Thought for the day.
“Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men that I might leave my people, and go from them! For they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.
3 And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies; but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, says the LORD.
Jere 9 2-3
“The facts are these: Last year, the police shot 990 people, the vast majority armed or violently resisting arrest, according to the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings. Whites made up 49.9 percent of those victims, blacks, 26 percent. That proportion of black victims is lower than what the black violent crime rate would predict.
Blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in America’s 75 largest counties in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants and 45 percent of all assault defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, even though blacks comprise only 15 percent of the population in those counties.
In New York City, where blacks make up 23 percent of the city’s population, blacks commit three-quarters of all shootings and 70 percent of all robberies, according to victims and witnesses in their reports to the New York Police Department. Whites, by contrast, commit less than 2 percent of all shootings and 4 percent of all robberies, though they are nearly 34 percent of the city’s population.
In Chicago, 80 percent of all known murder suspects were black in 2015, as were 80 percent of all known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are a little less than a third of the population. Whites made up 0.9 percent of known murder suspects in Chicago in 2015 and 1.4 percent of known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are about a third of the city’s residents.
Such racially skewed crime ratios are repeated in virtually all American metropolises. They mean that when officers are called to the scene of a drive-by shooting or an armed robbery, they will overwhelmingly be summoned to minority neighborhoods, looking for minority suspects in the aid of minority victims.”
“You would never know it from the activists, but police shootings are responsible for a lower percentage of black homicide deaths than white and Hispanic homicide deaths. Twelve percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers, compared to 4 percent of black homicide victims.
That disparity is driven by the greatly elevated rates of criminal victimization in the black community. More blacks die each year from homicide, more than 6,000, than homicide victims of all other races combined. Their killers are not the police, and not whites, but other blacks. In Chicago this year through Aug. 30, 2,870 people, mostly black, were shot.”
“Newly released FBI documents detailing the bureau’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails reveal the aide who would likely follow her into the White House as chief counsel was central to a coverup of evidence sought by investigators.
Yet despite signs that Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills obstructed efforts by investigators to obtain Clinton’s emails, the FBI invited Mills to attend Clinton’s interview at FBI headquarters as one of her lawyers.
“It’s absolutely outrageous,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.
“The FBI saw massive document destruction and clear intent to withhold material evidence,” he added, “and they just ignored that obstruction, and even let her sit in on the interview.”
The smoking gun is on Page 16 of the FBI’s 47-page report. It details how Mills ultimately made the determinations about which emails should be preserved before she and Clinton decided to delete the rest as “personal.” Clinton conducted both government and personal business using a personal email account — clintonemail.com — tied to an unsecured server set up in the basement of her New York home.
The FBI makes clear the procedure Mills used to sort out the emails was suspicious. For starters, Mills was the one who ordered the server host to move the emails from the server to a laptop where she could screen them. She told investigators she could “not recall” if emails with non-gov addresses were included in the transfer. It’s unlikely they were, because an aide who helped her search told the FBI she only screened for emails sent to or from Clinton with .gov and .mil — not .com — addresses.
That means messages involving government business between Clinton and her then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin — the only aide who had an email account on the clintonemail.com system— were not likely captured. Nor were messages sent between Clinton and Mills and other aides using personal email addresses.”
—————————
“Several Hillary Clinton State Department aides told the FBI that they were unaware of the former secretary of state’s private email server, a report from the bureau’s investigation shows. But a Daily Caller review of public documents reveals that at least two of the aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, were involved in multiple email exchanges in which Clinton’s server was discussed.
The FBI’s 47-page report, released on Friday, states that the majority of the State Department employees interviewed by the FBI “had no knowledge” of the private email server Clinton kept at her residence in Chappaqua, N.Y.
“Clinton’s immediate aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.””
“But in depositions given to the watchdog group Judicial Watch, both Abedin and Mills vaguely denied learning about the server at all until they left office with Clinton in Feb. 2013.”
“A top Senate Republican called on President Obama to appoint special prosecutor to investigate whether foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation received special access to Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State.
Senator John Cornyn made the statement to The Hill during a recent interview published on Monday. In the interview, the Texas Senator essentially said he felt Clinton pulled fast one lawmakers eight years ago during her confirmation hearing to become Secretary of State.
Back in 2009, Sen. Cornyn held up Clinton’s nomination until he was satisfied that proper safeguards were in place to address concerns over conflicts of interest regarding foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
“This is not an effort to scuttle or block the nomination, but a legitimate policy difference,” Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said at the time. “Senator Cornyn’s goal is to create transparency on all levels of government.”
Sen. Cornyn eventually released his hold on the nomination after receiving a promise from Clinton to “do everything in my power to make sure that the good work of the Foundation continues without there being any untoward affects [sic] on me and my service and be very conscious of any questions that are raised.”
In addition to making that promise, Clinton also referenced a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the then-Clinton Foundation CEO Bruce Lindsey and Valerie Jarrett, the woman in charge of Obama’s transition team.
The MOU outlined an “agreed to a set of protocols that would apply to the Foundation’s activities to supplement any existing State Department protocols for managing conflicts of interests, and the appearance of conflicts of interest….” Among other promises, pursuant to the MOU, the Foundation pledged to “publish annually the names of new contributors…” and former President Bill Clinton agreed to no longer “solicit funds” on its behalf.
“When I put a hold on Mrs. Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State, she reassured me that they would take appropriate steps,” Sen. Cornyn told The Hill. “As seems to be usual for the Clintons, they crossed the line and all the concerns that she reassured me would not occur did in fact occur.”
He added, “She was playing both sides. As she was performing her job of secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation was shaking down donors who were buying access. It’s absolutely deplorable.””
————————–
It is. But you’re dreaming if you think Barry will appoint a special prosecutor. He has plans to run a foundation/scam of his own when his job ends at the end of the year. The scam business pays better.
Yay Brit Hume. So glad to be seeing more of him. So is Van Susteren gone? I’ll have to read the article. (I actually didn’t mind her, though she was a strong Trump ally and probably gave him more air time leading up to this race than anyone else, I got the sense that they were personal friends through the social circuit — not necessarily political allies. But I used to wonder why he was on her show — via telephone interviews — so often, weighing in on everything for the past couple 2-3 years; I mean, who cared about Donald Trump? Now we se there was a method to his madness.)
OK, read the link — sounds like major shakeups at Fox are in store. I expect Megyn Kelly to be out of there, too, in fairly short order, she’s built a name brand “personality” for herself and can probably name her price and the kind of show she’d want elsewhere. I don’t see her being confined to a conservative network. I never thought she was a very political animal in the first place but she found a niche at Fox and became something of a superstar there.
I believe Brit Hume was among the originals at Fox — they’d do well to tap him to help lead a makeover of the network.
After this election, there needs to be some new (more serious) vision of what the network’s mission is. I would like to see it double down more on straight news as a real competitor to CNN and the other news networks.
The whole lineup of one-sided commentary shows that spanned through the evenings just got old and way too predictable.
And they were slow to jump on live coverage of events (can’t disrupt Hannity or O’Reilly, after all). I always had to rely on CNN for breaking news coverage during the evening hours.
Howard Kurtz also has been a good addition to the lineup with his media show.
They need more serious news people like Hume to give the network more gravitas.
I think Fox may try to keep Megyn Kelly. She is not that conservative, but she is smart and fair. Krauthammer should replace O’Reilly. He is by far the sharpest conservative on TV. He should also be able to attract intelligent guests. Guttfeld is the star of The Five. He also has a late show with young co-stars. I would give him Hannity’s spot and try to get more young viewers.
Oh, Fox will WANT to keep Megyn Kelly I just don’t think she’ll stay, she can pretty much write her own ticket now. And Fox, as popular as it has been in the past, is of limited audience appeal and reach. I suspect she feels she can command something better.
But Fox will definitely try to hang on to her, she’s one of their biggest homegrown ‘stars,’ obviously.
I’m not sure Krauthammer is anchor material, but I like him too and he should remain a key player and commentator in the network’s political lineup.
Guttfield isn’t my favorite brand, but I get his appeal.
I think Kelly is probably pretty fiercely ambitious behind the scenes. She’ll drive a very hard bargain to get exactly what she wants (whether at Fox or elsewhere).
As a conservative, I still hold it against Dana Perino that she worked for Little Bush. I used to think she was a light-weight, but she is now the second smartest person on The Five. She has either gained wisdom, or she looks brighter by comparison.
Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, Trump and Ailes should create The Trump Worshippers Network. Hannity, O’Reilly and Van Susteren could handle the prime-time slots. If the Trumpkins were somewhere else, Fox News could again appeal to conservatives.
“Greta Van Susteren is exiting Fox News after 14 years, the cable news network announced Tuesday.
Brit Hume will takeover for Van Susteren to anchor “On the Record” starting on Tuesday, and will continue on a regular basis through the presidential election.”
In a Bible study one night this summer (not at my own church) a black lady lamented that while 130 blacks had been killed by police this year, only 18 police officers had been killed (that was her number, not sure it’s accurate). She said that was terrible. I really wanted to ask her if she thought the numbers should be equal, but bit my tongue.
Gutfeld is funny, I agree, though it might grow old after a steady diet of it.
Hume was instrumental, I think, in the early days of Fox. When he lost his son, he stepped back and took something of a semi-retirement, I believe, but he seems to be ready to move back into the limelight again. His daughter (they are both Christians) has a Christian blog, by the way.
I follow her on Twitter but probably miss seeing most of her posts.
