Rudy Giuliani on Hannity: “I’m Sorry Hillary, But You’re a Criminal” (VIDEO) … “If They Went After Ivanka The Whole Country Would Turn On Them”

SO WHY ISN’T TRUMP BEING TREATED THE SAME AS HILLARY CLINTON WAS BY THE FBI AND DOJ …

What happened to equal justice under the law in the United States? Rudy Giuliani calls out former FBI Director Comey for his miscarriage of justice, the double standard during the Hillary investigation and calls him perverted.

Bret Baier Interview witn Former FBI Director James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia investigation … Baier Exposes Comey For the Liar & Leaker He Is (VIDEO)

Bret Baier of FOX News exposes Comey for the lying weasel he truly is …

The more James Comey talks. the less credible he sounds. What becomes obvious is that there was a total double standard when it came to the Trump and Hillary Clinton investigations. It is chilling that he can’t see it. Comey doen’t think he leaked , does sneaky things or does weasily things. Guilty on all counts.

Three Big Takeaways from Bret Baier’s Thorough Grilling of James Comey:

(1.) “What do you mean?” asks an incredulous Baier when Comey says he can’t say for sure that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the salacious dossier.  Comey clarifies that he’s only heard media reports to that effect, but can’t be certain they’re true.  How is that possible?  First of all, the provenance of that file, and who paid for it, has been an established fact for months.  Comey was in an unique position to know basically everything about the dossier, upon which he at least partially relied (his answer on this point struck me as slippery and conflicts with other information) to secure surveillance on a former Trump campaign associate.  He claims he knew it was furnished by people opposed to Donald Trump, but never knew their specific identities.  Really?  Either that’s false or he was strangely and perhaps deliberately under-informed about key details behind a crucial oppo-research file that he exploited to achieve important investigative ends.  As for his assertion that Steele’s anti-Trump work was originally paid for by Republicans, this is a Democratic talking point that has long been debunked, as Baier notes.  Conservative figures did employ Fusion GPS for a time to gather research on Trump, but they did not fund Steele or his dossier.  As Byron York says, “given its importance in Trump-Russia probe and his own relationship with the president, James Comey’s ignorance of some basic facts about the dossier is stunning.”

(2.) On the Clinton email scandal probe, Comey defends his actions over the course of that process — persuasively at times, and less so at others.  His explanation of his judgments about Clinton’s criminal intent wasn’t terribly compelling to me.  Baier plays a montage of Comey confirming multiple lies Clinton told about her improper and national security-compromising email scheme, essentially asking how intentional deceit about arguably illegal conduct doesn’t signal intent (Trey Gowdy made the same point).  Comey responds that Clinton lying to the media and the American people isn’t the same as lying to the FBI.  That’s true as a legal matter, but lying to the FBI wasn’t the core potential crime under scrutiny; gross negligence in handling classified materials was.  Was Clinton merely sloppy (or ‘really sloppy,’ as Comey puts it in the interview), or did she have an ulterior motive for her reckless set-up, of which she was well aware and calculating? Her repeated public lies about her actions suggest the latter.  That ought to be the relevant standard on divining intent within that context, in my view.  Plus, “sloppiness” does not explain the lengths to which she went to bypass the rules and accountability, nor does it cover the knowing falsehoods and evidence destruction she engaged in when caught.

(3) In my earlier Comey-related post, I mentioned the theory that the decision to brief President-elect Trump only about the most prurient aspect of the dossier (regarding Russian prostitutes) was a set-up to offer a “news hook” to media outlets eager to run with the story.  Baier put this theory to Comey, who said he didn’t leak about that briefing to anyone, adding that former Obama intelligence official James Clapper didn’t either, to his knowledge.  The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway pieced together and floated this idea a week ago:

Bret Baier on key takeaways from his James Comey interview

Socialist Bernie Sanders Blames Crooked Hillary Clinton For Hiding Russian Meddling InfoDuring 2016 Democrat Primaries

IT WOULD APPEAR THERE IS DISHARMONY ON THE LEFT …

It would appear there is some friction between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders following last week’s Mueller indictment of 13 Russians operating on line to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The indictment showed these Russian trolls were also supporting Hillary’s Democrat rival, Bernie Sanders. Oops.  Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist – VT) said Wednesday that he did not know at the time that Russian trolls promoted his 2016 presidential campaign and wondered why Hillary Clinton’s team did not do more to tell voters about the extent of Russia’s election interference. Gee Bernie, crooked Hillary also did not tell you she was colluding with the DNC against you as well. Maybe this is why so many of your supporters were so disappointed when you actually lowered yourself and supported Hillary’s campaign.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

“If he was aware that Russians were trying to promote him and divide Democrats against Mrs. Clinton, why did he not communicate this to his supporters?” the listener asked Sanders.

