party chatter? The enlightened don’t like Jews. So what?
Corbyn’s Labour Party has “consistently and effectively to deal with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic”, says the MPs’ report.
Are they right? The Anti-Semitism in the UK report says (via the BBC):
Labour MP Luciana Berger received more than 2,500 abusive tweets in three days in 2014
Since walking out of the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth has reported more than 25,000 incidents of abuse
Police-recorded anti-Semitic hate crime in England and some parts of Wales increased by 29% between 2010 and 2015, compared with a 9% increase across all hate crime categories
A fifth of British Jewish people responding to an Institute for Jewish Policy Research study had experienced at least one anti-Semitic harassment incident during the last year, with 68% of incidents taking place online
What says Corbyn?
“The report’s political framing and disproportionate emphasis on Labour risks undermining the positive and welcome recommendations made in it.
“Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of anti-Semitic incidents come from far-right sources and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest anti-Semitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour Party…
“Under my leadership, Labour has taken greater action against anti-Semitism than any other party, and will implement the measures recommended by the Chakrabarti report to ensure Labour is a welcoming environment for members of all our communities.”
“Clearly, the Labour leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate anti-Semitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people… The result is that the Labour Party, with its proud history of fighting racism and promoting equal rights, is seen by some as an unwelcoming place for Jewish members and activists.”
The promotion of the human rights activist Shami Chakarbarti to Labour lawmaker shortly after she penned a report clearing Labour of institutional anti-Semitism has “thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent,” read the Home Affairs Committee report.
Taking a peerage undermined the integrity of her own inquiry into racism in the Labour Party. She was ennobled after her recommendations absolved Jeremy Corbyn of any responsibility. The report acknowledges Mr Corbyn’s history of campaigning against racism but condemns his inability to recognise the unique nature of post-war anti-Semitism. In recent years, anti-Semitism has operated under the cover of anti-Zionism, to the point that denial of the right of Israel to exist can be a way of articulating hatred for Jewish people. The report concludes that failure to see this and to take action has helped create a “safe space” for anti-Semites in Labour.
Hillary Clinton has to do nothing to win the US Presidential race to the bottom. The media are obsessed with reality TV creation Donald Trump and accusations that he molested women. But what about those leaked emails, the ones WikiLeaks has published about Clinton?
First a few words about the sex. Jonah Goldberg is impressed by the double standards: “I honestly can’t get my head around the fact that Hillary Clinton’s closing ‘argument’ in this election is sexual harassment. Bill Clinton’s lifelong enabler has managed to turn this topic into a deadly weapon against a Republican nominee. This is like Godzilla turning public safety into a winning issue in the Tokyo mayoral race.”
And now for those emails on Hillary’s secret server that got wiped – whoops!
Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”
Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.
…Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.
But the big bangs are to do with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In 2008 Hillary was vying with Obama to be the Democrat Party’s presidential nominee. Her team produced a list of “negatives” to attack her rival.
One of these “negatives” as to accuse Obama of being a Muslim.
According to Tom Matzzie and Paul Begala, two Democratic consultants advising the 2008 polling effort by Progressive Media USA, it was simply an effort to test Obama’s vulnerabilities in a potential general election against John McCain.
Begala and Matzzie told CNN that the group also tested arguments against Clinton, a claim that is backed up by a separate hacked email available on WikiLeaks as Document ID 2187.
“This is Campaigning 101,” said Matzzie, an Obama supporter in 2008 who was the president and executive director of Progressive Media USA. “You test the vulnerabilities of your candidate — something (Republicans) should have done for Donald Trump.”
The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances.
What did Hillary Clinton say at the last debate? Oh, yes: “They they go low, you go high.” But not as high as Obama, allegedly.
Donald Trump is mired in sex stories.The Telegraph says Trump is the subject for “sexual assault allegations”. These are “claims made by women against the Republican presidential nominee”.
Trump has not been accused of rape. Others have been such as Bill Clinton, aka Mr Hillary Clinton.
Roll up voters and tell the world which sexist old man do you dislike the most.
The latest accusation levelled at Trump appears in the The New York Times. Jessica Leeds alleged on camera thatMr Trump “grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt in the first class cabin on a flight to New York in or around 1980”. Rachel Crooks alleges Trump “kissed me directly on the mouth” in 2005 outside the elevator in Trump Tower in Manhattan. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that,” she says.
The New York Daily News adds that Trump the “perv” “had eyes for a 10 year old girl”.
Trump is a peado?