During late 1996, he left ABC for the fledgling Fox News Network, for which his wife had recently become chief of the Washington bureau.[9][13] At his last news conference as ABC’s chief White House correspondent, President Clinton told him, “I think all of us think you have done an extraordinary, professional job under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.”[10] Hume became Fox News’s Washington managing editor and was in discussions about starting a Washington-based television news program for the 6 p.m. timeslot. The Lewinsky scandal began during January 1998, and Hume’s wife told him the story was so well known that he should start the show immediately; Special Report with Brit Hume was initiated that evening.[10]
In 2014, Hume said of the start of his time at Fox that “we made some progress and developed some audience and the Lewinsky scandal brought a lot of interest and the 2000 election brought a lot of interest, but what really did it was the Florida recount – that was tremendous for us because the people who were worried about how that would come out wanted some place where they could trust the coverage, people who were conservatives or Republicans or neither but worried. And we really made an effort to cover that story well. And that built our audience.”[14] …
… On January 3, 2010, Hume generated some controversy when on Fox News Sunday he advised embattled golfer Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity to attempt to end his problems. Hume’s comments were made after the revelation of Woods’ habitual adultery and the resulting deterioration of his relationship with his family.[16] …
Hume is a conservative[18] saying in 2006: “Sure, I’m a conservative, no doubt about it. But I would ask people to look at the work.”[10]
Previously married to and divorced from Clare Jacobs Stoner, Hume is married to Kim Schiller Hume, Fox News vice president and former Washington bureau chief.[19]
His son, Washington journalist Sandy Hume, was a reporter for the newspaper The Hill and first publicized the story of the aborted 1997 political attempt to replace Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. In February 1998, Sandy Hume committed suicide. The National Press Club honors his memory with its annual Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism.[3][10]
Hume has said that he committed his life to Jesus Christ “in a way that was very meaningful” to him in the aftermath of his son’s death by suicide during 1998.[20] …
______________________________
I don’t think you’ll much care for what will now be known as Phyllis Schlafly’s very last column. She thought Trump’s Mexico visit was very Reaganesque.
“Donald Trump’s surprise visit to Mexico, where he met the Mexican president and discussed the many contentious issues between our two countries, reminds me of President Reagan’s important trip to Geneva in 1985. Reagan was more than willing to sit down with the Communist leader of the USSR in an effort to build a personal connection between the two men without sacrificing America’s vital interests in the Cold War.”
“Reagan had been elected on a promise to “win” the Cold War against the Communist forces arrayed against America. Before Reagan, our country’s foreign policy was controlled by men like Henry Kissinger, who thought victory was impossible and that his job, as he famously told Adm. Zumwalt, was “to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position” for the United States.
After three decades of steady deterioration of America’s place in the world, Trump is the first candidate since Reagan who is comfortable using Reagan’s vocabulary of winning. Trump has pledged to make America “win” again, instead of being cheated and outmaneuvered by our adversaries and even our so-called allies.
Trump’s visit to Mexico recalls Reagan’s trip to Geneva in other ways, too. At both meetings, there was one signature position on which the American refused to budge.
Reagan’s no-surrender pledge was his unwavering commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative, that is, to build and deploy a system to shoot down Soviet nuclear missiles headed for our cities. With Trump, it’s his rock-solid promise to build “an impenetrable physical wall” on our southern border.
Both Reagan’s and Trump’s signature ideas were purely defensive weapons to which no country could have any legitimate complaint. Reagan’s SDI was a non-nuclear weapon whose only function was to destroy or deflect incoming nuclear missiles.”
“Likewise, Donald Trump’s wall is not a provocative, but a neighborly idea to stop the rampant illegality that harms both nations along the U.S.-Mexico border. With no legitimate objection to erecting a fence, wall or other physical barrier between our two countries, Mexico should be grateful for Trump’s leadership and even agree to help pay for it.”
Movies: Pre-1960
TV shows: Pre-1970
Golf balls: Post-2004
Church music: Pre-1900
Novels: Pre-1830
Theology: Pre-1800
Responsibility for political statements: Ages 22-90 only.
College football: Pre-1969
Your American Conservative link is interesting. It aligns with a leftist critique of today’s Republican party — its (partially) the party of resentment and bitterness except in this article the leaders and the intellectual elite of the party don’t know it and Trump’s campaign has revealed it. Apparently this group of conservatives never read “What’s Wrong with Kansas” or “Nixonland” or countless other books on the topic.
HRW, As a very young man, I worked for a rich guy running for Senate. Trump’s behavior is unorthodox, but understandable. He doesn’t want to rent a normal campaign plane. He wants the amenities of his personal plane. He has picked the venues and timed his rallies not for political advantage, but for personal comfort. For example, he recently campaigned in Connecticut (which he has no chance of winning) so he could sleep in his own New York mansion that night.
However, for all that, he is now almost dead even in the polls. Hillary is outspending him by millions of dollars every day, and it appears to have no effect. As you have noted, Hillary will have a tremendous paid ground game and he won’t. Hillary is his ground game. All of my neighbors absotutely HATE her. They (like some of our fellow commenters here) think she will destroy the country. My wife and I are voting for our Grand-Dog, but 90% of Wise County, Texas is voting for Trump.
My son has suggested that if Trump wins, he will not seek re-election because he will regard the White House as a shack. Expect him to spend many days and nights in New York even if he wins.
