Chris Wallace's ratings have gone beyond circling the bowl

Imagine having a tv show that few people watch on a network that few people watch and when your show goes off air more people tune into the network that not many people tune into in the first place. 

That's Chris Wallace's show called "Who's Talking to Chris Wallace?" And in answer to the question: hardly anyone is watching. In fact, more people turn you off when you're on, and turn the Contemptible News Network (CNN) back on, when you're off. CNN viewers seem to go out of their way to find something else to do when your show is on than torture themselves to watch you. [H/T The Western Journal]

This was in spite of a media blitz to hype for Wallace's  weekend interview show after he left his long-standing position at the number one cable network news outlet, Fox News in December 2021 to go to CNN+. 

But that CNN venture collapsed in April after less than a month in operation and Wallace was left out in the cold.

CNN tried to revive the failed liberal's career but his show didn't even crack 500 thousand viewers. Nielsen numbers had him at 462,000 and that's just a little more than the number of travelers on an India train [if you don't include the riders on the roof]. 

Fox News’ “Sunday Night in America” with Trey Gowdy kicked butt in that time slot by a triple-digit advantage and double-digits in the 25-54 age demographic. Wallace drew a mere 58,000 to Gowdy's 72,000.

CNN drew 78,000 eyeballs in the 25-54 age bracket between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., but when Wallace came on it dropped to 58,000 in the same age bracket and after he signed off, it jumped back up to 71,000 in the 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. hour earning Wallace the moniker "Human Repellent."

The good news for Wallace and Fox News is that his show was renewed for another season in December.

Tweet

Trey Gowdy proves AOC's reasoning is blatantly stupid

Trey Gowdy blasted socialist Alexandria Obviously-Commie (Duh-NY) for trying to link poverty to New York's crime spike. Anyone with a brainwave knows that the city's crime has absolutely nothing to do with impoverished New Yorkers being hungry, but AOC keeps trying to make the case that she learned in college [when she should have been learning about her major--economics] and there will be a group of her avid followers who believe non sequitur she whines about in her annoying, 'belchy' voice.

In a Fox News interview Wednesday on "America's Newsroom" with host Sandra Smith, Gowdy blasted Obviously-Commie's claims that the surge was due to struggling residents being forced to shoplift some bread, in order to "feed their child."

It's unclear exactly what she was smoking at the time she made this ridiculous claim because it has no bearing on the violent crimes that were being committed. In fact, shoplifting decreased in that time frame and violent crime went through the roof.

"Republicans are all upset that I’m connecting the dots between poverty and crime,” the idiot tweeted Tuesday. “I know most of them haven’t experienced or seen these issues first hand, but I have. [No, she really hasn't. AOC may have been born in the Bronx but the family soon moved and she was brought up in a very wealthy area above Manhattan known as Parkchester.]

"This may be hard for them to admit, but poverty and crime are highly linked, both violent & nonviolent alike,” she falsely claimed. The more accurate link to crime is the absence of a father figure in the home.

"God forbid my two decades in a courtroom compare with her experience as a bartender," Gowdy remarked.

Then Gowdy totally destroyed her argument: "Was the 1-year-old killed in New York because that child was holding a loaf of bread?" he asked. " I mean, poor people are no more likely to cause you harm than rich people are. That is not the line of demarcation. It is not whether or not you are rich or poor; it is whether you are law-abiding or not law-abiding."

"So, the spike in murder cases, the spike in auto theft, the spike in burglaries: what in the hell does that have to do with being hungry?" he asked, but AOC had not yet removed her head from her nether regions.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) reported that shootings were up 130 percent for the month of June and violent crimes in general have soared.

On Saturday, the New York Post reported 15 shootings in 15 hours, just one week after the city saw a bloody July Fourth weekend with 44 shootings and at least eight killed. Interestingly, not one loaf of bread was unaccounted for, and nobody was kicked into the streets for not paying their rent, in spite of AOC's suggesting that enormously high rents in the Big Apple could be a contributing factor in crime.

"Go check the criminal histories of the people committing these murders. See how many of them are committing their first criminal offense since the pandemic started and see how many of them are career offenders, where this is just the culmination of a lifetime of crime that resulted in murder," Gowdy urged. "I’ll bet you they are not first-time offenders."

He said he believes "anyone who believes in logic will take issue with her stance."

And insofar as not paying the rent is concerned, Gowdy clarified, "You can't be evicted in New York. So, how can you be killing people because you are being evicted?" he concluded. "This is a state, a city run by Democrats. So, if they are having a hard time getting bread, she needs to look at her own party and not blame Republicans. We don’t run New York; she does."