Donald Trump, exposed Wednesday as an alleged serial groper, once said he’d spotted his future girlfriend on an escalator — when she was only 10.
He was older:
The would-be sexist-in-chief made the stomach-turning joke in 1992 when “Entertainment Tonight” taped a Christmas special in Trump Tower. Trump, then 46, makes a brief appearance and asks a group of 10-year-old girls if they’re going to take the escalator, according to the footage, reported by CBS News Wednesday. One girl pipes up with a happy “Yes!”
“I’m going to be dating her in 10 years,” Trump leers. “Can you believe it?”
Leers. Or jokes?
Is any of this stuff going to make his supporters think again about giving Trump their vote?
Donald Trump’s gutter talk about women shows yet again that he is bad news. The problem is that Hillary Clinton is far worse. Trump’s talk is indefensible. But Hillary Clinton’s actions as secretary of state, carrying out the Obama administration’s foreign policies, have cost many lives in many places, including the American ambassador and others killed in Benghazi.
Is this Trump stuff – emerging at the 11th hour – a good way to bury bad news about Hillary’s missing emails and her record?
Women have a right to be offended by Trump’s words. But women have suffered a far worse fate from Secretary Clinton’s and President Obama’s actions. Pulling American troops out of Iraq, despite military advice to the contrary, led to the sudden rise of ISIS and their seizing of many women and young girls as sex slaves.
A message from one of these women urged the bombing of ISIS. She said she would rather be dead than live the life of a sex slave. Some women who tried to commit suicide and failed have been tortured for trying…
Make no mistake about it. Neither party has a good candidate for president. The choice is between bad and disastrous.
And the scary things, the horrific things that Donald Trump says, Hillary Clinton has already done. Whether it’s massively deporting immigrants, whether it’s threatening nuclear warfare. …
Put it this way: I will feel horrible if Donald Trump is elected, I will feel horrible if Hillary Clinton is elected, and I feel most horrible about a voting system that says: Here are two deadly choices, now pick your weapon of self-destruction.
Bill Clinton “rape” protesters were pushed and shoved during two Florida rallies on Tuesday.
Clinton was speaking in Fort Myers, Florida Tuesday afternoon when a man wearing a “Hillary for Prison” t-shirt began shouting “rapist” as Clinton was talking.
America – how did you get to this? How weak can this election get? Policies are rarely mentioned. Clinton says she goes high when Trump goes low. Oh, puh-lease. She has focused on Trump’s behaviour and character. She wants us to believe all the accusations made against boorish Trump – but when they were made against her husband she smeared the accuser. Hillary does not go high. Hillary says millions of Americans are “deplorable” and “irredeemable”.
It’s hard to know which of Trump or Clinton is least likeable and shames America most.
Presidential Tat Watch spots this “Donald Trump Paddle Ball” on sale at the Gagosian’s Benefit for Clinton, Art For Hillary.
Designed by New York sculptor Elliott Arkin, the wooden paddle features a likeness of Donald Trump’s face. The mouth is open. The idea is that you smack the red rubber ball into Trump’s pie hole.
Arkin’s work references Koons’s Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer paddle ball game from 2000. “I often use existing contemporary works to satirize. Since Koons has made that print of the Mona Lisa for this event, I thought his Rudolph paddle ball was a natural fit for Trump,” he says.
Konn’s Mona Lisa repo costs Clinton fans – get this – $50,000.
To even things up, Arkin has also made a Hillary Clinton Flash Drive an 8 megabyte flash drive in the shape of a miniature Clinton. You pop off Clinton’s noggin – decapitate it, if you will – and reveal the device.
Whether the data storage device contains any data, like emails, say, or has been accidentally wiped clean by forces unknown is unsaid.
We’re still all waiting for the anything in Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails – released by WikiLeaks – to besmirch her reputation for being economical with the actualité (surely ‘a titan of truth’ – ed) . Of course, thousands of Clinton’s emails handled by a private server she maintained while in the top tiers of government were acciedntally destroyed. But something is seeping out. ZeroHedge says the State Department and the Clinton Campaign might be tighter than Vladimir Putin’s forehead:
Now, courtesy of the latest leak by Wikileaks, which earlier today released another 2,000 emails by Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, we may have stumbled on evidence of collusion between the State Department and the Clinton Campaign itself. In an email from close Hillary’s confidant Heather Samuelson, also known as “the Clinton insider who screened Hillary’s emails”, we learn the intimate details leaked by Samuelson regarding a FOIA request submitted previously by Judicial Watch regarding Bill Clinton speeches, which shows that virtually entire process was being “translated” over to Hillary’s campaign.