Well, Trump isn’t ‘almost dead’ in the polls, the race actually is tightening as Hillary begins another drop — but she does still lead in most of the crucial swing states. For now, I’d say to stay tuned, to be continued.
I understand a dislike for Clinton’s ideas or policies and Clinton herself isn’t very personable but to vote for a con man with no qualifications in response seems temperamental and without thought. She is competent and the team is competent. Furthermore she’s not radical — she’s basically a Rockefeller Republican.
I’ve heard similar comments elsewhere on Trump and the White House. I still think he started this campaign as a free book tour (see Gingrich and Huckabee) and leverage for a new TV contract. He may be surprised to have come this far but he’s continuing to treat it as a money raising venture. Thus I don’t see him wasting money on a “get out the vote” campaign and in the end this may hurt him (but I don’t think he cares)
Four years, there was a similar tightening of the polls in September and after the first debate, it looked like Romney might actually pull it off. However, nationwide polling can be deceptive. Democrats are quite content to have Louisiana vote 90% for Trump as long as Virginia and the rust belt vote 50.1% for Clinton and indications are thats exactly what will happen.
The latest CNN poll had three interesting “internals”.
1. First, Trump was leading by 20% among independents. Romney won independents by only 5%.
2. Trump was leading by over 15% among married women. Of course, he was getting slaughtered among single women.
3. Previously, Trump was getting less than 80% of Republicans. This poll had him at 90%. The AJs of the world are bringing their friends back into the fold.
It is the most interesting race of my lifetime. It is made more enjoyable by the fact that I couldn’t care less who wins and am just watching the whole thing as a neutral observer.
The CNN poll only had 786 likely voters so the margin of error is 3.5% and in the subsets you mention the margin of error is probably higher. The NBC poll taken at the same time had 32 226 registered voters with a margin of error at 1% had Clinton at +6%. Actually, it had the Clinton vote at the same rate 48% but Trump was down to 42% as opposed to the CNN at 49%. I wonder if some of the likely voters are actually registered? That goes back to the ground game — Clinton has the organization to make sure her voters are registered.
It is an interesting race and for the rest of the world it has rubberneck quality to it. Sometimes when you slow down to see the horrific accident on the other side of the freeway, you almost but not quite feel guilty for having such a morbid curiosity. Watching this race gives me the same feeling,
“giving” person — in a way its actually true — he gave quite generously to the Florida and Texas attorney generals and coincidently the Trump U lawsuits were dropped but I’m quite sure its not pay for play……
hwessli, I have no idea whether Hillary is “competent,” because I don’t know what we are judging her on. Competent to do what? I’m pretty sure she has succeeded in doing what she wants done, but whether she has ever succeeded in doing her actual job is in doubt. She wasn’t a competent secretary of state, for example, but she succeeded in using the office for her own personal desires (which is what she set out to do). Even the personal e-mail server was a major mess-up (incompetence in addition to illegal, immoral, etc.) . . . but she got away with it. She wasn’t a competent Senator, but she succeeded in using the office for her own ends.
So if you mean she does what she sets out to do (e.g., get her husband to the presidency, keep him from being thrown from office, get elected to office, make millions of dollars), then yes, she is competent. But not in any way that matters on a resume. In that, she is an utter failure. And she’s shockingly corrupt.
Wandering Views 
Thought for the day.
“Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men that I might leave my people, and go from them! For they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.
3 And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies; but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, says the LORD.
Jere 9 2-3
LikeLiked by 1 person
Black Lies Matter.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-lies-matter/article/2600164?custom_click=rss
“The facts are these: Last year, the police shot 990 people, the vast majority armed or violently resisting arrest, according to the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings. Whites made up 49.9 percent of those victims, blacks, 26 percent. That proportion of black victims is lower than what the black violent crime rate would predict.
Blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in America’s 75 largest counties in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants and 45 percent of all assault defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, even though blacks comprise only 15 percent of the population in those counties.
In New York City, where blacks make up 23 percent of the city’s population, blacks commit three-quarters of all shootings and 70 percent of all robberies, according to victims and witnesses in their reports to the New York Police Department. Whites, by contrast, commit less than 2 percent of all shootings and 4 percent of all robberies, though they are nearly 34 percent of the city’s population.
In Chicago, 80 percent of all known murder suspects were black in 2015, as were 80 percent of all known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are a little less than a third of the population. Whites made up 0.9 percent of known murder suspects in Chicago in 2015 and 1.4 percent of known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are about a third of the city’s residents.
Such racially skewed crime ratios are repeated in virtually all American metropolises. They mean that when officers are called to the scene of a drive-by shooting or an armed robbery, they will overwhelmingly be summoned to minority neighborhoods, looking for minority suspects in the aid of minority victims.”
“You would never know it from the activists, but police shootings are responsible for a lower percentage of black homicide deaths than white and Hispanic homicide deaths. Twelve percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers, compared to 4 percent of black homicide victims.
That disparity is driven by the greatly elevated rates of criminal victimization in the black community. More blacks die each year from homicide, more than 6,000, than homicide victims of all other races combined. Their killers are not the police, and not whites, but other blacks. In Chicago this year through Aug. 30, 2,870 people, mostly black, were shot.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hillary’s email destroying mastermind, and co-criminal.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/04/meet-the-mastermind-behind-clintons-massive-email-coverup/
“Newly released FBI documents detailing the bureau’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails reveal the aide who would likely follow her into the White House as chief counsel was central to a coverup of evidence sought by investigators.
Yet despite signs that Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills obstructed efforts by investigators to obtain Clinton’s emails, the FBI invited Mills to attend Clinton’s interview at FBI headquarters as one of her lawyers.
“It’s absolutely outrageous,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.
“The FBI saw massive document destruction and clear intent to withhold material evidence,” he added, “and they just ignored that obstruction, and even let her sit in on the interview.”
The smoking gun is on Page 16 of the FBI’s 47-page report. It details how Mills ultimately made the determinations about which emails should be preserved before she and Clinton decided to delete the rest as “personal.” Clinton conducted both government and personal business using a personal email account — clintonemail.com — tied to an unsecured server set up in the basement of her New York home.
The FBI makes clear the procedure Mills used to sort out the emails was suspicious. For starters, Mills was the one who ordered the server host to move the emails from the server to a laptop where she could screen them. She told investigators she could “not recall” if emails with non-gov addresses were included in the transfer. It’s unlikely they were, because an aide who helped her search told the FBI she only screened for emails sent to or from Clinton with .gov and .mil — not .com — addresses.
That means messages involving government business between Clinton and her then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin — the only aide who had an email account on the clintonemail.com system— were not likely captured. Nor were messages sent between Clinton and Mills and other aides using personal email addresses.”
—————————
Lying to the FBI is a crime.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/04/clinton-aides-told-fbi-they-didnt-know-about-server-but-emails-suggest-otherwise/
“Several Hillary Clinton State Department aides told the FBI that they were unaware of the former secretary of state’s private email server, a report from the bureau’s investigation shows. But a Daily Caller review of public documents reveals that at least two of the aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, were involved in multiple email exchanges in which Clinton’s server was discussed.
The FBI’s 47-page report, released on Friday, states that the majority of the State Department employees interviewed by the FBI “had no knowledge” of the private email server Clinton kept at her residence in Chappaqua, N.Y.
“Clinton’s immediate aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.””
“But in depositions given to the watchdog group Judicial Watch, both Abedin and Mills vaguely denied learning about the server at all until they left office with Clinton in Feb. 2013.”
LikeLike
The Queen of Lies knows nothing else. It’s what she does.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/senator-accuses-clinton-of-misleading-them-during-confirmation-hearings/
“A top Senate Republican called on President Obama to appoint special prosecutor to investigate whether foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation received special access to Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State.
Senator John Cornyn made the statement to The Hill during a recent interview published on Monday. In the interview, the Texas Senator essentially said he felt Clinton pulled fast one lawmakers eight years ago during her confirmation hearing to become Secretary of State.
Back in 2009, Sen. Cornyn held up Clinton’s nomination until he was satisfied that proper safeguards were in place to address concerns over conflicts of interest regarding foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
“This is not an effort to scuttle or block the nomination, but a legitimate policy difference,” Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said at the time. “Senator Cornyn’s goal is to create transparency on all levels of government.”
Sen. Cornyn eventually released his hold on the nomination after receiving a promise from Clinton to “do everything in my power to make sure that the good work of the Foundation continues without there being any untoward affects [sic] on me and my service and be very conscious of any questions that are raised.”
In addition to making that promise, Clinton also referenced a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the then-Clinton Foundation CEO Bruce Lindsey and Valerie Jarrett, the woman in charge of Obama’s transition team.
The MOU outlined an “agreed to a set of protocols that would apply to the Foundation’s activities to supplement any existing State Department protocols for managing conflicts of interests, and the appearance of conflicts of interest….” Among other promises, pursuant to the MOU, the Foundation pledged to “publish annually the names of new contributors…” and former President Bill Clinton agreed to no longer “solicit funds” on its behalf.
“When I put a hold on Mrs. Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State, she reassured me that they would take appropriate steps,” Sen. Cornyn told The Hill. “As seems to be usual for the Clintons, they crossed the line and all the concerns that she reassured me would not occur did in fact occur.”
He added, “She was playing both sides. As she was performing her job of secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation was shaking down donors who were buying access. It’s absolutely deplorable.””
————————–
It is. But you’re dreaming if you think Barry will appoint a special prosecutor. He has plans to run a foundation/scam of his own when his job ends at the end of the year. The scam business pays better.
LikeLike
Fox settles with Carlson. Brit Hume temporarily takes over for Van Susteren.
Good first steps. Hannity and O”Reilly need to go. I would replace them with Krauthammer and Greg Guttfeld.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yay Brit Hume. So glad to be seeing more of him. So is Van Susteren gone? I’ll have to read the article. (I actually didn’t mind her, though she was a strong Trump ally and probably gave him more air time leading up to this race than anyone else, I got the sense that they were personal friends through the social circuit — not necessarily political allies. But I used to wonder why he was on her show — via telephone interviews — so often, weighing in on everything for the past couple 2-3 years; I mean, who cared about Donald Trump? Now we se there was a method to his madness.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, read the link — sounds like major shakeups at Fox are in store. I expect Megyn Kelly to be out of there, too, in fairly short order, she’s built a name brand “personality” for herself and can probably name her price and the kind of show she’d want elsewhere. I don’t see her being confined to a conservative network. I never thought she was a very political animal in the first place but she found a niche at Fox and became something of a superstar there.
LikeLike
I believe Brit Hume was among the originals at Fox — they’d do well to tap him to help lead a makeover of the network.
After this election, there needs to be some new (more serious) vision of what the network’s mission is. I would like to see it double down more on straight news as a real competitor to CNN and the other news networks.
The whole lineup of one-sided commentary shows that spanned through the evenings just got old and way too predictable.
And they were slow to jump on live coverage of events (can’t disrupt Hannity or O’Reilly, after all). I always had to rely on CNN for breaking news coverage during the evening hours.
Howard Kurtz also has been a good addition to the lineup with his media show.
They need more serious news people like Hume to give the network more gravitas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Fox may try to keep Megyn Kelly. She is not that conservative, but she is smart and fair. Krauthammer should replace O’Reilly. He is by far the sharpest conservative on TV. He should also be able to attract intelligent guests. Guttfeld is the star of The Five. He also has a late show with young co-stars. I would give him Hannity’s spot and try to get more young viewers.
LikeLike
Oh, Fox will WANT to keep Megyn Kelly I just don’t think she’ll stay, she can pretty much write her own ticket now. And Fox, as popular as it has been in the past, is of limited audience appeal and reach. I suspect she feels she can command something better.
But Fox will definitely try to hang on to her, she’s one of their biggest homegrown ‘stars,’ obviously.
I’m not sure Krauthammer is anchor material, but I like him too and he should remain a key player and commentator in the network’s political lineup.
Guttfield isn’t my favorite brand, but I get his appeal.
Dana Perino?
LikeLike
I think Kelly is probably pretty fiercely ambitious behind the scenes. She’ll drive a very hard bargain to get exactly what she wants (whether at Fox or elsewhere).
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a conservative, I still hold it against Dana Perino that she worked for Little Bush. I used to think she was a light-weight, but she is now the second smartest person on The Five. She has either gained wisdom, or she looks brighter by comparison.
LikeLike
A Choice Not an Echo was one of the first political books I ever read. I will miss Phyllis Schafly.
I can never remember disagreeing with anything she said before she turned 90. Everybody gets a pass on things they do after 90.
LikeLike
Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, Trump and Ailes should create The Trump Worshippers Network. Hannity, O’Reilly and Van Susteren could handle the prime-time slots. If the Trumpkins were somewhere else, Fox News could again appeal to conservatives.
LikeLike
Just thinking about Phyllis Schlafly reminds me of better days.
LikeLike
LikeLike
This one is free on Kindle Unlimited. Downloading now.
LikeLike
Guttfeld would be hysterical. 🙂
And yes, it appears Greta is gone for good. Perhaps the start of a mass exodus….
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/greta-van-susteren-out-at-fox-news/ar-AAiz6G7?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U142DHP
“Greta Van Susteren is exiting Fox News after 14 years, the cable news network announced Tuesday.
Brit Hume will takeover for Van Susteren to anchor “On the Record” starting on Tuesday, and will continue on a regular basis through the presidential election.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Brit Hume. I don’t know what position he has at Fox, but I heard that he is the one who hired Megyn K.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a Bible study one night this summer (not at my own church) a black lady lamented that while 130 blacks had been killed by police this year, only 18 police officers had been killed (that was her number, not sure it’s accurate). She said that was terrible. I really wanted to ask her if she thought the numbers should be equal, but bit my tongue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Speaking of Gutfeld, there was this:
Kat Timpf rules!
LikeLike
Gutfeld is funny, I agree, though it might grow old after a steady diet of it.
Hume was instrumental, I think, in the early days of Fox. When he lost his son, he stepped back and took something of a semi-retirement, I believe, but he seems to be ready to move back into the limelight again. His daughter (they are both Christians) has a Christian blog, by the way.
I follow her on Twitter but probably miss seeing most of her posts.
From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
______________________________
During late 1996, he left ABC for the fledgling Fox News Network, for which his wife had recently become chief of the Washington bureau.[9][13] At his last news conference as ABC’s chief White House correspondent, President Clinton told him, “I think all of us think you have done an extraordinary, professional job under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.”[10] Hume became Fox News’s Washington managing editor and was in discussions about starting a Washington-based television news program for the 6 p.m. timeslot. The Lewinsky scandal began during January 1998, and Hume’s wife told him the story was so well known that he should start the show immediately; Special Report with Brit Hume was initiated that evening.[10]
In 2014, Hume said of the start of his time at Fox that “we made some progress and developed some audience and the Lewinsky scandal brought a lot of interest and the 2000 election brought a lot of interest, but what really did it was the Florida recount – that was tremendous for us because the people who were worried about how that would come out wanted some place where they could trust the coverage, people who were conservatives or Republicans or neither but worried. And we really made an effort to cover that story well. And that built our audience.”[14] …
… On January 3, 2010, Hume generated some controversy when on Fox News Sunday he advised embattled golfer Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity to attempt to end his problems. Hume’s comments were made after the revelation of Woods’ habitual adultery and the resulting deterioration of his relationship with his family.[16] …
Hume is a conservative[18] saying in 2006: “Sure, I’m a conservative, no doubt about it. But I would ask people to look at the work.”[10]
Previously married to and divorced from Clare Jacobs Stoner, Hume is married to Kim Schiller Hume, Fox News vice president and former Washington bureau chief.[19]
His son, Washington journalist Sandy Hume, was a reporter for the newspaper The Hill and first publicized the story of the aborted 1997 political attempt to replace Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. In February 1998, Sandy Hume committed suicide. The National Press Club honors his memory with its annual Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism.[3][10]
Hume has said that he committed his life to Jesus Christ “in a way that was very meaningful” to him in the aftermath of his son’s death by suicide during 1998.[20] …
______________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
daughter’s blog: http://kimhume.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Oops, sorry, it’s his (younger!!) wife.
I shoulda known 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ, You may be right about Gutfeld. Give him and Kat Timpf 30 minutes. Give the other 30 minutes to John Stossel to talk about economics.
Here is a good article on the death of movement conservatism by Rod Dreher:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/death-movement-conservatism/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky,
I don’t think you’ll much care for what will now be known as Phyllis Schlafly’s very last column. She thought Trump’s Mexico visit was very Reaganesque.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-in-mexico-recalls-reagan-in-geneva/
“Donald Trump’s surprise visit to Mexico, where he met the Mexican president and discussed the many contentious issues between our two countries, reminds me of President Reagan’s important trip to Geneva in 1985. Reagan was more than willing to sit down with the Communist leader of the USSR in an effort to build a personal connection between the two men without sacrificing America’s vital interests in the Cold War.”
“Reagan had been elected on a promise to “win” the Cold War against the Communist forces arrayed against America. Before Reagan, our country’s foreign policy was controlled by men like Henry Kissinger, who thought victory was impossible and that his job, as he famously told Adm. Zumwalt, was “to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position” for the United States.
After three decades of steady deterioration of America’s place in the world, Trump is the first candidate since Reagan who is comfortable using Reagan’s vocabulary of winning. Trump has pledged to make America “win” again, instead of being cheated and outmaneuvered by our adversaries and even our so-called allies.
Trump’s visit to Mexico recalls Reagan’s trip to Geneva in other ways, too. At both meetings, there was one signature position on which the American refused to budge.
Reagan’s no-surrender pledge was his unwavering commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative, that is, to build and deploy a system to shoot down Soviet nuclear missiles headed for our cities. With Trump, it’s his rock-solid promise to build “an impenetrable physical wall” on our southern border.
Both Reagan’s and Trump’s signature ideas were purely defensive weapons to which no country could have any legitimate complaint. Reagan’s SDI was a non-nuclear weapon whose only function was to destroy or deflect incoming nuclear missiles.”
“Likewise, Donald Trump’s wall is not a provocative, but a neighborly idea to stop the rampant illegality that harms both nations along the U.S.-Mexico border. With no legitimate objection to erecting a fence, wall or other physical barrier between our two countries, Mexico should be grateful for Trump’s leadership and even agree to help pay for it.”
LikeLike
Ricky’s already forgiven her with his post-90 rule
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good catch, DJ.
I live by a set of arbitrary date/age rules:
Movies: Pre-1960
TV shows: Pre-1970
Golf balls: Post-2004
Church music: Pre-1900
Novels: Pre-1830
Theology: Pre-1800
Responsibility for political statements: Ages 22-90 only.
College football: Pre-1969
LikeLike
Here is an interesting discussion between Hugh Hewitt and Jonah Goldberg on the “alt-right”.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/jonah-goldberg-altright/
LikeLike
You’ll never read one of my novels, then, alas. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry, Michelle. However, I would play one of your golf balls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting story. It may be legal but its graft and corruption. And if Trump is elected expect more of this;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-rnc-self-dealing_us_57cdcba0e4b078581f13b262
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your American Conservative link is interesting. It aligns with a leftist critique of today’s Republican party — its (partially) the party of resentment and bitterness except in this article the leaders and the intellectual elite of the party don’t know it and Trump’s campaign has revealed it. Apparently this group of conservatives never read “What’s Wrong with Kansas” or “Nixonland” or countless other books on the topic.
LikeLike
HRW, As a very young man, I worked for a rich guy running for Senate. Trump’s behavior is unorthodox, but understandable. He doesn’t want to rent a normal campaign plane. He wants the amenities of his personal plane. He has picked the venues and timed his rallies not for political advantage, but for personal comfort. For example, he recently campaigned in Connecticut (which he has no chance of winning) so he could sleep in his own New York mansion that night.
However, for all that, he is now almost dead even in the polls. Hillary is outspending him by millions of dollars every day, and it appears to have no effect. As you have noted, Hillary will have a tremendous paid ground game and he won’t. Hillary is his ground game. All of my neighbors absotutely HATE her. They (like some of our fellow commenters here) think she will destroy the country. My wife and I are voting for our Grand-Dog, but 90% of Wise County, Texas is voting for Trump.
LikeLike
My son has suggested that if Trump wins, he will not seek re-election because he will regard the White House as a shack. Expect him to spend many days and nights in New York even if he wins.
LikeLike
Well, Trump isn’t ‘almost dead’ in the polls, the race actually is tightening as Hillary begins another drop — but she does still lead in most of the crucial swing states. For now, I’d say to stay tuned, to be continued.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“almost dead even” = Texian for “nearly tied”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand a dislike for Clinton’s ideas or policies and Clinton herself isn’t very personable but to vote for a con man with no qualifications in response seems temperamental and without thought. She is competent and the team is competent. Furthermore she’s not radical — she’s basically a Rockefeller Republican.
I’ve heard similar comments elsewhere on Trump and the White House. I still think he started this campaign as a free book tour (see Gingrich and Huckabee) and leverage for a new TV contract. He may be surprised to have come this far but he’s continuing to treat it as a money raising venture. Thus I don’t see him wasting money on a “get out the vote” campaign and in the end this may hurt him (but I don’t think he cares)
Four years, there was a similar tightening of the polls in September and after the first debate, it looked like Romney might actually pull it off. However, nationwide polling can be deceptive. Democrats are quite content to have Louisiana vote 90% for Trump as long as Virginia and the rust belt vote 50.1% for Clinton and indications are thats exactly what will happen.
LikeLike
HRW, Nate Silver wrote this a few days ago.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/
The latest CNN poll had three interesting “internals”.
1. First, Trump was leading by 20% among independents. Romney won independents by only 5%.
2. Trump was leading by over 15% among married women. Of course, he was getting slaughtered among single women.
3. Previously, Trump was getting less than 80% of Republicans. This poll had him at 90%. The AJs of the world are bringing their friends back into the fold.
It is the most interesting race of my lifetime. It is made more enjoyable by the fact that I couldn’t care less who wins and am just watching the whole thing as a neutral observer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The CNN poll only had 786 likely voters so the margin of error is 3.5% and in the subsets you mention the margin of error is probably higher. The NBC poll taken at the same time had 32 226 registered voters with a margin of error at 1% had Clinton at +6%. Actually, it had the Clinton vote at the same rate 48% but Trump was down to 42% as opposed to the CNN at 49%. I wonder if some of the likely voters are actually registered? That goes back to the ground game — Clinton has the organization to make sure her voters are registered.
It is an interesting race and for the rest of the world it has rubberneck quality to it. Sometimes when you slow down to see the horrific accident on the other side of the freeway, you almost but not quite feel guilty for having such a morbid curiosity. Watching this race gives me the same feeling,
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was too good. The pastor of Idiocracy endorses the future President of Idiocracy.
https://twitter.com/tfgnews/status/773249088498331649
LikeLike
Sorry Ricky, I misread.
It is a fascinating race — and I, too, feel disengaged enough that I’m not emotionally caught up in it.
Hillary has issues and seem to be cemented by now, I don’t think she’ll be able to throw those perceptions off between now and November.
But the focus will turn to those swing states more and more. If you live in one of them, you’ve got some thinking to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“giving” person — in a way its actually true — he gave quite generously to the Florida and Texas attorney generals and coincidently the Trump U lawsuits were dropped but I’m quite sure its not pay for play……
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pay to play
LikeLike
Bwahahaha…. “neutral observer”……..
No THAT is funny. 🙂
LikeLike
hwessli, I have no idea whether Hillary is “competent,” because I don’t know what we are judging her on. Competent to do what? I’m pretty sure she has succeeded in doing what she wants done, but whether she has ever succeeded in doing her actual job is in doubt. She wasn’t a competent secretary of state, for example, but she succeeded in using the office for her own personal desires (which is what she set out to do). Even the personal e-mail server was a major mess-up (incompetence in addition to illegal, immoral, etc.) . . . but she got away with it. She wasn’t a competent Senator, but she succeeded in using the office for her own ends.
So if you mean she does what she sets out to do (e.g., get her husband to the presidency, keep him from being thrown from office, get elected to office, make millions of dollars), then yes, she is competent. But not in any way that matters on a resume. In that, she is an utter failure. And she’s shockingly corrupt.
LikeLike