But don't look to hear this story on any of the mainstream media outlets, in spite of AOC's obvious lack of analytic ability, something she exhibited in her Green New Deal, and her hatred of free trade.

Consider following Brain Flushings, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear.

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren fires slings an arrows--speaks with forked tongue: Trey Gowdy fires back

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) fired back at the non-Native American Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) over her Twitter post claiming he retired from Congress to collect a "fat lobbyist paycheck." After which she belted down a beer and thanked her husband for joining her in the kitchen.

Warren cited a Daily Caller article on Friday that said Gowdy would be joining Nelson Mullins, a South Carolina law and lobbying firm. Note that it is a LAW and lobbying firm and that Gowdy is a LAWYER.

Fauxcahontas tweeted:

“@TGowdySC foamed at the mouth with power in Congress, then retired because he claimed he didn't enjoy it. Now it’s clear: Trey Gowdy just wanted a fat lobbyist paycheck. That should be illegal,” 

She then called for a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and let out a war whoop. Noticeable on her kitchen counter was her copy of the cookbook she contributed to titled "Pow Wow Chow."

She continued to bravely pontificate:

"We need a lifetime ban on lobbying for members of Congress. And fix the swiss cheese def of 'lobbying' so anyone who gets paid to influence Washington has to register. Public service shouldn’t be a launching pad for guys like @TGowdySC & @JoeLieberman to enrich themselves."

Public service should also not be a vehicle for people in the Senate and House to be allowed the acquisition of insider information on stocks, but that's something that benefits all of them [particularly Nancy Pelosi] so that'll never change.

Gowdy, who served for four terms before leaving Congress last week, circled the wagons and responded on Twitter:

"I'm not lobbying. Not now. Or ever. Perhaps you were cracking open a beer when that was announced. Don't mind your criticisms. Just be more sensitive to facts.”

Gowdy was making the same reference made above about Warren going on Instagram and trying to be a regular chum by cracking open a brewsky.

Warren announced this week she launched an exploratory committee to consider whether to jump into the 2020 presidential race. She has about as much chance of wining the Democratic nomination as a flaming arrow has to take out an M1A2 SEP Abrams tank.

M1A2 SEP Abrams tank

Gowdy has been a target for Democrats going back to when he chaired the House Benghazi Committee, which many Democrats decried as a witch hunt with the intention of disrupting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The only witch in that probe was the target of that probe who should have been indicted under the Espionage Act, save for James Comey, the fired FBI director who let her off the hook.

It's a new year and the world still hasn't come to an end with President Trump in the White House, in spite of what the media and the left [but I repeat myself] would have you believe.

I hope that you will follow Brain Flushings throughout the year and feel free to comment on any issues of concern. Please subscribe and check out the sponsors on these pages too.




Tweet

John Brennan lies like a Persian rug

It's almost laughable that former CIA director John Brennan wants to sue the Trump administration because the president took away his security clearance. But let's not kid ourselves, it's totally laughable.

Brennan is as believable as a Stormy Daniels climax.

Let's look at his history.

In 2011 Brennan swore to Congress that scores of drones abroad have not killed even one noncombatant; not one civilian, only the bad guys. But both Brennan and Barack Obama received many reports of civilian deaths.

Perhaps he was under presidential orders to lie, but it's still a lie and if that was the case, it also makes Obama culpable as a liar. But we knew that long ago.

In 2012, Brennan released information about having a double agent in Yemen, which put the agent in jeopardy.

As CIA director in 2014, Brennan swore to Congress that the CIA never illegally accessed the computers of U.S. Senate staffers who just so happened to be looking into the CIA's role in the torturing of detainees.

In fact, Brennan told Andrea Mitchell: "As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth . . . "We wouldn't do that. I mean, that's just beyond the, you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we do."

Even the Democrats were angry at him and called for his resignation. And it was only after months of his lies, when the CIA's inspector general report was released, did Brennan apologize to the senators he spied on because he got caught.

In May 2017, Brennan most likely lied to Congress when questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

Brennan said that he had no idea who commissioned the Christopher Steele dossier and lied again when he claimed that the CIA did not rely on that dossier for action on the Russia investigation. But retired NSA director Michael Rogers and former director of the National Intelligence Agency James Clapper, both admitted the dossier, along with the knowledge that it was a Clinton campaign-funded product, absolutely did help shape the Obama's intelligence community interagency assessments and actions, often with the push by Brennan.