“This was not supporting me any more than they were supporting groups like Black Lives Matter that are fighting for social justice,” Sanders said.

“I did not know that Russian bots were promoting my campaign,” Sanders added. “Russians bots were not promoting my campaign. What we found out is that in April and May, it appeared that there were lots of strange things happening, attacking Hillary Clinton.”

The interviewer asked Sanders why he and his campaign did not tell his supporters about Russian interference if they knew Moscow was meddling to sow divisions.

“I would say that the real question to be asked is what was the Clinton campaign—they had more information about this than we did, and at this point, we were working with them,” he responded.

“So did the Clinton campaign say, ‘Don’t talk about this?’” the interviewer asked.

“No, of course not, but who do you think would be raising that issue?” Sanders said.

“I could see a world in which Mrs. Clinton said, ‘It’s the Russians,’ and Sanders supporters say, ‘Oh, that’s baloney,’ but if Sanders says it, they say, ‘OK,’” his interviewer said.

“We knew what we knew when we knew it, and that’s about all that I can say,” Sanders said.

Podesta Squirms After CBS ‘Face the Nation’ Host Asks ‘How Did the Russians Know to Focus on Wisconsin But Hillary Didn’t?’ (VIDEO)

WATCH PODESTA SQUIRM WHEN ACTUALLY CONFRONTED WITH FACTS FROM THE MSM …

Yesterday on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation,’former Hillary Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta became visibly rattled after guest host Nancy Cordes questioned and pressed him with regards to the indictments against Russian nationals and the effect of their attempts to interfere in American elections. As Podesta tried to blame the Russians for Hillary losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump,  ‘Cordes asked, “But it does beg the question, how is it that these Russian operatives knew to focus on purple states like Michigan and Wisconsin and your campaign didn’t?” Hmm, good question.

Podesta stammered to answer the question as it is not often that the MSM ever asks a posing and tought follow up question. What it proves is the real reason why Hillary lost, she was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign.

SCOTUS Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Election 2016 too ‘Macho’ for Hillary Clinton to Win … The LEFT Still Whining about their Loss (VIDEO)

RUTH BADER GINSBERG NEEDS TO STEP DOWN … NO ONE THIS POLITICAL NEEDS TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT.

When will the LEFT let it go? Folks, its been more than a year since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election in an electoral landslide. An election that many said she could never lose. However, that’s why they play the game and the LEFT still cannot get over it. In an interview this past Sunday at Columbia University during a Women’s Conference Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said,  “I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by even the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign, and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized.” This was a doubling down on comments she made last year that sexism “no doubt” played a role in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election defeat. Good grief, REALLY? Where does this 84 year old Supreme Court justice get off being so political? She needs to step down if she is going to act in such a political and bias manner because obviously, by her own words and actions she can no longer be fair and just.

A note to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate. In a change election, the Democrats nominated the most establishment candidate ever. America had Clinton fatigue and were tired of her corruption, scandals and lies. It is only those in Leftist group think that blame sexism for her loss. As it was she rigged the Democrat system against Bernie Sanders in the primaries, of which she barely won. I am curious, was it also sexism that caused Hillary to lose to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries?

Ginsburg: ‘Macho Atmosphere’ & ‘Sexism’ Hurt Clinton in 2016 Election

Via Washington Times:

Hillary Clinton has spent most of her days, post-election, pining about her loss and blaming it on the deplorables who followed President Donald Trump — the so-called sexist, misogynist atmosphere she perceives as marking her race to the White House.

Well now, here comes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tossing the same gender card. And not for the first time, either.

When asked by CNN’s Poppy Harlow during a Columbia University forum to clarify her previously made comments about sexism during the election year — that it was a “major factor” in determining the outcome — Ginsburg didn’t walk back, but rather ran head-first forward.

“I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign,” Ginsburg said, The Hill reported. “[S]he was criticized in a way I think no men would have been criticized. I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer the same way I did, yes, that sexism played a prominent role.

In other words, Clinton was held to account on pretty much gender neutral political platforms. She was questioned about most of the same issues as Trump — except Trump, of course, was slapped hard for his past treatment of and remarks about women. If anyone was subjected to gender-based questioning, it was Trump, not Clinton.

Ginsburg, however, has described herself as a “flaming feminist litigator,” CNN reported. And she’s a flamer, apparently, who made widespread news for her inappropriate — for a supposedly unbiased court justice — who spent the pre-election weeks condemning the idea of a Trump presidency, wondering “what the country would be” with him in the White House, and threatening, maybe somewhat jokingly, maybe somewhat not, to move to New Zealand.

How long is the LEFT going to whine over Hillary Clinton’s loss? GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!

How satisfying is it going to be when a Republican, preferably President Donald Trump gets to nominate her replacement on the Supreme Court?