SO SCHUMER ONCE WAS ALL FOR NOT CALLING ILLEGALS UNDOCUMENTED …
Back in 2009 Sen. Chuck Schumer was actually for border security and did not politicize the subject. So what happened? Why doesn’t Schumer feel the same way in 2019? Who is playing politics? The answer is obvious. In a speech in 2009, Chuck Schumer espoused views against illegal immigration that sound strikingly similar to what President Trump has said since 2015.
Who are the hypocrites?
26 Senate Democrats including Schumer, Feinstein, Biden, Hillary Clinton voted for a border fence in 2006
Hillary Clinton: You ‘Cannot be Civil’ with Republicans … Only When Democrats “Win Back the House and or the Senate, that’s when Civility can Start Again.” (VIDEO)
UNREAL … SO DEMOCRATS WILL ONLY BE CIVIL IF THEY GET THEIR WAY? ALL THE REASON WHY AMERICA SHOULD NEVER GIVE BACK THE POWER TO THESE INSANE BULLIES.
Yesterday Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democrat presidential candidate who in losing to Donald Trump stated in her concession speech that she would work with him and claimed she wanted him to be a successful president for all Americans. She claimed America was big enough for everyone. Just more Clinton lies. Everyone, but those she and the LEFT disagree with. Now we hear Hillary Clinton say in a CNN interview call for a lack of civility … “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. She went on to say, “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start.”
America, the LEFT is not being civil, they are acting as an angry mob, threatening violence, trying to intimidate and forcing individuals out of restaurants and movie theaters to get their way. This is not civil disobedience, its mob rule, its bullying. But when you have politicians like Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters and Cory Booker promoting it, what would one expect? Democrats will only act civil if they win back the House or Senate, are you kidding? We all know to stand up to a bully and never give a bully their way, right? I hope, I really hope in the 2018 midterms, America stands up to this insanity and teaches the LEFT a lessen like they have never seen.
Is this what the LEFT has become, vote us in and believe like us or we will riot? President Trump is correct when he says, the Democrat party has become too insane.
Hillary Clinton says the time for civility is over.
After the bitter and partisan fight over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate declared that President Donald Trump has undermined the integrity of the nation’s highest court and that it’s time for Democrats to be “tougher” with their opponents, in an interview with CNN published Tuesday
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”
Clinton said that Senate Republicans under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., “demeaned the confirmation process” and “insulted and attacked” Christine Blasey Ford – who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault she alleges Kavanaugh committed in 1982 – along with other “women who were speaking out.”
Listen to Hillary’s lies from her 2016 concession speech. She never intended to wok with Trump, she was the resistance before, during and after.
Hillary Clinton Says Sex Claims Against Husband Bill Clinton are NOT like the Kavanaugh Confirmation Ones (VIDEO)
ACTUALLY HILLARY IS CORRECT, BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BILL CLINTON WERE TRUE …
SERIOUSLY HILLARY? Even Democrats wish she would just go away. Once again Hillary Clinton, the thing that just won’t go away, stated that she rejected the idea that accusations against her husband, former President Bill “Slick Willy” Clinton, were like anything compared to the sexual misconduct allegations against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or President Donald Trump. Believe it or not Hillary might have a point. The accusations are different, former Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, he also did have sex with that intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones for $850,000. And let us not forget how Hillary Clinton enabled her husband and how Hillary treated Bill Clinton’s female accusers, the so-called bimbo eruption. Bill Clinton had a pattern of inappropriate behavior with women forever. From his days in Arkansas to the Oval Office, and oh yeah college too? But I thought we were supposed to always believe the women? Then there is one huge difference Hillary … the cigar. Only your husband used a cigar on a 20 year old intern as a sex object. (Mic drop!)
Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, following revelations of his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. However, he was not convicted by the Senate and removed. He gave a deposition as president in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. One would think that Democrats would learn from this as back then, Republicans overplayed their hand and Clinton was reelected.
Hillary Clinton is firmly rejecting the idea that accusations against her husband are anything like the sexual misconduct allegations against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or President Donald Trump.