There are many reports that, while he denied knowledge about the dossier, he was a covert conduit to ensure it was widely disseminated, as evidenced in the meeting he had with Sen. Harry Reid in August 2016.

Brennan briefed Reid on the dossier's unverified content in hopes Reid would pressure the FBI to dig deeper in the investigations which Reid actually did two days later with a call he made to James Comey.

Now Brennan is complaining that taking away his security clearance will silence him. Ironically, he hasn't shut up about this since Trump yanked it from him. He threatened to take legal action, but if he does, he will be exposed as the security risk and mentally deranged Communist-voting scumcrumpet that he is.


Please consider following Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.




Tweet

Yucky Chucky makes racist vote against Trump nominee because he's white

If a white black president nominated a white black man for a federal judgeship, liberals would be up in arms because the Democrats are the party of fairness and feelings . . . nothing more than feelings.

Shameful Minority Leader Chuck "Nostrils" Schumer (D-NY) voted against the Trump nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum, a white judge to fill a federal judgeship--not because he isn't qualified; not because he isn't black; but, he alluded, because he is white.

Schumer spoke on the Senate floor and said that the choice of Quattlebaum "speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump's selections for the federal judiciary."

That's a clear insinuation that Schumer, speaking for his fellow Democrats, sees skin color and gender as important attributes in choosing who is best suited to sit on the bench. He said that this nomination replaces two black judges from South Carolina who were nominated to fill the positions by the Obama administration.

But Obama's selection of two black justices rather than even one white justice, does not 'speak to the overall lack of diversity in former President Obama's selections for the federal judiciary." 

And Obama's replacement of white Attorney General under his predecessor, John Ashcroft, was a black man (who called himself "Obama's Wingman") named Eric Holder.

Schumer said nothing about any of Obama's selections.

Focusing on skin color, gender and sexual orientation, Schumer said, "It is long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice."

That translates to: white straight men cannot administer equal justice to non-white straight men.

And Schumer is a white, presumably straight man, but he's Jewish and therefore does not adequately represent the State of New York, if using religious affiliation as a criteria for representation. The state's Jewish population is merely 0.63% of the total population. Catholics make up 33.43% which is the majority of religious groups, so Schumer needs to step down and put his money where his nostrils are.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that Schumer's vote against Quatlebaum was "a massive step backward."

Graham was being kind when he lied about Schumer saying he "is not a racist." But added that "this was an absolutely shameful reason to vote against a very qualified nominee like Marvin Quattlebaum. Voting against a highly qualified nominee because of the color of his skin does nothing to bring our country and nation together."

Graham doesn't understand, apparently, that the Democrats have no intention of bringing the country together--they use identity politics to fracture the nation in order to try virtue shaming people who don't measure a person's worth by the color of their skin but by the content of their heart.

Indeed, Schumer is a racist.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) is the GOP's only black senator. He tweeted:

"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of South Carolina."

Schumer tried to make the case that the only reason Quattlebaum was nominated for the open position on the bench was because South Carolina Republican senators didn't return their "blue slips"-- a for used by senators to voice approval or disapproval for a home state nominee--regarding the Obama nominees Alison Lee and Don Beatty in 2013.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) caught Schumer in a lie, countering that Lee's nomination "was withdrawn because of a significant bond issue" and Beatty was eventually appointed as Chief Justice of the state's Supreme Court.

Quattlebaum was ultimately confirmed to the district judgeship on Thursday with the vote 69 to 29.

What goes around . . . comes around, Chucky.


Tweet

Trey Gowdy: Samantha Power claims others unmasked in her name

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power testified that the hundreds of unmasking requests made in her name, were made by other people. This was discovered by House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and revealed in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier on "Special Report with Bret Baier,"

"Her testimony is they may be under my name, but I did not make those requests," Gowdy said of Power. She is one among those in the Obama administration who made requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reports, known as unmasking.

 It was reported by Fox News last month that Power was unmasking at an incredibly rapid pace in the final months of Obama's leftist presidency. She averaged over one request for every working day last year and even went so far as to seek information in the days leading to Trump's inauguration.

Gowdy told Bret Baier, "I think if she were on your show, she would say those requests to unmask may have been attributed to her, but they greatly exceed by an exponential factor the requests she actually made. So, that's her testimony, and she was pretty emphatic about it."