Who is Heather Samuelson? Politico noted on September 2015:
Hillary Clinton chose a former campaign staffer who followed her to the State Department to make the initial determination about which of her emails should be preserved as federal records, according to closed-door testimony by Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, a GOP source told POLITICO.
Why not preserve all of them?
Heather Samuelson, a lawyer and 2008 Clinton campaign staffer, worked under Mills and Clinton’s attorney David Kendall to sift through her ex-boss’ messages. She helped separate those that were purely personal, which were not turned over to the State Department, from those that were work-related.
The Daily Caller adds:
Most importantly, as we reported previously, Samuelson received DOJ immunity in exchange for turning over the laptop she used during the review of Clinton’s emails in 2014.
Here’s a question for Britons who want to abolish the monarchy: Trump or Clinton? And after them you most likely get their kids.
He’s back! The str of ‘thirdeaglebooks’ is a Donald Trump supporters. He’s written a song for Don. As the blurb says, this is the “unofficial” campaign song for the 2016 Trump-Pence Republican Presidential ticket. The official song will find this impossible to beat.
Take it away…. William Tapley (co Prophet of The End of Times)
We know all about Donald Trump and TV host Billy Bush sharing a “locked-room” chat during which the tsunami-haired bricks-and-golf tycoon advised randy males to “Grab her by the pussy“? But why are we hearing about this now?
Is Trump’s exposure linked to media bias? Rupert Murdoch’s Heat Street says NBC is part of the problem:
More to the point, why hasn’t all this terrible audio already surfaced? At any point in the last year, when there was still time to deprive Trump of the GOP nomination, did NBC brass ask Apprentice producer (and Trump friend) Mark Burnett for a look into his archives? Or were they complicit in allowing Trump to cruise to the GOP nomination when they knew there was likely evidence in Mark Burnett’s basement that could disqualify him?
Reality TV is a cut and paste job. The amount of stuff edited out would fill a silo. But is it right to blame the messenger? The Mail has been blaming the victim.
There are clear lines of accountability here – to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack and NBCU CEO Steve Burke. Did these executives just look the other way for many months while a former employee whose bad behavior was well-known got closer and closer to the White House? And did they place the career of Billy Bush – reportedly being groomed to replace Matt Lauer on the hugely profitable Today program – ahead of the US presidency? That sounds absurd, but this is the twisted world of network television and NBC has some explaining to do.
The Guardian 2008: “Another casualty of the internet age: Obama’s speechwriter is caught in a compromising position with a cardboard Hillary.”
NBCNighty News host Brian Williams “misremembered” being aboard a helicopter hit and downed by two rockets and small arms fire fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Williams had been on a different Chinook. “I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”
People at NBC are fallible. People make mistakes in wartime.
Glenn Reynolds adds:
HE WAS A DEMOCRAT WHEN HE MADE THOSE REMARKS, SO IT WAS OKAY. IT’S ONLY WHEN HE SWITCHED PARTIES AND BECAME GOP NOMINEE THAT THE REMARKS TURNED DISGRACEFUL.
Back then he wasn’t in or standing for public office.
How do we tell the story of reality TV star Donald Trump telling gibbering TV host Billy Bush “Grab her by the pussy“? The British news has made Trump’s “crass” comment (Express) the lead news story. Bigger than mass murder in Syria, desperate migrants and bellicose Russia is Trump’s “sex boast” (The Observer).
The Mirror looks at more pressing issues.
Trump is a story. The reality TV creation is news because he’s said something pathetic and is cheap to produce.
But should one comment scupper Trump’s White House bid?
Nick Kristoff opines in the NYTimes: “In fairness to Trump, other senior men in politics and business — John Kennedy and Bill Clinton come to mind — also sometimes showed a sense of entitlement toward young women.”
The digging for dirt begins.
Said Gennifer Flowers: “I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know. ‘He said Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had.’”
In the Washington Post, we read:
Trump, facing a GOP exodus from his campaign and apparently desperate to change the subject, just retweeted two tweets from an account featuring the name of Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who publicly alleged in 1999 that Clinton had sexually assaulted her two decades prior. In both tweets, the Broaddrick account reiterates her accusation that Clinton raped her and accuses Hillary Clinton of enabling him.
