Connect with us

Politics

Did Trump Just Slam Hillary’s New Book?

Published

on

Original Link | ZeroHedge

As Hillary Clinton’s “What Happened” novel hits the shelves today – at a 40% discount – it appears President Trump just took a subtle shot at the former first lady’s view of the world

It’s hard to disagree with President Trump’s vie of Hillary’s book (if that is who he is indirectly discussing) as the level of cognitive dissonance within seems monumental. The Hill offers five of the most memorable anecdotes shared by Clinton in her book.
Obama urged Clinton to run

President Obama signaled to Clinton early on in 2013 and 2014 that she should run for president. “He made it clear that he believed that I was our party’s best chance to hold the White House and keep our progress going, and he wanted me to move quickly to prepare to run,” Clinton wrote. She wrote that Obama’s support meant a ton to her. “I knew President Obama thought the world of his Vice President, Joe Biden, and was close to some other potential candidates, so his vote of confidence meant a great deal to me.”

Clinton sought guidance from Bush on inauguration

As she decided whether to show up for President Trump’s inauguration, Clinton sought advice from a surprising source: former President George W. Bush. Bush had his own family disagreements with Trump, who had ridiculed his brother Jeb Bush during the GOP primaries. But he advised Clinton to go to the inauguration, arguing it was for the good of the country. “That gave me the push I needed,” Clinton wrote. “Bill and I would go.” Bush was also the first to call Clinton after she delivered her concession speech and waited on the line while she hugged and thanked her supporters. When Clinton finally came to the phone, the former president “suggested we find time to get burgers together. I think that’s Texan for ‘I feel your pain,’ ” Clinton wrote.

Clinton thought Chaffetz was Priebus

You’d think Hillary Clinton would know what former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) looks like. The Utah congressman had long sought to make a political issue of Clinton’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans. Yet Clinton wrote that she mistook Chaffetz for Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus when he approached her on Inauguration Day. Chaffetz captured the moment on Twitter, posting a photo of the two that said: “So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.” Clinton said she didn’t know who Chaffetz was and thought he was Priebus. After the Chaffetz tweet, she admitted that she “came this close” to tweeting back at the congressman: “To be honest, I thought you were Reince.” That wasn’t the only awkward encounter with a critical Republican. During the lunch at the Capitol following the swearing-in ceremony, Clinton also described a scene where Trump’s soon-to-be Interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, introduced Clinton to his wife. Clinton wrote that she was surprised that Zinke would want her to meet his better half, “considering in 2014 he had called me the ‘antichrist.’ ” “You know Congressman, I’m not actually the anticrist,” she said she told Zinke. He was “taken aback,” Clinton wrote, and “mumbled something about not having meant it.”

Loyalty pays off

After then-FBI Director James Comey said they had reopened an investigation to examine emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-N.Y.) laptop, Clinton wrote that some people thought she should fire longtime adviser Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife. “Not a chance,” wrote Clinton. “She had done nothing wrong and was an invaluable member of my team. I stuck by her the same way she has always stuck by me.”

In the end, it’s Bill and Hill

In the wee hours of the morning on election night, after everyone left the Clinton suite, the former secretary of State wrote that she and her husband were alone. “I hadn’t cried yet, wasn’t sure if I would. But I felt deeply and thoroughly exhausted, like I hadn’t slept in ten years,” Clinton wrote. “We lay down on the bed and stared at the ceiling. Bill took my hand and we just lay there.”

Finally, for those who are interested in what Hillary has to say in “What Happened” but just don’t have time to read a book right now, we found this summary to be a fairly accurate portrayal:

Hillary

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Politics

Jared Kushner Reportedly Used Private Email For White House Business

Kushner continued to use a private email account that had been set up during the transition to communicate with fellow administration officials during Trump’s first nine months in office

Published

on

As if the flow of news on this warm September weekend wasn’t hectic enough thanks to President Trump’s decision to pick a fight with professional sports, Politico is out with the latest bombshell report alleging some nefarious act was committed by one of Trump’s closest advisors, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Politico reports that, in an ironic twist, Kushner continued to use a private email account that had been set up during the transition to communicate with fellow administration officials during Trump’s first nine months in office, even as Trump continued to bash his former rival’s mishandling of classified information on a private server during her time at the State Department.

