WISHFUL THINKING FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BILL CLINTON, DONALD TRUMP, MEDIA BIAS

The Washington Post is concerned that the Trump campaign will have long-term negative repercussions for the Republican Party’s standing among women. Okay, I made that up. In reality, the Washington Post hopes the Trump campaign has short and long-term negative repercussions for the Republican Party’s standing among women.

That’s the only sense I can make out of this deeply biased article by Jenna Johnson and Karen Tumulty. It argues that because some prominent Republicans (if Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani still qualify as such) have defended Trump against allegations of sexual misconduct, and because Trump and a few of his male defenders have attacked the women making these allegations, the GOP will be irreparably damaged when it comes to its relationship with female voters.

The Post makes this argument as America is poised to elect the spouse of a former president whose sexual misconduct was excused, and whose accusers were reviled, by Democrats. Who was the reviler-in-chief? None other than Hillary Clinton, the candidate poised to win the presidency.

Johnson and Tumulty don’t see the irony. The only irony they detect is that sexism has reared its head just as the nation seems on the verge of electing its first female president. This “irony” will serve Clinton apologists at the Post and elsewhere well when they attribute attacks on Clinton’s policies to sexism.

The only reference to the events surrounding Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades is a shot at Gingrich. Noting that, during a contentious interview, Gingrich said that Megyn Kelly is “fascinated with sex,” Johnson and Tumulty observe:

Gingrich once had a fascination of his own with Bill Clinton’s sex life, as he was a driving force behind the movement to impeach Clinton following a consensual sexual relationship he had with a young former intern.

You would think, from reading this, that Clinton was impeached for his sexual relationship. In fact, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury and obstruction occurred in connection with a lawsuit by Paula Jones alleging sexual harassment by Clinton.

There was no meaningful dispute that Clinton lied under oath. Democrats pooh-poohed the lies as trivial, even thought they were stated, under oath, in a sex discrimination suit (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination).

Yet, there was no talk about a Democratic “war on women.” Nor have female voters ever punished the Democrats or the Clintons. Far from it.

If Trump loses, it’s extremely doubtful that his response, and that of Gingrich and a few others, to the sexual misconduct allegations will have an ongoing effect on how the GOP is perceived by women. It’s not even clear that it will impact congressional races this year.

Will female voters attribute the sins of Trump and Gingrich to, say, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, or Nikki Haley in 2020? Of course not. Will the Washington Post and other liberal conjure up new “sins” to trumpet as part of the bogus “war on women” theme? Of course they will.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/wishful-thinking-from-the-washington-post.php

Government workers shun Trump, give big money to Clinton

 

 

By Jonathan Swan 

Federal government employees are opening their wallets to help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump on Nov. 8. 

Of the roughly $2 million that federal workers from 14 agencies spent on presidential politics by the end of September, about $1.9 million, or 95 percent, went to the Democratic nominee’s campaign, according to an analysis by The Hill. 

Employees at all the agencies analyzed, without exception, are sending their campaign contributions overwhelmingly to Clinton over her Republican counterpart. Several agencies, such as the State Department, which Clinton once led, saw more than 99 percent of contributions going to Clinton.

Employees of the Department of Justice, which investigated Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations. Trump received $8,756 from DOJ employees compared with $286,797 for Clinton. From IRS employees, Clinton received 94 percent of donations.

Federal government employees overwhelmingly backed Clinton’s presidential campaign no matter which agency The Hill analyzed using Federal Election Commission data covering donors giving more than $200. 

Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said these donation patterns are more evidence of the “rigged system” favoring establishment candidates like Clinton over outsiders like Trump. The Trump campaign has been citing lopsided media donations to Clinton — though there’s no evidence they’re coming from reporters covering Trump — as further evidence that the game is fixed. 

But David Schultz, a Hamline University Professor of Political Science, said government employees have historically favored Democratic candidates over Republicans both in their voting habits and political contributions made in their personal time. 

Under the Hatch Act, federal government employees are banned from engaging in political activities, including making campaign contributions, during work hours.

“Government employees are, on balance, more moderate or more liberal as opposed to the general population,” Schultz said. “Not across the board, but in general.”

Government employees are “more likely to believe in government as opposed to, let’s say, a privatization program,” he added, “programs that we would view as hostile to government.”

Republicans typically campaign on promises to slash government payrolls, which helps explain why recent GOP presidential candidates have received the smaller share of donations from government workers. 

Yet while Republicans usually do worse than Democrats, Trump appears to be doing especially poorly in fundraising from government employees. 

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, received 14 percent of donations from the same group of agencies surveyed for Trump. Trump received just 5 percent.

Romney got close to $300,000 more from these same departments’ employees than Trump has four years later. Comparisons to previous presidential candidates are of limited value, since they took public funding for their general election campaigns.

Trump might have had a chance to do better than Romney. He discarded much of Republican orthodoxy during his primary campaign, which could have led some federal employees to believe that he’d be more amenable to big government. He vowed, for example, to leave massive social welfare programs virtually untouched.

But Trump also constantly attacked federal institutions. During his primary campaign, he described the federal government as a corrupt, bloated body run by “very, very, stupid people.” 

Trump vowed “tremendous cutting” of the government in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in January and singled out the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency as agencies he’d slash dramatically if not outright eliminate.

Agency employees have likely taken note of Trump’s hostile rhetoric. In the Department of Education’s case, that included Trump’s pledges to hand over control to the states and to fight tooth and nail against Common Core standards.

From Department of Education employees this cycle, Trump received three donations totaling $220. Clinton received 724 donations for more than $74,000. In all, she received 99.7 percent of donations from employees of the department. 

Donations from the State Department, which Clinton ran from 2009 to 2013, were even more slanted in her favor. State Department employees gave Trump 39 donations, for $4,652. Over the same time period, they gave their former boss 2,518 donations, for $425,525.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has portrayed himself as a strongman who would toughen up America’s defenses — both militarily and at the border — and who would take care of veterans. It’s probably no coincidence, therefore, that Trump performed best in donations among employees of three agencies: Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. 

But even employees of these more Trump-friendly agencies have overwhelmingly contributed to Clinton’s campaign. From Defense employees, Trump received 341 donations for $43,575. Clinton got 2,392 donations for $225,560, giving her 84 percent of the money. From Homeland Security employees, Clinton got 90 percent of the donations, and from Veterans Affairs she took 88 percent. 

Romney performed significantly better than Trump with employees at all three agencies, receiving, for example, $98,153 from Defense employees, which amounted 21 percent of donations.

During the Republican primaries, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said, “Let’s create a little bit of a recession in Washington, D.C., so that we can have economic prosperity outside of Washington.” Fear of such plans might be the truest explanation of these uniformly lopsided donations. 

Schultz, the Hamline professor, said “self-preservation”— particularly for workers engaged in public sector unions — probably motivates their political giving.

“This means support for their jobs,” he said. “Clinton, for the most part, is going to be probably a continuation of more or less what Obama is.”

Federal government employees, he said, are likely “more willing to give to somebody who would be more predictable in terms of supporting their livelihood, their jobs, as opposed to somebody who might be less predictable.”

TAGS:Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign

CLINTON CAMPAIGN’S FIRST INSTINCT WAS TO LIE ABOUT COMEY

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HILLARY CLINTON

FBI Director James Comey wrote Congress to say that his prior testimony, to the effect that the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was concluded, was no longer accurate due to the discovery of a new batch of relevant emails. The Clinton campaign predictably reacted with outrage. Was that a good faith response, or just political posturing?

I find it revealing that when the Clinton campaign launched its attack on Comey, it led off with a lie. In her press conference last night, Hillary Clinton accused Comey of partisanship, falsely claiming that he had sent his letter only to Congressional Republicans. In fact, Comey followed the standard protocol, addressing his letter to the chairmen of the relevant committees and sending copies to the ranking minority members of each committee:

Letter-3 by John Hinderaker on Scribd

Hillary corrected her false claim that Comey had only sent the letter to Republicans:

At her press conference, Clinton wrongly said that the FBI director had only sent his letter to Republicans on the Hill. A Clinton campaign official later said she misspoke. That impression, the official said, was based on the first page of the letter, which listed the names of Republican chairs of committees, while the Democratic ranking members’ names weren’t listed until the second page.

Right: Hillary is too dumb to turn the page. And after 30 years as a federal office-holder or hanger-on, she is unaware of the standard manner of addressing correspondence to Congressional committees.

But that’s not all: Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta, echoed Hillary’s smear:

“FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen,” Podesta said in a statement.

Note that this was a written statement, not an off the cuff characterization at a press conference. So the campaign’s lie–Comey is a partisan, he only communicated with Republicans!–was deliberate. That being the case, it is hard to take the Democrats’ indignation seriously.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/clinton-campaigns-first-instinct-was-to-lie-about-comey.php

Talking about Trump's sex life lets us avoid reality: Glenn Reynolds

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

We need to be talking about five wars, the national debt, rising health care costs and corruption.

(Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images)

My last column noted that although America is fighting something like five wars, nobody seems to be talking about it. It would be nice if that were the only important subject that’s not getting enough attention but it isn’t. Here are a few other topics that would be getting major daily attention, if our press and our candidates were better.

Corruption

In 2006, Rep. Nancy Pelosi led a campaign to take Congress back from the GOP by claiming that the Republicans had fostered a “culture of corruption,” and promising to “drain the swamp.” That catchphrase vanished after the election, but the corruption did not. And in the waning years of the Obama Administration, the corruption looks pretty bad. It even appears to have reached the FBI.

The FBI ultimately decided not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton over her email scandal. That created a lot of criticism. But now it turns out that the FBI official in charge of the investigation was awfully close to the Clintons. The FBI official is deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, was running for state senate in Virginia. Her campaign received a donation of nearly a half million dollars from the political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who has been close to the Clintons for decades (and has his own brushes with the law). Then, a bit later, Andrew McCabe was put in charge of the investigation into Clinton's emails, an investigation that — to the dismay of many longtime Bureau insiders — recommended no charges. Now McCabe is facing calls for his resignation.

As Stephen Green points out, McAuliffe encouraged Jill McCabe to run just days after the Clinton email scandal broke. I’m sure he knew who her husband was when he did so. The FBI claims there’s no connection, but this is very bad for the already-tarnished image of the FBI.

USA TODAY

We're at war, but let's talk about sex: Glenn Reynolds

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Meanwhile, we have Clinton's pay-for-play deal with the King of Morocco. To the consternation of her advisers, she agreed to speak in Morocco in exchange for a promised $12 million donation to the Clinton Foundation. As the Huffington Post noted, "It is generally frowned upon for presidential candidates to be pumping foreign leaders for money.” At least her staff recognized that and eventually replaced Hillary with Bill and Chelsea.

But this sort of thing seems to have been par for the course at the Clinton Foundation, which, as ABC News reported, gave special treatment to “Friends of Bill.” As Bob Woodward commented, “But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. . . . But the election isn't going to be decided on that.” Not if Clinton can help it.

ObamaCare’s Implosion

The Affordable Care Act, better known as “ObamaCare,” was passed via a procedural trickcalled “reconciliation” and without a single Republican vote. Now that it is falling apart, and the Obama Administration — and the press — are blaming . . . Republicans for not fixing it. ObamaCare is imploding because the original concept was unworkable, as many critics argued at the time it was adopted. Now, several years later, insurers are abandoning the project and Americans’ premiums are facing double-digit increases.

Given that this was President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, and given that Clinton is running, essentially, on the promise of a third Obama term, you’d think this would be a top story in the news, getting the full-bore coverage every day that, say, a groping allegation against Donald Trump receives. But you’d be wrong. As Twitter humorist Jim Treacher says, "Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.”

USA TODAY

Democratic strategist: Republicans can't undo Trump

The Debt

Clinton has repeatedly claimed that she won’t "add a penny” to the national debt. On the one hand, that would be good, since the debt has roughly doubled during Obama’s time in office. On the other hand, she’s largely been allowed to slide on this implausible promise, and the increase in the debt under Obama has received surprisingly little attention, despite the burdens it will impose on millennials in terms of taxes and lost opportunities. The debt will still be there after the election, but the Clinton campaign, and the press, don’t want you thinking about it — and Hillary’s role in it — until then.

Corruption, unaffordable healthcare, a burgeoning national debt: These are all things that will have serious consequences for Americans for decades, to come. In a healthier society, our election would turn on these issues. But we do not live in such a society. And that suits politicians, and their supporters in the press, just fine.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/26/corruption-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-wars-debt-glenn-reynolds-column/92771040/

Sanctuary city illegal immigrant sparks $61M fire in national forest

Trees in the Sequoia National Forest in California were charred along the path of a 29,000-acre blaze caused by an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record. (Associated Press)more >

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times 

WOFFORD HEIGHTS, Calif. — Angel Gilberto Garcia-Avalos had been deported five times in just the past four years, yet each time he has managed to sneak from Mexico back into the U.S., where he ended up in more mischief: driving without a license, attempted burglary and felony weapons charges.

In August, he graduated to full-fledged mayhem, sparking a fire in the Sequoia National Forest that has already cost the government $61 million and left some of the country’s most beautiful landscape scarred for years to come.

Garcia, who pleaded guilty last month and faces 13 months in prison, had only recently been released from the Kern County Jail. He likely would have been deported again, but local authorities were unable to report him to immigration authorities because of California’s new sanctuary city law, which prohibited the sheriff from communicating with federal agents.

---

PHOTOS: 11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives

---

Federal agents now say they will kick Garcia out of the country once he serves his latest sentence, but the damage has already been done.

At a point along State Highway 155 through the Sequoia National Forest, the smell of cedar gives way to the stench of soot. Ash-blackened trees above and below the roadway show the path of the blaze.

Investigators determined that the spark came from a Nissan Maxima that Garcia was driving over a rough dirt trail near Cedar Creek. Garcia tried to drive over a berm and hit a tree. The hot muffler on his car ignited grass parched by years of drought, investigators said in an account filed in federal court.

PHOTOS: 13 Things Liberals Want To Ban

---

Ranchers rushing to the site of the fire saw Garcia who, despite the blaze raging over his shoulder, insisted he wasn’t aware of it much less responsible for it.

Investigators punctured his story by matching footprints from the car to those of Garcia and his son.

Decades to recover

John Chatel, an endangered species specialist who led the Forest Service’s evaluation team after the fire, said it wasn’t the most damaging burn he has seen but added that the effects could last for years.

Of the 29,000 acres that were touched by fire, more than half sustained moderate or high-intensity burns. Communities were evacuated in two counties, and a handful of cabins and outbuildings were scorched.

It took six weeks to fully contain the fire. Officials warned at the beginning of October that hot spots could persist until the first snows blanket the area and snuff out the last vestiges.

The fire didn’t spread to Sequoia National Park to the north of the forest, which is home to groves of the majestic trees.

But it took more than $60 million to contain and extinguish the blaze. Mr. Chatel submitted an emergency restoration plan at a cost of $500,000. That doesn’t include long-term restoration of campsites, cattle-grazing areas and long-term revegetation.

Mr. Chatel said the drought, now in its fifth year, probably will make it tougher for the forest to recover.

“It’s got to be really challenging — not impossible, but challenging — for a lot of the forest that was there historically to come back in a reasonable amount of time,” he said. “It’s going to take decades and decades from a conifer standpoint to get back what you lost.”

Destroying the landscape

Garcia has admitted to his role in the fire but shows little remorse.

Court documents say he got testy with the ranchers when they accused him. “How am I going to start that fire?” he said. “Does it look like I would do that?”

At one point while Garcia was talking with the ranchers, a glass methamphetamine pipe fell out of his pocket and he quickly moved to conceal it, Forest Service Special Agent Brian A. Adams wrote.

Garcia claimed the Nissan Maxima, which belonged to his girlfriend’s mother, was stolen when he and his son went to get some water — though there is no water source anywhere in the vicinity, the agent said.

Fires sparked by illegal immigrants are more common — and more controversial — along the border.

The federal government’s main fire information center tracks whether blazes were sparked by humans but doesn’t record their nationality or legal status.

In 2011, after a series of blazes in southern Arizona, Sen. John McCain blamed illegal immigrants. He was resoundingly rebuked by immigrant rights groups that said the Arizona Republican was speculating, scapegoating and spreading “hate and fear.”

Months later, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ official nonpartisan watchdog, backed up the senator. GAO investigators reviewed 77 human-caused fires along the Arizona border and concluded that 30 of them were caused by illegal border crossers.

Worse yet, the presence of the illegal immigrants made fighting the fires even tougher. One investigator told The Washington Times that armed agents had to accompany firefighters.

In California, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said the problems go beyond fire. He said marijuana grows are becoming more frequent on federal lands. When they are raided, the grows are usually found to be manned by illegal immigrants — some of them forced into the labor. State and local law enforcement have become engaged in shootouts at the grows.

“They’re destroying the landscape of our national forest,” the sheriff told The Washington Times.

Garcia’s record

Garcia’s case illustrates the ongoing problem with the U.S.-Mexico border. Although less active than it was a decade ago, the border remains porous enough for bad elements to sneak across with apparent ease. That enabled Garcia to come back to his 4-year-old son, identified in court papers only by the initials G.G.

Garcia has a long criminal record that includes auto theft, burglary and firearms charges. Nabbed last year after failing to appear in court to face felony charges, he was sentenced to more than a year in jail and was released for good behavior after serving 194 days.

In the past, Kern County would have reported him to federal immigration agents and his criminal record and repeated deportations would have made him a priority case. But California’s Trust Act, signed into law last year by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, put an end to that cooperation.

“We didn’t hold him because he did not meet the Trust Act,” Sheriff Youngblood said.

Now that he is in federal prison, ICE will have better luck when he is released upon completion of a 13-month sentence to which he agreed in his plea bargain.

But given his proficiency at sneaking back into the U.S., there is little sense that he will be deterred.

“We have to change the risk-cost-benefit equation,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “There are always going to be these multiple re-entry cases, and we should prosecute more of them, but at a certain point it is no longer a deterrent; that’s why we have to make it harder for them to get back in.”

She said families of repeat offenders in the country illegally could also be deported, removing the incentive for them to come back. Ms. Vaughan said targeting the smuggling operations that help sneak migrants into the U.S. would help.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/25/sanctuary-city-illegal-immigrant-sparks-61-million/

AMERICAN ROULETTE

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN HILLARY CLINTON

I will vote for Donald Trump, not because I think he is a great–or even good–presidential candidate, but because it is blindingly obvious that he is better than Hillary Clinton. He could turn out to be a terrible president, but his down side is better than what we know about Hillary. The great Michael Ramirez expresses the contrast this way. Click to enlarge:

Character is important in a president. The liberal press has devoted the last month to telling us that Donald Trump is a jerk. He may well be, but he can’t begin to rival Hillary Clinton’s low character.

Deroy Murdock at National Review reminds us what an appalling person Hillary is. I am going to take the liberty of reproducing almost his entire column, because I think it is important. But please do follow the link, where you will find many more links to original sources that I have omitted here:

Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”

Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying.

* “She derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.

In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those who work for her spans decades.

While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words.

* “I’m not voting for Clinton,” Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.

“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9 handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.”

“One of my last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”

According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that f***ing dog away from me.”

“Then she turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’”

“Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but Hillary.”

* “Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, page 139.

* “If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page 259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat arose.

* “Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton. “F*** off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.

* “Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.

Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that emerged when she was around.”

* “Where is the goddam f***ing flag? I want the goddam f***ing flag up every f***ing morning at f***ing sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, page 246.

* “Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita, by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.

“F*** off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you s***-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your mouth shut.”

Liberals tell us that with so many accusers, Donald Trump must be guilty of something. I am not at all sure that is true, given the sudden timing of these accounts and the billions of dollars being devoted to destroying Trump’s candidacy. But it seems far more likely that the many witnesses who have attested to Hillary Clinton’s horrible character over the years are telling the truth. The picture that emerges of Hillary is consistent and disgusting.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/american-roulette.php