Then, the country was presented with proof, incremental and suggestive at first, overwhelming and indisputable by the end of the decade, that Bill Clinton was an irrepressible and irresponsible sexual predator, at least by the moral and evidentiary standards established by feminist activists and the press corps that loves them. And, rather than face the consequences of applying their own principles consistently, they prostrated themselves to the Oval Office. Gloria Steinem raced to the pages of the New York Times to advance the “one free grope” rule. Susan Estrich, Susan Faludi, and countless other professional feminists defenestrated their principles in a desperate attempt to defend Clinton.
And can we blame the woman seen in the film when Trump went full frat house?
To the Mail it is not Trump’s ugly comment that could cost him the White House – it is elegant TV soap actress Arianne Zucker, a woman who diplomatically dealt with TV host Billy Bragg’s pathetic comments as to which of he or Trump she’d sleep with.
The obsession with Trump, the close monitoring of his every utterance, has reached the point that his political and media foes have – ironically – become important generators of support for him. Every time they tell Trump ‘you can’t say that’, he says it. Every time they demand an apology from Trump, he doubles down on it. Just by defying the strictures of political correctness, and not caving when challenged, Trump can look authoritative and daring.
We keep reading that Republicans have deserted Trump. Will his supporters care? No. Trump has turned the election into a referendum on the political establishment. Clinton should be miles ahead in the polls. Why isn’t she? Seen as untrustworthy by many, her policies should be more than ‘I’m not Trump’. Remember Bernie Sanders, who said failing to vote Hillary will lead to “more drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels.”
The Republican nominee Donald Trump spoke for 75 minutes and for most of his speech, he outlined a laundry list of every conceivable fear he could conjure. Radical Islam, immigration (legal, illegal, Mexican, Muslim, whatevs), stagnant wages, rising violence in the streets, and really terrible trade deals were among the litany.
The US Presidential campaign has a long way to run.
And like so much in Trump and Clinton’s lives, it is a race to the bottom.
WikiLeaks has released bits of speeches Hillary Clinton gave in the years before her 2016 presidential campaign. It was a lucrative tour. Private audiences paid her “at least $26.1 million in speaking fees”.
We get to see the speeches because versions of them appeared in emails now hacked, such as an account operated by Campaign Chairman John Podesta.
We love a cover up. But if we don’t find any juice, then so what? Aren’t private emails part of everyday conversations – some things we say are good and others less so. Do emails give us the full context?
Meanwhile Clinton’s rival Donald Trumps is in the mire over his attitudes to women, what the BBC calls “obscene remarks on women”.
In the video, posted by the Washington Post, Mr Trump is heard bragging to TV host Billy Bush about trying to have sex with a married woman as well as kissing and groping others.
A clip was part of unaired footage for an Access Hollywood segment ahead of Mr Trump’s appearance on the soap opera Days of Our Lives.
“I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phoney tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”
He then says when he sees a pretty woman he hones in.
Bush notes actress Arianne Zucker, who’s waiting for Trump outside the bus. “Your girl’s hot as s***, in the purple,” Bush said.
“Whoa!” Trump replied. “Whoa!”
“I’ve gotta use some Tic-Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump continued. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”
“Whatever you want,” said another voice believed to be Bush.
“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump replied. “You can do anything.”
All unedifying stuff. But what do we have but Clinton talking to the paying fans and what Trump calls “locker-room banter”?
Listen in. Language is NSFW. Trump is revolting. Bush is sleaze personified.
Trump has now apologised. Well, sort of. He said: “This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course – not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”
His apology is not for his comments rather for your taking offence at them. It’s a remarkably dishonest approach to saying ‘sorry’.
Expert to hear lots now on Bill Clinton’s attitude to women and Jill Harth, the woman who sued Trump over an alleged sexual assault. The Guardian dished the dirt:
She first met Trump in December 1992 at his offices in Trump Tower, where she and her then romantic partner, George Houraney, were making a business presentation. The couple wanted to recruit Trump to back their American Dream festival, in which Harth oversaw a pin-up competition known as American Dream Calendar Girls. Harth described that meeting as “the highlight of our career”.
But in other ways, it was something of a lowlight: Trump took an interest in Harth immediately and began subjecting her to a steady string of unwanted sexual advances, detailed by Harth in her complaint.
She claims that in January 1993, Harth and Houraney were visiting Trump’s Florida mansion. She alleges:
“He pushed me up against the wall, and had his hands all over me and tried to get up my dress again, and I had to physically say: ‘What are you doing? Stop it.’ It was a shocking thing to have him do this because he knew I was with George, he knew they were in the next room. And how could he be doing this when I’m there for business?…
“Trump did everything in his power to get me to leave him. He constantly called me and said: ‘I love you, baby, I’m going to be the best lover you ever had. What are you doing with that loser, you need to be with me, you need to step it up to the big leagues.’