The former secretary of state, who is joining with her husband for a joint speaking tour where tickets are going for up to $700 each, referenced independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation during the 1990s that led to impeachment.
She called it an ‘intense’ and ‘partisan probe’ that distinguished it from allegations against Trump and Kavanaugh, who sat as the newest Supreme Court justice Tuesday after weathering sexual assault allegations from high school and college.
Watch the reaction on Bill Clinton’s face when asked about the cigar.
AMERICA HAS NO BUYERS REMORSE, CLINTON AT 36% FAVORABLE RATING …
According to a recent Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton’s favorable rating at an amazing low 36%. Is it really any wonder why she lost the 2016 presidential election?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s favorability with U.S. adults is unchanged from last November — remaining at a record low (36%).
These results, from a Sept. 4-12 Gallup poll, confirm that Clinton’s image remains in a rut nearly two years after she lost the presidential contest in 2016. Her favorable rating is down seven percentage points from where it stood on the eve of the election.
Two key trends would suggest that Clinton should become more popular, not less, after the 2016 presidential election. The first is specific to Clinton. While opinions of Clinton have varied over her long time in the public limelight, she has tended to be quite popular when she is no longer seen as a purely political figure. When her husband, former President Bill Clinton, faced impeachment in 1998, for instance, Hillary Clinton’s favorable rating rose to a record high of 67%. Clinton was also generally well-liked over the course of her 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state.
Jonathan Turley: If Trump Meeting is Illegal, then Clinton Dossier is Criminal Too … Actually Much More Criminal
SO WHY DOES THE MSM ONLY SEE THAT TRUMP’S ACTION WERE CRIMINAL AND NOT HILLARY?
From Jonathan Turley of The Hill comes the following logic when trying to figure out why the liberal media would call one action by Donald Trump Jr. a crime, but completely dismissing the actions of Hillary Clinton and the Russian dossier. The liberal media in their efforts of “gotcha” of President Trump at any and all cost have basically described a crime, that of which Hillary Clinton did, not Donald Trump.
CNN, co-host Alisyn Camerota claims claimed that it is an “open and shut case” that taking dirt on Hillary from the Russians was a crime by the Trump campaign. Really? The CNN host does realize that no dirt was gained and the meeting was ended soon after, correct? Now compare that with what Hillary Clinton did. Dear Ms. Camerota, then what would you call it when Hillary Clinton bought and paid for the so called Russian Dossier from former British spy Christopher Steele (a foreign national) who dealt with the Russians to get info? As lawyer and legal scholar, Jonathan Turley clearly points out in a fair and unbiased manner, fi the LEFT thinks what the Trump campaign did was a crime, then the Clinton campaign was times 100! One was a meeting, end of story, the other was a bought and paid for Russian dossier by Hillary.
Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.
Such logic is so inescapable that Camerota responded, “I mean, what more really is there to talk about after that one?” The answer is “a lot more.” The Russians setting up the meeting said their government had evidence of criminal conduct connected to the Clinton Foundation soliciting illegal donations. According to witnesses, Trump Jr. asked for the promised evidence but Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya said she did not have it and only wanted to talk about Magnitsky Act limitations on Russian adoptions. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.
Indeed, it could be any foreign source, since the law is ambiguous. Does that not include foreign organizations like environmental and other public interest groups? How about journalists or lawyers sharing evidence of crimes by powerful politicians? Fortunately, courts likely would reject such an interpretation as a major threat to First Amendment freedoms of speech and even the press. So why are so many journalists and activists blind to implications of such an expansion? The answer is rage. We live in the age of rage, from Trump tweets to cable news crusades.
The latest media frenzy is part of the Newtonian principles that now guide both politics and journalism: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” However, journalists and lawyers are trained to avoid immediate involuntary reactions, particularly when the potential costs are so prohibitive. Responding to a sweeping political tweet with a sweeping legal interpretation is neither equal nor wise. In the end, the Trump Tower controversy is not based on “fake news” as claimed by the president, but the federal crime alleged by the media is based on fake law.