Then he added, "So we've go to get to the bottom of that. If there is someone else making requests on behalf of a principal in the intelligence community, we need to know that because we're getting ready to reauthorize a program that's really important to the country, but also has a masking component to it."

Power was interviewed Friday for a closed-door session with House Intelligence Committee investigators looking into the 'unmasking' of Trump associates under the Obama crowd.

So who's to blame for allowing someone else to use her name to violate the rights to privacy of U.S. citizens? And if it was done with such frequency, why wasn't Powers directly questioned by the judicial authority that grants such requests?


Tweet

Samantha Power uses her power to unmask hundreds of Trumpers

Okay, here's what we know so far: Samantha Power is not a man nor does she "identify" as a man; she's a woman and is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. 

She also is known to have 'unmasked' over 260 Americans last year--about one a working day--and even sought information in the days leading to President Trump's inauguration.

Two anonymous sources and my source who goes by the moniker Vinny Boombots, revealed this startling number and it leaves people scratching their heads as to what a UN ambassador needs with such information--unless she's also an undercover CIA operative [not of the "honey pot" kind] in addition to being an ambassador.

Power is to appear next month on Capitol Hill as she and other questionable leftists are to be scrutinized for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports. However, the interest in Power's actions is very high due to an apparent absence of a "need to know" status and the fact that she's probably a Commie sympathizer like her husband.

In a letter written July 27th to the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said the committee discovered "that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration."

The "official" in question is widely believed to be 'Sam' Power. 

At a public congressional hearing this year, Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked former CIA director and Hajj visitor John Brennan about unmasking, without mentioning Power by name or reputation.

Gowdy: Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that names be unmasked?

Brennan: I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not--I could not answer with any confidence.

Gowdy: On either January 19 or up till noon on January 20, did you make any unmasking requests?

Brennan: I do not believe I did.

Gowdy: So you did not make any requests on the last day that you were employed?

Brennan: No, I was not in the agency on the last day I was employed.

But realizing there might be a 'sign-in log' or video evidence of his having been there, he corrected the record, confirming he was at CIA headquarters on January 20.

Brennan: I went there to collect some final personal materials as well as to pay my last respects to a memorial wall. But I was there for a brief period of time and just to take care of some final--final things that were important to me.

Power's spokesperson had no comment on the number or timing of her requests. Her lawyer David Pressman stated previously that "While serving as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Power was also a member of the National Security Council responsible for advising the President on the full-range of threats confronting the United States. Any insinuation that Ambassador Power was involved in leaking classified information is absolutely false."

Yeah, sure. That's what they all say and he even gets paid to say it.

And what the hell is Power doing on the National Security Council concurrent to her ambassador position.

The sad truth is, however, nobody at the top is going to prison. Nobody. Not Hillary; not Power; not Rice; not Clapper. It's the way the system works for the elite, for those who make the laws they break, or the policies that don't actually effect them, like Obamacare.

What you see in the media is fluff.


Tweet

Will Donald call her "Dodging Lynch"?

Capitol Hill -- Loretta Lynch was called before congress to discuss her decision not to indict Hillary Clinton on charges that she used a private email server. What happened at the committee hearing was appalling.

Lynch said she would accept the decision made by James Comey, basically because she apparently didn't want to take responsibility to squash Clinton's run for the presidency and also has her own secret agenda. 

During the hearing, Lynch dodged and deflected straight forward questions like a Clinton in a sexual misconduct impeachment hearing. Rather than voice an opinion, she referred them back to James Comey, the politically savvy FBI Director.

Democrats didn't really ask questions as much as they made speeches now that they knew they'd be on national TV. And of course, the speeches had absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the hearing. They spoke about gun control and violence, but left the issue of espionage alone--it wasn't important to them.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that Lynch's "lack of clarity is bad for the republic." 

But it's really just another example of how the Clintons are made of Teflon and all charges seem to roll off.

House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked about the legality of sharing classified information outside the proper channels. Lynch said it would be unfair to give a blanket answer. 

In other words, sometimes sharing classified information outside proper channels isn't such a terrible thing--you just need to know who did it. If it's Hillary Clinton, it isn't an issue.

Chaffetz responded to that sentiment by saying: "I think you're sending a terrible message to the world. The lack of clarity that you give to this body . . . is pretty stunning."

One thing that I got out of the hearing is how transparent Lynch's politics is--she's in the bag for the Clintons. Anyone who isn't surprised if she gets to keep her AG position if Hillary wins the election is as naive as a lamb to the slaughter.

Every answer that Lynch gave was calculated not to get her in trouble with the law. That's what crooked lawyers do.

Suddenly, it all makes sense when Donald Trump dubs a sobriquet on people like "Crooked" Hillary. I wonder what he's going to call Loretta Lynch.



Tweet

Ben Rhodes and Jonathan Gruber: counting on stupidity

Both Ben Rhodes and Jonathan Gruber seem to believe that the American people are stupid and deserve to be fooled, as long as it's for what they consider to be the greater good.

Gruber talked about how Obamacare depended upon the stupidity of the American voter in order to become a law, and because it was for Obamacare, it was for the greater good, in his mind. The administration knows best what's good for us.

Rhodes, on the other hand, bragged to the New York Tomes Magazine about the Obama administration's success in selling the Iran deal to the American people. He explained that they built an "echo chamber" to sell the plan and made fun of the young reporters who got their information from him.

The House Oversight Committee hearing was to called to look into White House "narratives" regarding the Iran deal after Rhodes shot off his mouth. 

Several senators tried to get Mr. Obama to fire Rhodes and a House committee looking into his braggadocio went forward with their hearing in spite of him not showing up to testify. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) called on him but Obama shielded his appearance in order to conceal their embarrassment over getting caught with their pants down, much like Bill Clinton did on many occasions, but under different circumstances.

The White House used the old ploy, "executive privilege."

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, (they'll pick you up) a guy who is not known to smile or ever crack a joke, accused Rhodes of creating a "propaganda operation."

Ben Rhodes is a journalist like Kim Kardashian is an actress.

Of course, the Democrats could always count upon the committee's top liberal Rep. Elijah-Black-Lives-Matter-Cummings (D-Md.) to to after Republicans with the only arsenal in his quiver--the ad hominem attack--as he criticized the analysts they called while not inviting military generals who support the agreement.

The truth is, Obama fired all of the military generals who didn't agree with him and left a bunch of "Yes Men" in uniform to validate his views.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that at least Cummings could question the witnesses who showed up, but Rhodes, he said, "didn't bother to show up."

Several GOP-ers wrote to Barack asking him to dump Rhodes, "before he further tarnishes the Office of the President," but we all know that it's too late for that.

The truth is, it's probably foolish at this point for the GOP to make a big fuss over this--the administration looks like lying idiots all by themselves. Just let Trump talk about this with Hillary when they throw down on the debate stage.

Gruber and Rhodes think they've pulled a fast one on the American people, but in fact, the only people who buy their bull are progressive liberals and they're not so American when you get right down to it. If they had their way, they would get rid of the Constitution and replace it with "Rules for Radicals."



Tweet

Poor Hillary gets GOP'd . . . again

Hillary Clinton is once again being used as a target by the GOP just because she used a private email server with some Top Secret and ultra-Top Secret information on it. In fact, she sees the whole damn thing like she sees Benghazi: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The former First Lady of Two-Time-Plus, told ABC that the email scandal "is very much like Benghazi . . . the Republicans are going to continue to use it, beat up on me."

And who can blame her for pointing the finger?

After all, the first Select Senate Committee on Benghazi was led by Daryl Issa, a Republican. And the second one is now being led by Trey Gowdy, another GOP-er.

The email "scandal" which only came into the light of day when Trey Gowdy requested the emails from Clinton's private Colorado bathroom-based server, is being investigated by another GOP organization, the FBI. Politico reports the story in nice detail.

But wait, that isn't right. 

FBI Director James Comey was officially nominated in 2013 by Democratic president Barack Obama to replace outgoing director Robert Mueller. So, if it's an FBI investigation led by a Democratic appointee, how is it that "Republicans are going to continue to use it, beat up on" Hillary?

Because Hillary Clinton's default position is to blame the GOP, or, at the very least, blame someone else, like she blamed the women victims of her husband's philandering. 

Some of the emails on her server are so highly classified they cannot even be shown after being redacted. 

Hillary Clinton claims she used a private server for her "convenience." I don't believe that's a viable excuse to keep her from being indicted and convicted. 

Will the Department of Justice AG Loretta Lynch actually indict Hillary Clinton if the FBI recommends it?

What do you think?



Tweet

Hillary on the hot seat at Benghazi hearing: pant suit on fire

Hillary Clinton is now testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the one thing obvious is that her Democratic colleagues are doing all they can to give her cover and attack Republicans for having the gall to question her integrity and judgment.

This is nothing like the Watergate hearings where the Republicans and Democrats equally sought to uncover the truth from the Nixon administration. That may be due to the fact it was a Republican on the hot seat and that Republicans are more interested in truth than in the politics that lies often elicit.

Adam Smith (D-CA) complained how the committee has spent $4.7 million in taxpayer money for this hearing, making it sound like the GOP is stealing money from the people. But he didn't mention that Obama's 2013 Ireland trip cost taxpayers $7,921,638.66 and the same year his African trip and Honolulu vacation cost us a mere $15,885,585.30 according to Judicial Watch's FOIA findings. And that's only a part of the expenses. Democrats spend more money on illegal immigrants than this committee has spent in all of its existence.

In true Hillary style, she told Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) the Sidney Blumenthal emails were "unsolicited." But when Gowdy read a few of the emails out loud, showing that Clinton clearly asked for more information from Blumenthal regarding Libya, she changed her tune to "originally unsolicited." 

Sounds a lot like her original "I did not receive nor send any classified information on my server" morphing to "I did not receive nor send any emails marked classified.

Gowdy even read emails from Blumenthal being less than generous to President Obama, leaving out his honorific, and basically putting him down.

One thing is obvious: Trey Gowdy and the Republicans on the committee have a lot more to go on this time, rendering all previous hearings a waste of time. This is the only committee that discovered Clinton used a private server and actually acquired emails that may prove damaging to the Scandal Queen.

It's becoming clear that when Hillary's lips are moving, she's lying.

More to follow, so stay tuned.

Tweet

Hillary lets Pagliano "Plead the Fifth"

The flags don't make him innocent

Bryan Pagliano is an I.T. expert. He worked as an IT director on Hillary Clinton's failed 2008 campaign and helped set up her private, unsecured, email server that the FBI has put in protective custody in light of the breach of State Department protocol and government regulations. 

A government employee is not allowed to use a private server to send and/or receiving classified information, and in general, only a secure government server is recommended for all business emails. Hillary had only the private server and lied repeatedly about how she used it.

Pagliano says he will invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying against Hillary Clinton, reports Fox News, but the actual purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to allow a man or a woman to not have to testify against him- or herself, not their boss.

The Clinton aide was asked by the House Select Committee on Benghazi to testify about the server, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Mark MacDougall, Mr. Pagliano's attorney, explained in a letter about his client's decision. "While we understand that Mr. Pagliano's response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client's right to invoke the protections of the Constitution," he wrote.

Pagliano was subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee on August 11th and the committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) ordered Pagliano appear for questioning on September 10th, and demanded he provide documents related to all servers or computer systems controlled or owned by Mrs. Clinton between 2009 and 2013.

Upon receipt of Rep. Gowdy's demand, Mr. Pagliano summarily wet his pants.

Pagliano was asked to oversee the installation of Clinton's [secret] server to handle her correspondence as secretary of state. He was paid by a political action committee tied to Hillary until April 2009, when hired by the State Department as an IT specialist.

Pagliano left government disservice in February 2013 and now works for a contractor that provides tech services to the State Department. 

"I do what I want"

The Benghazi committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md) huffed and puffed that Gowdy subpoenaed Pagliano unilaterally in order to make Hillary look like a lying, incompetent, stale air bagel (see Urban Dictionary). 

However, Ms. Clinton's competence is actually being a lying, incompetent, stale air bagel. 

Although Clinton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, isn't using a private server to do State Department business, whether classified or not [and if you think not, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you] absolute proof of her incompetence as a high-ranking government official?

What's most revealing about Hillary's character is her ability to allow others to "slow down the bus" with their their bodies before it rolls over hers.

Imagine how the Russians, North Korea and the Chinese are hoping she gets elected president. I even know an Ayatollah who has his bloody fingers crossed.


Tweet

Benghazi Committee wants "transcribed" interview with Hillary over deleted emails

The committee probing the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012 has formally requested a face-to-face interview with Hillary on her use of personal email and server for official business while she sort of served as secretary of state. This came after it was learned that the server was "wiped clean" and Hillary figuratively flipped the bird to the committee because she believes she is above the law.

So far, who can blame her?

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) as Committee Chairman, made the request in a formal letter on Tuesday sent to Hillary's lawyer, David-Hide-the-Dirt-Kendall, a request first made on March 16th but had to be repeated for failure of Clinton to give a damn.

The letter asks that Clinton surrender the actual server in order for it to be examined by the State Department's inspector general, a supposed impartial third party. The way the Clintons tend to operate, it would be surprising indeed if this inspector general isn't in Bill's or Hill's pocket.