“He was constantly working on me during that time and that took a toll on me. But I moved on. I’m a forgiving type person, OK? I’m a Christian, I moved on.”
He denies the allegations.
America waits to elect one or the other of what must be the least appealing choice since Michael Barrymore asked “Top, Middle or Bottom?”
UKIP sources insist that condemnation of the alleged fight between UKIP MEPs Stephen Woolfe and Mike Hookem is unwarranted.
“We regret that a heated debate ended with one man seriously ill in hospital,” says a UKIP source, “but it just shows how UKIP is standing shoulder to shoulder with US Presidential hopeful Donald Trump. When Mr Trump courted the terminally ill vote but telling them ‘I don’t care how sick you are, vote for me if it’s the last thing you do’ – which it might very well be – Stephen was doing his bit to support a man endorsed by UKIP leader Nigel Farage.
“He now understands that being unconscious or in a coma presents unforeseen challenges to voting in any election, not least of all the the US Presidential race, what with Stephen not being a US citizen and failing to register as such in time.”
It is, puns the Times, “a dramatic blow to UKIP’s reputation”. In Strasbourg, Steven Woolfe, a North West MEP, collapsed at the European parliament after an alleged row with Mike Hookem – nominative determinism? – who represents Yorkshire and the Humber. Mr Hookem, the party’s defence (!) spokesman, “raised allegations that Mr Woolfe was planning to defect to the Tories”. That would be an odd move for Woolfe, who wants to be UKIP leader, a role open once more since Diana James quit after just 18 days in the job.
Two hours after the row Woolfe suffered two “epileptic-like” fits and passed out. He is now “feeling brighter, happier and smiling as ever”.
Nigel Farage, the acting party leader, says it was a “dispute that finished up physically”. It “shouldn’t have happened”.
So what did happen?
“Sources” are making claims all over the media.
Source 1: Mr Hookem called Mr Woolfe a joke and the two men began shouting.
Source 2: Mr Woolfe removed his jacket and said he had had enough and wanted to settle the matter outside.
Source 3: Party insiders tell The Telegraph that Mr Woolfe was punched by a UKIP colleague following an altercation.
Source 4: ‘The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Woolfe is suffering from bleeding of the brain after he was punched. One witness said he fell into a window after being punched.”
Source 5: Woofe claims Hookem lost his temper and pushed him into a door frame.
Source 6 (Labour): The Jews did it.
The good news is that Mr Woolfe has no bleeding on the brain.
Liz Jones, a member of the Ukip national executive committee, adds: “If there’s been an altercation, a fist-fight — and not that I’m saying that happened — but if there has been aggression from both sides, there is a possibility that both could be suspended.”
Farage adds: “I don’t think that a political party can have an incident like this without having a look at it. I don’t see any need for the police to be involved, there are no complaints. Somehow I doubt people will be suspended. “I won’t be on the inquiry myself. I suspect it will blow over and be looked back upon as one of these things that happens between men.”
Nigel Farage again: “I deeply regret that following an altercation that took place at a meeting of MEPs this morning that Steven Woolfe subsequently collapsed and was taken to hospital. His condition is serious.”
Leonardo DiCaprio thinks democracy and free though – and thereby free speech – are overrated. Speaking at the White House ahead of a screening of his new grandiose documentary, Before the Flood, DiCaprio opined:
“If you don’t believe in climate change, you don’t believe in facts, and science, and empirical truths. And, in my humble opinion, [you] should not be allowed to hold public office.”
Believe or else. Orthodoxy rules!
Are there any more views DiCaprio disagrees with that should bar you from holding public office, even if the people have voted for you?
Has Article 50 been triggered? No. But we’re getting lots of news that it might be, maybe. It’s the Tory Party conference and leader Theresa May is keen to please all sides of her Cabinet by talking up Brexit whilst doing very little top make it happen.
May will formally begin the Brexit process by the end of March 2017, she has told the BBC.
Great. Pull the trigger…and:
The prime minister confirmed the deadline for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets in place a two-year process of withdrawal. She has also promised a “Great Repeal Bill” in the next Queen’s Speech, which will overturn the act that took the UK into the forerunner of the EU.
The Sun says we are on the “March to Freedom”.
The Mail says Theresa May is “not for tuning” – just like Margaret Thatcher said she wasn’t.
All good. The people voted to reject the European Union.
The BBC adds:
It will remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book. The government will also enshrine all existing EU law into British law.
Hands up those who voted to regain control the country?