What Will Become of ALL THAT HILLARY DIRT?

Dirt on Hillary

by J. Masolo   at  American Thinker:

For the past two years, the media and Dems have relentlessly attacked President Trump, claiming he “colluded” with the Russians to beat Hillary.  They cannot accept that President Trump beat Hillary and is dismantling the Obama “legacy.”  Mueller and his staff of Hillary-Obama contributors disguised as attorneys have wasted over one year on this investigation.

One principal premise of the so-called “collusion” is that the Trump campaign met with and contacted Russians to obtain “dirt” on Hillary and the DNC emails.

The logical questions are, what dirt could the Russians possibly provide that we do not already know about Hillary, and how could it be worse than the truth about Hillary?

Think about it: dirt on Hillary.  Why would we need Russians, or anyone else, to inform us about dirt on Hillary?

All you have to do is honestly examine Hillary’s and Bill’s shenanigans since their days in Arkansas.  This does take some time and attention, given the complex, corrupt history of Hillary and Bill.  It is essentially lying, greed, and abuse of power.

We already know the dirt about Hillary: Whitewater, missing billing records, selling pardons, selling uranium to the Russians, stealing White House silverware, FBI files on Republicans, covering up Bubba’s rape and sexual harassments, the email scandal, destroying emails under subpoena, Travelgate, attacking the women harassed by Bill, and more.  I am sure I missed some.

The problem is not getting dirt on Hillary.  We have the dirt on Hillary.  There is so much dirt that it is mindboggling for anyone who cares, which excludes Democrats and the media.

But none of the real dirt about Hillary mattered to the Dems who nominated Hillary and the media that promoted her campaign.  What could the Russians possibly have on Hillary that is worse than what we know about her?  Even if the Russians have worse dirt than what we know about Hillary, it would not matter to Hillary-supporters and the anti-Trumps and NeverTrumps.  They still would have voted for Hillary.

Simply stated, the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to obtain dirt about Hillary is ridiculous and falls apart when one honestly examines Hillary’s record.  Hillary had to pay Steele to make up dirt on President Trump.  But the dirt on Hillary is there for anyone who cares to know.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/dirt_on_hillary.html

Is Anyone Honest in the Department of Justice? What Story Will IG Horowitz Tell?

AP: DoJ IG Report To Rip FBI Leadership For Heel-Dragging Hillary Probe

by Ed Morrissey  at HotAir:

With an expanding scope in another probe, Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon release his report on the Department of Justice’s conduct of the Hillary Clinton probe. According to sources talking to the Associated Press, the IG report will take aim at the FBI and its leadership at the time for a series of curious decisions, including a long delay in seeking a warrant to probe e-mails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Had the FBI acted properly, the report will say, much of the October confusion could have been avoided:

An upcoming report from the Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to criticize senior FBI leaders for not moving quickly enough to review a trove of Hillary Clinton emails discovered late in the 2016 campaign, according to people familiar with findings.

The FBI’s timing has been a sore point for Clinton supporters, who say then-director James Comey’s announcement of the review less than two weeks before the Nov. 8, 2016, election contributed to her loss. The agency’s findings affirming their decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton were disclosed two days before the vote — too late, her supporters say, to undo the damage.

Some FBI officials knew in September 2016 of the emails on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop but the bureau did not obtain a warrant to review them until the following month. Clinton supporters say the candidate’s name could have been cleared much faster if the FBI acted on the emails as soon as they knew about them.

The criticism will hit the very top of the ladder at the bureau:

 An inspector general report examining a broad range of FBI actions during the Clinton email investigation will criticize officials, including Comey, for not moving fast enough to examine the email trove and for a weekslong delay in getting a warrant, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.

All of this is certainly interesting, but … not all that interesting. Hillary Clinton supporters have long blamed Comey and the FBI for the timing of these actions, and with some justification, apparently. However, the FBI wasn’t the proximate cause of the problem. The proximate cause was Hillary Clinton’s decision to use a private, secret, and unsecured e-mail server for official business in violation of the Federal Records Act and the Espionage Act too, despite Comey’s decision to let Hillary off the hook for it. Had Hillary used the official State Department e-mail system, those e-mails would never have been on Weiner’s laptop in the first place — and it demonstrated just how unsecured the system was.

That also points out how oddly weak of a leak this is ahead of the release of the IG report. Horowitz had much more meaty questions on his Hillary probe plate than just the timing of the Weiner search warrant. What was Loretta Lynch’s role in determining the scope of the investigation and potential action? Why did Comey usurp Lynch’s role in determining outcomes without a formal recusal by Lynch? Did the White House apply undue pressure on the FBI? Why did FBI investigators allow Cheryl Mills — a potential witness — represent Hillary in the interview? Why did the FBI not recommend charges when Mills and Huma Abedin misled investigators?

This leak either indicates that the IG report will take a large pass on these questions, or is intended to distract from the answers it might contain. Unless more leaks about those issues emerge, we won’t find out for another few weeks which it is.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/21/ap-doj-ig-report-rip-fbi-leadership-heel-dragging-hillary-probe/

The Ignorance of Today’s American Fascist CNN Left…. They ARE Animals!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/21/no_one_is_an_animal_137080.html

By E.J. Dionne  at realclearpolitics
May 21, 2018

WASHINGTON — It’s never right to call other human beings “animals.” It’s not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.

This is why we need to reflect on the controversy over exactly whom President Trump was referring to as “animals” during a roundtable discussion last week at the White House with state and local officials from California on so-called sanctuary laws.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/05/22/why_the_left_wont_call_anyone_animals_137089.html

By Dennis Prager  at realclearpolitics
May 22, 2018

“If you want to understand the moral sickness at the heart of leftism, read the first paragraph of the most recent column by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne:

“It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.’ It’s not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger that genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.”

Let’s begin with the first sentence: “It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.'”

This is so self-evident to Dionne that he adds, “It’s not something we should even have to debate.”

Only someone who has never debated the issue could make such a claim.

So allow me to debate the assertion.

My view is the antithesis of Dionne’s. As I see it, it is not right to never call another human being an “animal.”

Calling the cruelest among us names such as “animal” or any other “dehumanizing” epithet actually protects humans. The word “beastly” exists for a reason and is frequently applied to human beings. By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.

Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if “human” is to mean anything moral — anything beyond the purely biological — then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise “human” has no moral being. We should then not retain the word “inhumane.” What is the difference between “he is inhumane” and “he is an animal”? Both imply actions that render the person no longer human.

Dionne provides his answer at the end of the paragraph: “dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.”

He provides not a single argument or illustration for this truly absurd comment.

Anyone who refuses to “dehumanize” the Nazi physicians — who, with no anesthesia, froze naked people for hours and then dropped them in boiling water to rewarm them; put people in depressurized rooms where their eardrums burst, driving them out of their minds from pain; rubbed wood shavings and ground glass into infected wounds, etc. — is, to put it very gently, profoundly morally confused.

What would Dionne have us call those Nazi physicians — “not nice,” “badly flawed,” “evil”? Why is rhetorically ostracizing them from the human race “a dangerous path”? He doesn’t have an answer because he lives in the left’s world of moral-sounding platitudes. Leftism consists almost entirely of moral-sounding platitudes — statements meant to make the person making them feel morally sophisticated. But based on their relative reactions to the sadists of the MS-13 gangs, I trust Donald Trump’s moral compass more than E. J. Dionne’s.

It is ever dangerous to use dehumanizing rhetoric on people? Of course — when it is directed at people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or any other immutable physical characteristic. The Nazis did what they did to Jews and others because they dehumanized them based on their religious/ethnic/racial identity. That’s why racism is evil. But why is it dangerous to use such rhetoric on people based on their behavior? By equating labeling the cruelest among us “animals” with labeling Jews “animals,” Dionne cheapens the fight against real evil.

I once asked Rabbi Leon Radzik, a Holocaust survivor who had been in Auschwitz, what word he would use to characterize the sadistic guards in the camp. I will never forget his response: “They were monsters with a human face.”

Incredibly, Dionne would not agree with him.”

 

Commentary:   E. J. Dionne, like 99% of  today’s America’s newsprint propagandists apparently has never been educated in things “science” or “arithmetic”, such as “two plus two equals four”…..unless the feminized are overcome with emotion.

Dionne has been around these feminized a long, long time.  What else can be expected at today’s Obama New York Times, Washington Post, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Harvard and Yale, and your local high schools of lower learnings.

Thank you Dennis Prager for your courage to remind collapsing Americana that there is still meaning to the word “Truth” even in this world of today’s Schumer Democrat Party of fascistic persuasion from ignorance.