While Politico places the implication of wrongdoing front and center in its story, it waits until lower down to provide a key piece of context from the White House communications department: “Kushner sent less than 100 emails from this account, and those that were sent consisted mostly of quips about news items and minor commentary.”

Liberals like to talk about the concept of false equivalence, especially in the context of how the media covered the Clinton email scandal vs. coverage of Trump’s more controversial pronouncements and business arrangements. That’s what this Kushner story appears to be. Judging by the description, it’s clear that Kushner didn’t rely on his private account to conduct public business, and only used it to send a handful of messages. More to the point, while he may have violated public-information guidelines, he did not improperly handle classified information.





“Mr. Kushner uses his White House email address to conduct White House business,” Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner, said in a statement Sunday. “Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address.”

Politico also noted that Kushner’s use of a private email account was part of a larger pattern of Trump administration aides using personal email accounts for government business. Kushner allegedly used the private account to communicate with Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn and Josh Raffel.

Aides who have exchanged emails with Kushner on his private account since President Donald Trump took office in January include former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and spokesman Josh Raffel, according to emails described to or shown to POLITICO. In some cases, those White House officials have emailed Kushner’s account first, said people familiar with the messages.

…and then there’s this, six paragraphs in.

 There is no indication that Kushner has shared any sensitive or classified material on his private account, or that he relies on his private email account more than his official White House account to conduct government business. Aides say he prefers to call or text over using email.

And that’s not even the most glaring example of Politico’s tendency to leave key details that detract from the impression of wrongdoing until much later in the story.

Even further down, Politico admits that Kushner’s conduct may not violate the Presidential Records Act…

Private email traffic among White House aides — some of it sent between personal email accounts rather than to or from government addresses — could skirt the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, which requires all documents related to the president’s personal and political activities to be archived. Trump himself is not known to use email but occasionally has email messages to his assistant printed and presented to him.

…And, furthermore, that it couldn’t verify whether Kushner forwarded all work-related emails to his work account, which would render his behavior 100% legitimate. The White House is insisting he remained in compliance, and Politico hasn’t uncovered any evidence to discredit this claim.





Lowell said Kushner has adhered to government record-keeping requirements by forwarding all the emails to his account, though POLITICO could not verify that.

Other White House officials have also sometimes used personal accounts to correspond with Kushner and with each other, according to emails seen by POLITICO and people familiar with Kushner’s correspondence. They have also used encrypted apps like Signal and Confide that automatically delete messages, prompting former press secretary Sean Spicer in February to issue a warning to communications staffers that using such apps could violate the Presidential Records Act.

Politico then adds that private-email use in the Trump administration has been “somewhat common” despite Trump’s attacks on Clinton.

The use of personal email accounts in the Trump White House has been somewhat common, even though the president has been a harsh critic of Clinton’s private email habits, frequently leading “lock her up” chants as he traveled across the country on the campaign trail.

Politico also says Kushner and Ivanka Trump set up their private family domain late last year before moving to Washington from New York, according to people with knowledge of events as well as publicly available internet registration records. At the time, Kushner, who served as a senior campaign adviser, was expected to be named to a White House role, while Ivanka Trump was publicly saying she didn’t plan to work in her father’s administration, though she ended up taking an unpaid role with an office in the West Wing. People familiar with the account say it was primarily set up for personal use, but that Kushner has used it to communicate with acquaintances outside the White House about matters relating to Trump and the administration, according to people who have received messages.

Ivanka has an email account on the same domain, but there’s no indication she used her account for work purposes.

So is Kushner’s sending of work-related notes from his private email account a major violation on par with Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information? Or just another mainstream attack on Kushner, meant to dilute the Hillary Clinton email narrative?