The letter stated in part: "This committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this committee for a transcribed interview to better  understand decisions the secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately (sic) deletion of public records."

Hillary admitted she sent or received about 66,000 related emails but turned over about half of them to the State Department while deleting others which she claimed were "personal." 

That decision to delete any of those emails was not her's to make.

Gowdy set a May 1st deadline to comply with the interview and made it clear that he doesn't give a fiddler's fart about personal emails but only those she deleted related to her response as Secretary of State during the Benghazi attack in which 4 Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya, were killed.

Gowdy would like to see Clinton in a "separate interview" about those emails and also stated in the letter: "The committee believes a transcribed interview would best protect Secretary Clinton's privacy, the security of the information queried, and the pubic's interest in ensuring this committee has all information needed to accomplish the task before it."

"I need to ask what she did (with the server) and when she did it. And importantly, why she did it." he told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News' "On the Record."

Hillary has yet to announce her candidacy for president and hopefully she will not in light of her history and lack of intelligence, ethics, and honesty.





Tweet

Emails That Might Sink Queen Hillary

According to Reuters, Congress has subpoenaed emails of about twelve people who

And this is her "happy face"

worked in Hillary Clinton's State Department during the time when she visited 112 countries, flew 956,733 miles and spent 401 days on the road accomplishing virtually nothing as Secretary of State, other than to log more miles in the process.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee told Reuters that the emails belong to Clinton aides and may also include correspondence between aides. One can only imagine Huma Abedin's correspondence to her Muslim Brotherhood family and friends connections and those to her darling husband, Anthony-See-My-Weiner.

The committee is investigating the Benghazi attack that killed 4 Americans back on 9/11/2012. Those who died were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. The attack was blamed on an anti-pedophile prophet Muhammad video that was viewed by over 100 people worldwide, and although Clinton knew the video was not responsible for the provocation of the Islamic jihadist murderers, hell-bent on killing infidels and proving the crappy video was right all along, she kept repeating the same crap even to the families of the dead. Later, when questioned about the attack and what sparked it, she said, "What difference at this point does it make?"

We can hope that the difference it makes will keep her from running for president, or if she does, that she never holds that office. 

Mr. Gowdy was asked to keep the names of the people whose emails were being sought confidential. (State doesn't want anyone's pedicure stepped on, I suppose.)

Acts like Obamacare is a stool sample

Clinton asserts that while she should have used a government email account, instead of a secret private one which she had the cojones to delete, she violated no rules. Now you know why she was fired from the Watergate Hearing Committee--she sucks as a lawyer and is as unethical as a starving weasel in a hen house.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Botox Pelosi said to reporters that the committee "has spent millions of dollars; produced nothing. I think we're going to just see an ongoing attempt to investigate Hillary Clinton, whatever the subject, whether it's her emails or it's her hair or whatever it happens to be."

If Hillary was a Republican instead of a Democrat, Pelosi would likely have said, "Perhaps we should investigate the emails so we can find out what's in them."

But the State Department has been slow to respond to the subpoena and has set back the scheduled timing. Gowdy is clear, however, that he wants all relevant emails before questioning Clinton. 


Tweet

Is Hillary a Hypocrite or Just an Airhead?

An organization less transparent than President Obama's administration might be the Martian CIA, but when it comes to clandestine behavior, when it comes to shady-sneaky dealings, there's always Hillary Rodham Clinton. She rules in that area.

Even the White House says that it had been kept in the dark about Hillary's exclusive use of a personal email account, an account she used while traveling as secretary of state and during the time when our US ambassador was murdered in Benghazi along with three other brave men.

 Imagine, the White House, which was obviously receiving emails from her and sending emails to her, never realized that her email address was not a government one. Now that's what I call clandestine emails when even the administration could not tell that there was no "dot gov" at the end of her communications to the White House. Maybe she used invisible computer screen ink. 

We know the Obama administration would immediately tell Hillary that she is mandated to use government email for her official work because she isn't a special character who doesn't have to follow the rules.

Our secretary of state used non-government (i.e., non-official), non-compliant White House standards to do government business. She, as secretary of state, admonished Scott Gration, the Ambassador to Kenya, for a number of things, such as "losing the respect and confidence of the staff,"  his reluctance to accept Government decisions, not reading important classified messages, and using personal email to conduct government business. 

But Hillary Clinton sees herself as exempt from having to follow the mundane rules everyone else is required to follow.

The Associated Press learned about her personal email use from an unnamed source who said it was discovered in the Benghazi investigation. The source revealed that Hillary used "exclusive reliance on personal emails."

She was asked to produce her emails during the investigation and had the State Department make some or all of them available to the public--we cannot know with certainty if she produced them all.

"I want the public to see my emails," she tweeted cautiously. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible." 

Translation: "I want the public to see those emails I deem necessary to prove my innocence. I could have released them myself, but that would take away my valuable time from campaigning and there's a hell of a lot of emails and some stuff about Benghazi that makes no difference, anyway."

The interesting issue regarding Hillary's emails is the fact that she established a number of different email addresses for her private use. It's also possible that she had people working for her (like Huma Abedin, whose mother and brother have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood) using her email under the domain of "clintonemail.com," stated a 'White Hat hacker,' who provided independent research to Fox News' James Rosen. This particular hacker had also worked for the U.S. intelligence community, so was no slouch on talent.

Th hacker, using an open-source tool, called "The Harvester" to clintonemail.com discovered additional email addresses besides the one Hillary aides have publicly insisted that she used, specifically, hdr22@clintonemail.com. In all, at least 10 additional email addresses were uncovered.

Clinton spokes bull-thrower, Nick Merrill told POLITICO: "Secretary Clinton used one email account when corresponding with anyone, from Department officials to friends to family." But Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House select committee that is investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack (the one not ignited by a video) said about the emails that his panel "is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was secretary of state."

The Hillary bull-throwers, both Merrill and Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide, failed to respond to Fox News' outreach for them to comment on this.

Eric Hothem, a former Clinton aide was the person who apparently registered the internet server in Chappaqua, New York, where the Clinton's live in marital bliss, I'm sure. He too did not respond to Fox News' request for more clarification.

The 'White Hat hacker' is currently trying to see if any of Clinton's accounts have been compromised by hackers in the past. "We know that hdr22 has been."

Let's hope the other hacker isn't the Chinese, ISIS, Iran or North Korea.

Thanks, Hillary--you've shown us how hypocritical you are. Why not take your own advice and get out of public office?

And President Obama, if you think for one minute that the public believes your administration had no idea that Clinton was emailing you from a private email server, you ought to change your name to Jonathan Gruber.


Tweet

Benghazi and the House Select Committee: they're shaking in their boots

The House Select Committee investigating Benghazi will be led by Trey Gowdy (R-SC).  Gowdy says that he has witnesses who are willing to come forward and testify about a cover-up. 

The military, After Action Report will be subpoenaed along with the power to obtain un-redacted emails. The Presidential Daily Briefings will also be requested, and Gowdy is clear that he wants to see all relevant material and he will judge the relevancy with his own eyes.

There is no known date as to when the findings will be completed but a resolution date will be named soon.

While Adam Schiff (D-CA) wants to boycott the committee hearing, I believe he, like the Democratic party, is part of the problem. What happened in Benghazi transcends politics. Some in the GOP seem to understand that. But the liberals want to continue to protect this administration and to do so, it is at the expense of the nation.

House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA) spoke on Greta Susteren's On the Record and says that he is optimistic about the outcome of the investigation, although he cannot predict how long it will last.

John McCain (R-AZ) is adamant about  wanting to know president Obama's whereabouts the night of September 11, 2012. He also believes that Jay Carney has destroyed his reputation as a journalist with his misrepresentation of the facts around Benghazi. 

The one thing I know is true, the military doesn't wait to see if things are safe before attempting to rescue fellow Americans in harm's way. They move toward the sounds of gunfire. And nobody knew how long the assault was going to last, so there is no excuse to stand down. Leon Panetta is a fool if he believes anyone who ever wore a military uniform takes that seriously.

But knowing the attackers used mortars and heavy weapons proves they were not attacking spontaneously, was so obvious that even Obama forgot about what he said back in 2012, when he spoke about Russia and Ukraine. He agreed that an attack with such weaponry could not have come from a spontaneous attack.

The problem with lying is, you need a good memory. And I remember what Hillary said.

A New York reporter, is captured by Islamist terrorists who demand the release of three Gitmo prisoners in exchange for him. If the president refuses their demands, they plan to behead the reporter and videotape it for the Internet. But the United States doesn’t give in to terrorist’s demands and he has 24 hours before he is to be executed. 

The clock is ticking . . .                                         

Jihad Joe Soft Cover

click here for ebook version  

My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet