On a tip from Ed Kilbane
Video 302
Visit Counter
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Gregg Jarrett: Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of jail free" card?
Jarrett makes a good point here because after the election Trump seemed to go from "Lock her up" to "Let her go".
----------------------------
By Gregg JarrettPublished November 28, 2016
Hillary Clinton has never played the board game, “Monopoly”.
How do we know? Because even novice players learn quickly that you always hang on to a “get out of jail free” card. No matter what. You never know when you’re going to need it. And you usually do.
Clinton had such a card… and has managed to recklessly squander it.
So what happens now? Will she draw that other dreaded card: “Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $ 200” ? For Clinton, who could face serious criminal jeopardy, this is no game.
Post-Election Rapprochement
The night Clinton lost the presidency, she telephoned Donald Trump to concede. We now know that it was President Obama who persuaded Clinton to make the gracious concession.
Hillary Clinton’s decision to embrace a challenge to Trump’s election is both confounding and inexplicable. Why would she chance angering the very individual who holds her fate in his hands? It’s like an inmate taunting a jailer. You’d have to be obtuse to do it.
According to a soon-to-be published book by two Washington journalists, Obama told his former Secretary of State, “You need to concede.” At that point, it was clear the Democratic nominee was losing Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and had no hope of winning the White House. Clinton heeded the advice and made the call. Wise move.
The president-elect was clearly moved by what he described as a “lovely” conversation with Clinton. “It was a tough call for her. She couldn’t have been nicer. She’s very strong and very smart”, Trump told CBS News' “60 Minutes”. The newly-elected president suddenly seemed reluctant to have his Department of Justice pursue Clinton for criminal wrongdoing.
After spending months promising his supporters that he would see to it that Clinton is prosecuted over her email server and, perhaps, the Clinton Foundation, Trump reversed himself.
In a meeting with the New York Times last week, he all but ruled out recommending a special prosecutor or criminal charges. “It’s just not something that I feel strongly about. I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”
Clinton’s election night concession seemed to have prompted Trump to hand her a “get out of jail free” card. If she was moving on, then he was moving on. And so would the nation.
But in politics, what is given… can be taken away. Especially when the recipient of a generous gift exhibits a conspicuous lack of gratitude. Which is precisely what Clinton has now done.
Clinton’s campaign announced over the weekend that it will join efforts to push for recounts in the key states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in a futile effort to deprive Trump of the needed 270 electoral votes and, thus, the presidency.
It is the definition of a fool’s errand. A game of chance with not a scintilla of chance to succeed.
Recounts almost never swing enough votes to change the outcome. Clinton would have to do it in not one, but all three states. In Pennsylvania alone, the law on a voter-initiated recount is next to impossible to meet. It demands notarized voter affidavits in each and every 9,163 election districts. The deadlines are imminent and, in some districts, have already passed. Forget the fact that Trump’s lead in the state exceeds 70,000 votes.
Clinton’s decision to embrace a challenge to Trump’s election is both confounding and inexplicable. Why would she chance angering the very individual who holds her fate in his hands? It’s like an inmate taunting a jailer. You’d have to be obtuse to do it.
Already, Trump has responded with a series of furious tweets reminding Clinton that she already conceded. One of his top advisers hinted that retaliation works both ways. Trump might easily reconsider his decision to forego a case against his former adversary.
So why would Clinton deliberately antagonize someone who is notoriously mercurial? With a wave of his hand, Trump could signal his new attorney general to reignite a Justice Department criminal investigation of Clinton or, in the alternative, appoint a Special Prosecutor to consider charges. After all, FBI Director James Comey laid out a meticulous case of how Clinton violated the Espionage Act, but then dismissed it by claiming that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”.
Sorry, Mr. Comey, but there are plenty of reasonable prosecutors who would be eager to do so.
Stupid Is… As Stupid Does
As the great American philosopher, Forrest Gump, pointed out, an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. Common sense, or lack thereof, is evidenced by a person’s actions.
While Clinton may be a smart person, it makes no sense whatsoever for her to risk criminal indictment by alienating the one person who can best insulate her from the legal consequences of her own extremely careless, if not intentional, conduct. And for what? A recount that is destined to fail?
By contesting the presidential election, Clinton does damage only to herself. When, during the election, Trump suggested he might not accept the result if he lost, Clinton called it “horrifying.” Did it ever occur to her that she is now committing the same “horrifying” act she so vehemently condemned?
Donald Trump made billions of dollars accumulating properties in a way the inventors of “Monopoly” envisioned. He knows how the real game is played.
Hillary Clinton does not. She held a treasured “get out of jail free” card… but wasted it for nothing.
Obama Blamed Fox News For Democratic Loss
Rolling Stone has finally published a post-election interview they did with President Obama the day after Donald Trump's presidential victory. In his sit-down, Obama offered no self-accountability for the Democrats' whopping loss in just about every level of government. He (briefly) acknowledged that Democrats did not effectively campaign in enough working class environments. Yet, he then quickly blamed the defeat on one of his favorite targets: Fox News.
"Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments. That part of the critique of the Democratic Party is accurate. We spend a lot of time focused on international policy and national policy and less time being on the ground. And when we’re on the ground, we do well."
Bottom line. It's never his fault.
Obama has taken numerous swipes at Fox News throughout his presidency, noting that if he watched the network regularly, he wouldn't want to vote for himself either.
Instead of blaming the media, perhaps the president should take a harder look at his party's loss. His "progressive" economic policies have done little to boost the American working class. Working class voters don't want Big Government, they want individual empowerment.
Don't bother searching for any kind of self-reflection from President Obama.
Kellogg pulls ads from Breitbart over company ‘values’
‘values’?
Total bullshit. This is purely political not to mention stupid on their part. Who reads Breitbart? Conservatives. Who will boycott their cereal? Conservatives.
I think Kellogg would be better off advertising on Planned Parenthood which is more conducive to their values.
Coming soon... Snow Flakes.
----------------------
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (AP) — Kellogg has announced that it will no longer advertise on Breitbart.com, the website formerly run by one of President-elect Donald Trump’s top aides, Steve Bannon.
The food manufacturer decided to discontinue advertising on the site as soon as it was alerted by consumers to the presence of its ads, Kellogg Co. spokeswoman Kris Charles said Tuesday.
Breitbart has been condemned for featuring racist, sexist and anti-Semitic content.FILE – In this Oct. 7, 2016, file photo, Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart News and campaign CEO for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, appears at a national security meeting with advisors at Trump Tower in New York. On Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016, Kellogg’s announced that it will no longer advertise on Breitbart.com, the website formerly run by Bannon, one of President-elect Donald Trump’s top aides. Breitbart has been condemned for featuring racist, sexist and anti-Semitic content. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci, File)
“We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company,” Charles said. “This involves reviewing websites where ads could potentially be placed using filtering technology to assess site content. As you can imagine, there is a very large volume of websites, so occasionally something is inadvertently missed.”
Breitbart said Kellogg was denigrating “to its own detriment” a loyal and engaged community of consumers who helped elect Trump, saying the site had 45 million unique visitors in the last thirty days.
“Kellogg’s decision to blacklist one of the largest conservative media outlets in America is economic censorship of mainstream conservative political discourse,” it said in a statement. “That is as un-American as it gets.”
Breitbart has become the target of a social media effort to call out companies and organizations that advertise on it.
Pharmaceutical maker Novo Nordisk, online glasses retailer Warby Parker and the San Diego Zoo are among those that have publicly stated on Twitter that they will no longer advertise on the site.
Bannon ran Breitbart before becoming the top strategist on Trump’s campaign last summer. Trump has since named Bannon his senior adviser in the White House.
Today's Loser Leaning Headlines
If Clinton had 306 and Trump 232 plus he carried the popular vote think you would be reading how unfair the Electoral College is?
PS:
What's the difference between giving your money to Jill Stein for a recount or Bernie Madoff to invest? With Bernie, you could at least 'hope' for a return on your investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)