Continue Reading

Politics

Is Disrespecting The National Anthem A Legitimate Form Of Protest?

This is going to backfire on the left in a major way.  On Sunday, more than a hundred NFL players knelt during the playing of the national anthem.

Published

on

This is going to backfire on the left in a major way.  On Sunday, more than a hundred NFL players knelt during the playing of the national anthem.  It was obviously an attempt to make some sort of public statement about President Trump, but it was an exceedingly poor way to go about doing that.  Because our young people are not even taught about the importance of our national anthem and our national flag in school, most of these players didn’t even understand what they were doing.  Our anthem is sung and our flag is proudly displayed prior to major sporting events for a reason.  The truth is that our national anthem and our national flag are both symbols that directly represent our nation.  In other words, when you show disrespect to the anthem or to the flag you are literally showing disrespect to the United States of America.  So what these players did on Sunday was essentially to spit in the face of every single American citizen.

This is not just an American thing.  All over the world it is well understood that respect for the national flag and other national symbols is not optional.  What transpired at NFL games on Sunday will be broadcast all over the planet, and the rest of the world will be laughing at our national disgrace.






The very first NFL game scheduled on Sunday was held in London, and “dozens of players from both teams” knelt while the national anthem was being played…

The first game of the day between the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars saw dozens of players from both teams kneel while almost the entire Jaguars’ on-field and sideline players and employees locked arms during the U.S. national anthem, including owner Shahid Khan. Some players stood while others knelt.

And of course similar “sideline protests” happened at other NFL stadiums all over the nation.  Never before in American history have we ever seen anything quite like this

Demonstrations spread throughout the league as many players broke out of their routine by joining the protests or engaging in team-wide displays of unity.

Several players from the Buffalo Bills, Denver Broncos, New York Giants, Detroit Lions, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints and Atlanta Falcons were among those who chose not to stand for the anthem. The Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Minnesota Vikings, Philadelphia Eagles, Chicago Bears, Indianapolis Colts, New York Jets, Los Angeles Chargers and Green Bay Packers stood with arms locked, though some players from those teams chose to kneel.

I honestly don’t think that the NFL will ever be the same after this.  It had already been transformed into the “no fun league”, and now the focus will squarely be on political protests rather than football for the foreseeable future.

Needless to say, millions upon millions of Americans were completely disgusted by the disrespect shown to our national symbols on Sunday, and President Trump was one of them

“If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL, or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect …,” Trump said in tweets Saturday afternoon. “Our Great American Flag (or Country) and should stand for the National Anthem. If not, YOU’RE FIRED. Find something else to do!”

If professional football players want to speak out against President Trump, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

But for them to openly and brazenly disrespect our entire country is crossing a line that should never be crossed.

What in the world has happened to America?  All over America high school football coaches are being banned from saying prayers before games, and yet disrespecting our anthem and our flag is somehow acceptable?  The following comes from Zero Hedge

Marc Short, the president’s legislative director, has also backed his boss, telling “Meet the Press” that a double standard for players who chose to voice their views on the field, and that the president was speaking for the majority of Americans on what sort of expression was appropriate. Short compared a crackdown on protests to the ban on high school football coaches leading players in prayer before games.

“There are high school coaches across America today who are punished for leading their players in prayer, and yet, when an N.F.L. player takes a knee, somehow that player is presumed to be a martyr for a social cause,” Mr. Short said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The president is standing with the vast majority of Americans who believe that our flag should be respected.”

Many of these players are going to look back on what they have done with great shame.  They may have believed that they were disrespecting President Trump, but the truth is that they were disrespecting this great land and every single American that has ever lived.  They owe all of us an apology, and that should happen as soon as possible.

And the NFL may think that it is all powerful, but stunts like this are going to cost it millions upon millions of dollars.  Already, ratings were way down because of the few players that were kneeling whenever the anthem was played

Player protests of the National Anthem – such as when quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee in protest – are the number one reason sports fans watched fewer National Football League (NFL) games, a new survey shows.

If just a few players kneeling had that much of an impact on the ratings, what do you think is going to happen now?






Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this is just the beginning.  In fact, one former Democratic member of Congress is calling on all NFL players to kneel while the anthem is played

A former Democrat Congresswoman has called for every NFL player to kneel during the national anthem at Sunday’s games, while branding President Donald Trump a ‘white supremacist’.

Donna Edwards, who retired as a US representative for Maryland earlier this year, issued the bold statement on Saturday, responding to Trump’s criticism of NFL players who refuse to stand for the anthem.

‘On Sunday, I hope every @NFL player takes a knee in solidarity w [Colin Kaepernick] against the white supremacist who squats in our White House,’ Edwards said in reference to the former San Francisco quarterback, who is now a free agent.

No matter what your political perspective is, it is wrong to disrespect our national anthem and it is wrong to disrespect our flag.

And anyone that disrespects our anthem and our flag is spitting in the face of the entire country.

What happened on Sunday was a national disgrace, and those involved need to apologize to the American people immediately.






Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

Continue Reading

Economy

Facebook Thinks You Are A Moron – Here Is The Chart Proving It

Published

on


Last week we jokingly wrote about a Facebook press release that was apparently an honest effort by the social media giant intended to summarize Russian efforts to undermine the 2016 election using their social media platform. That said, at least to us, it seemed as though Facebook unwittingly proved what a farce the entire ‘Russian collusion’ narrative had become as, after digging through advertising data for the better part of full year, Facebook reported that they found a ‘staggering’ $50,000 worth of ad buys that MAY have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts to run ‘potentially politically related’ ads.

Not surprisingly, after being attacked by the mainstream media and even Hillary for “assisting” the Russians, Zuckerberg is once again in the press today fanning the flames of the ‘Russian collusion’ narrative by saying that Facebook will release to Congress the details of the 3,000 ads that MAY have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts.

And while it seems obvious, please allow us to once again demonstrate why this entire process is so utterly bizarre… 

The chart below demonstrates how the $50,000 worth of ad buys that MAY have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts to run ‘potentially politically related’ ads compares to the $26.8 billion in ad revenue that Facebook generated in the U.S. over the same time period between 3Q 2015 and 2Q 2017….If $50,000 can swing an entire presidential election can you imagine what $26.8 billion can do?

Of course, not all of that $26.8 billion was spent on political advertising so we took a shot at breaking it down further.  While Facebook doesn’t disclose political spending as a percent of their overall advertising revenue, we did a little digging and found that political advertising represented ~5% of the overall ad market in the U.S. in 2016.  We further assumed that political share of the overall ad market is roughly half of that amount in non-election years, or 2.5%.

Using that data, we figure that Facebook may get ~3.5% of their annual revenue from political advertising in an average year, or nearly $1 billion per year…give or take a few million.  Unfortunately, as the chart below once again demonstrates, this still does little to support Zuckerberg’s thesis that the $50,000 he keeps talking about is in any way relevant to the 2016 election.

 

Of course, the pursuit of this ridiculous narrative proves that Zuckerberg has no interest in spreading the truth about how his company impacted (and by “impacted,” we mean “had no impact at all”) the 2016 election, but rather is only interested in shoving his political agenda down the throats of an American public that he presumes is too stupid to question his propaganda. 

That said, if Zuckerberg is really just on a mission for truth, as he says he is, perhaps he can stop patronizing the American public and disclose the full facts surrounding political advertising on Facebook.  We suspect a simple financial disclosure detailing how much political advertising was sold on Facebook from 3Q 2015 – 2Q 2017, broken down by political affiliation, would go a long way toward proving just how meaningless $50,000 is in the grand scheme of things. 

That said, somehow we suspect ‘truth’ is not really Zuckerberg’s end goal, now is it?

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending