The Clinton Chronicles
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
HILLARY: THE THIRD WORLD HAS A “RIGHT” TO MOVE TO THE UNITED STATES
On Monday, Donald Trump gave a speech on terrorism and immigration in which he said:
We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally, through a process…. No one has a right to immigrate to this country.
That should be a truism. But, as Byron York points out, Hillary Clinton responded in a retweet that she disagrees:
Hillary for Ohio @HillaryforOH
"No one has the right to immigrate to this country." —Donald Trump during his rally in Florida today
We disagree. http://hrc.io/2d3ulcQ
4:10 PM - 19 Sep 2016
In a sensible world, Hillary’s apparent belief that foreigners have a “right” to emigrate to the United States would disqualify her from the presidency. In the first place, she is [URL='http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/huffpo-swings-at-trump-whiffs.php']simply wrongas a legal matter. In United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:[/URL]
At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe.
The ability to control who enters a country is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty. It is appalling that Mrs. Clinton fails to understand this basic fact.
As a practical matter, a pure open borders policy, as implied by the claim that foreigners have a “right to immigrate to this country,” would be a disaster. Of the world’s 7.4 billion people, at least three billion would be infinitely better off if they were living in the U.S. How many of those three billion–a conservative estimate–is Hillary prepared to accommodate? We already have the world’s third-largest population, trailing only China and India. The volume of immigration is already higher than at any previous time in American history. Hillary Clinton, with her vast wealth and phalanx of armed guards, may be insulated from the consequences of unprecedented immigration, both legal and illegal. But the rest of us are not.
It would be a disaster to elect this woman president.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-has-a-right-to-move-to-the-united-states.php
On Monday, Donald Trump gave a speech on terrorism and immigration in which he said:
We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally, through a process…. No one has a right to immigrate to this country.
That should be a truism. But, as Byron York points out, Hillary Clinton responded in a retweet that she disagrees:
Hillary for Ohio @HillaryforOH
"No one has the right to immigrate to this country." —Donald Trump during his rally in Florida today
We disagree. http://hrc.io/2d3ulcQ
4:10 PM - 19 Sep 2016
In a sensible world, Hillary’s apparent belief that foreigners have a “right” to emigrate to the United States would disqualify her from the presidency. In the first place, she is [URL='http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/huffpo-swings-at-trump-whiffs.php']simply wrongas a legal matter. In United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:[/URL]
At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe.
The ability to control who enters a country is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty. It is appalling that Mrs. Clinton fails to understand this basic fact.
As a practical matter, a pure open borders policy, as implied by the claim that foreigners have a “right to immigrate to this country,” would be a disaster. Of the world’s 7.4 billion people, at least three billion would be infinitely better off if they were living in the U.S. How many of those three billion–a conservative estimate–is Hillary prepared to accommodate? We already have the world’s third-largest population, trailing only China and India. The volume of immigration is already higher than at any previous time in American history. Hillary Clinton, with her vast wealth and phalanx of armed guards, may be insulated from the consequences of unprecedented immigration, both legal and illegal. But the rest of us are not.
It would be a disaster to elect this woman president.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-has-a-right-to-move-to-the-united-states.php
Clinton's book was roundly panned. What to do? Well, if you want Clinton to win and you run amzn, fix the reviews.
=====
• Amazon “Tweaks” Hillary Book Stats: ‘5-Star’ Reviews Double Overnight (ZH)
Two short weeks ago, we exposed the gaping difference between Amazon reader reviews of Hillary Clinton’s “Stronger Together” book (14% 5-Stars) and Donald Trump’s “Great Again” book (74% 5-Stars)… As The New York Times reported at the time, the book was a disaster. Both Mrs. Clinton and her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, have promoted the book on the campaign trail, but the sales figure, which tallies about 80% of booksellers nationwide and does not include e-books, firmly makes the book what the publishing industry would consider a flop. [..] So, as with everything else in this ‘new normal rigged’ world, something had to be done and WaPo-owner Jeff Bezos’ Amazon reviews appear to have been ‘tweaked’ – more than doubling Hillary’s top reviews.
But, as WND.com explains, Amazon’s steps to ‘fix’ Hillary’s book rviews has resulted in 5-star ratings with scathingly negative comments… If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad. That’s how it looks for Hillary Clinton’s new 2016 campaign book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine. WND reported just days ago when the book was being savaged on Amazon.com with negative reviews, with 81% one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7. Clinton supporters lashed out at “trolls” they said were criticizing the book only because they oppose the Democrat’s presidential candidacy. WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000.
But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump. Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1. The one-star ratings Thursday were 62%, to 35% for five-star ratings.
=====
• Amazon “Tweaks” Hillary Book Stats: ‘5-Star’ Reviews Double Overnight (ZH)
Two short weeks ago, we exposed the gaping difference between Amazon reader reviews of Hillary Clinton’s “Stronger Together” book (14% 5-Stars) and Donald Trump’s “Great Again” book (74% 5-Stars)… As The New York Times reported at the time, the book was a disaster. Both Mrs. Clinton and her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, have promoted the book on the campaign trail, but the sales figure, which tallies about 80% of booksellers nationwide and does not include e-books, firmly makes the book what the publishing industry would consider a flop. [..] So, as with everything else in this ‘new normal rigged’ world, something had to be done and WaPo-owner Jeff Bezos’ Amazon reviews appear to have been ‘tweaked’ – more than doubling Hillary’s top reviews.
But, as WND.com explains, Amazon’s steps to ‘fix’ Hillary’s book rviews has resulted in 5-star ratings with scathingly negative comments… If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad. That’s how it looks for Hillary Clinton’s new 2016 campaign book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine. WND reported just days ago when the book was being savaged on Amazon.com with negative reviews, with 81% one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7. Clinton supporters lashed out at “trolls” they said were criticizing the book only because they oppose the Democrat’s presidential candidacy. WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000.
But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump. Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1. The one-star ratings Thursday were 62%, to 35% for five-star ratings.
Last edited:
My favorite 5 star review...
“I was going to read this book … I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.”
“I was going to read this book … I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.”
Clinton server tech told FBI of colleagues' worries about system
A technician hired by Hillary Clinton to run the private email system she used while U.S. secretary of state told investigators he tried to pass on colleagues' concerns that the system might not comply with records laws, FBI interview summaries show.
Bryan Pagliano, the technician Clinton hired when she joined the State Department in 2009, told federal investigators he relayed the concerns to Cheryl Mills, then Clinton's chief of staff.
Mills, whose lawyer did not respond to requests for comment, has previously testified under oath she could not recall anyone alerting her to potential problems with Clinton's email arrangement.
The episode had not been disclosed until the Federal Bureau of Investigation released on Friday night nearly 200 pages of additional records from its year-long investigation into the handling of classified government documents by Clinton and her staff via an unauthorized email server in the basement of her New York home.
Clinton has said the decision to use a private email system was a mistake, but the controversy has dogged her campaign as the Democratic candidate for the presidency and raised public doubts about her trustworthiness, public opinion polls show. Republicans have criticized her for putting national security at risk.
The FBI closed the year-long investigation in July, recommending no charges, although FBI Director James Comey said Clinton and her staff had been "extremely careless" in handling classified government secrets.
Pagliano has declined to answer questions by Republican lawmakers about his work on Clinton's server, but spoke to federal investigators after securing a form of immunity from prosecution.
He told investigators two colleagues from the technology office approached him with concerns during Clinton's first year after learning about the email system. One said it could lead to a "federal records retention issue," Pagliano told investigators, and urged him to raise the concern with Clinton's "inner circle."
A colleague also warned Pagliano "he wouldn't be surprised" if classified information was being sent through Clinton's unsecure system, Pagliano told the FBI.
The newly released interview summaries from the FBI investigation show government employees undercutting other aspects of the public accounts given by Clinton and senior State officials.
A State Department employee, whose name was redacted, told investigators they believed senior department officials interfered with the screening of Clinton's emails for public release last year in a way that helped Clinton.
The employee, who worked on the screening process, said there was pressure to obscure the fact they were finding classified information in the messages. John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement the department "strongly disputes" the claim of interference. Clinton repeatedly said last year she never sent or received classified information, but now says she did not do so knowingly since the release of the FBI findings.
The employee also said the Defense Department told the State Department last year it had found about 1,000 emails between Clinton and David Petraeus in its records from his time as the director of the United States Central Command.
The State Department has said that Clinton did not include any of her emails with Petraeus when her lawyers screened and returned what they said were all her work emails in 2014. A single conversation of about 10 emails later emerged last year after the Defense Department provided it.
Spokesmen for Clinton have declined to discuss the omission, and did not respond to questions about the new interview summaries.
Kirby, the department spokesman, said he could not "speculate" whether the Defense Department had found more than just a single conversation between Clinton and Petraeus. "We can only speak to the records in our possession," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN11U0PG
A technician hired by Hillary Clinton to run the private email system she used while U.S. secretary of state told investigators he tried to pass on colleagues' concerns that the system might not comply with records laws, FBI interview summaries show.
Bryan Pagliano, the technician Clinton hired when she joined the State Department in 2009, told federal investigators he relayed the concerns to Cheryl Mills, then Clinton's chief of staff.
Mills, whose lawyer did not respond to requests for comment, has previously testified under oath she could not recall anyone alerting her to potential problems with Clinton's email arrangement.
The episode had not been disclosed until the Federal Bureau of Investigation released on Friday night nearly 200 pages of additional records from its year-long investigation into the handling of classified government documents by Clinton and her staff via an unauthorized email server in the basement of her New York home.
Clinton has said the decision to use a private email system was a mistake, but the controversy has dogged her campaign as the Democratic candidate for the presidency and raised public doubts about her trustworthiness, public opinion polls show. Republicans have criticized her for putting national security at risk.
The FBI closed the year-long investigation in July, recommending no charges, although FBI Director James Comey said Clinton and her staff had been "extremely careless" in handling classified government secrets.
Pagliano has declined to answer questions by Republican lawmakers about his work on Clinton's server, but spoke to federal investigators after securing a form of immunity from prosecution.
He told investigators two colleagues from the technology office approached him with concerns during Clinton's first year after learning about the email system. One said it could lead to a "federal records retention issue," Pagliano told investigators, and urged him to raise the concern with Clinton's "inner circle."
A colleague also warned Pagliano "he wouldn't be surprised" if classified information was being sent through Clinton's unsecure system, Pagliano told the FBI.
The newly released interview summaries from the FBI investigation show government employees undercutting other aspects of the public accounts given by Clinton and senior State officials.
A State Department employee, whose name was redacted, told investigators they believed senior department officials interfered with the screening of Clinton's emails for public release last year in a way that helped Clinton.
The employee, who worked on the screening process, said there was pressure to obscure the fact they were finding classified information in the messages. John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement the department "strongly disputes" the claim of interference. Clinton repeatedly said last year she never sent or received classified information, but now says she did not do so knowingly since the release of the FBI findings.
The employee also said the Defense Department told the State Department last year it had found about 1,000 emails between Clinton and David Petraeus in its records from his time as the director of the United States Central Command.
The State Department has said that Clinton did not include any of her emails with Petraeus when her lawyers screened and returned what they said were all her work emails in 2014. A single conversation of about 10 emails later emerged last year after the Defense Department provided it.
Spokesmen for Clinton have declined to discuss the omission, and did not respond to questions about the new interview summaries.
Kirby, the department spokesman, said he could not "speculate" whether the Defense Department had found more than just a single conversation between Clinton and Petraeus. "We can only speak to the records in our possession," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN11U0PG
I find it impossible a liberal could make a favorable argument to vote for her. I think the only people who are voting for her are the blacks (because that's what they've been trained to do), terrorists, lifelong EBT cardholders, ugly bitches and gay men.
I'm voting Johnson again.
I'm voting Johnson again.
Last edited: