Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[seemslikeadream]

I feel the love

All is right with the world..after a nights sleep

$hillary is in trouble despite what the mass media are saying regarding polling. Low enthusiasm for her lesser evil message, the potential for more and more fall out from her myriad corruption/fraud/treason related Foundation dealings, etc.. They've blown through all of their quality anti Trump messaging and are reduced bottom of the barrel material: fronting a wannabe gangster beauty queen, and smearing Trump for, ermahgerds! Deals with Cuba!

I've though for some time that her strategy against him was comically bad - she needs people to turn out for her, not, not vote for him. Her message to that end is hilariously misguided: she's cementing his voters enthusiasm, diluting real fear of his malfeasance and potential for lulz (on a global scale), and crucially, she is doing nothing to appeal to young people and minorities. Her 'pitch to center right GOP 'moderates' and neocons has fallen flat on its face: she pisses off her own people royally, while the GOP either are not going to vote, or will vote for him. And millennials are turning their back on her along with blacks and latinos. As someone on twitter says - she just needs to throw some red meat to her actual base. But she can't/won't, and it's probably too late for such a shift in course anyway.

She's an awful candidate and yet, Trump is probably the only candidate she can actually beat - and it's not certain she can even do that. It must be excruciating for die hard Dems to watch this pan out. This is what you get when you rig the primary to prop up the worst presidential candidate in electoral history (bar one). If she wins, it won't be by convincing enough margin to allay fears of voter fraud/election tampering - and the whole cloud over the integrity of the elections? Yup, escalated wildly by her and her team to smear Trump and ratchet up fear over Russia.

We are all stuck with the consequences either way.

[Iamwhomiam]

There are no consequences, just history.

I would disagree with you, Rory, at least in part, about where disenfranchised republicans will be casting their vote or not voting at all. A week ago, after his Aleppo Moment, I would have said some would be cast for Johnson, but now after him actually uttering he was having another Aleppo Moment, being unable to name Vincente Fox as Mexico's President or any other world leader, I'm not so sure, but he's still near 10%, so who knows? More Republicans will cast their vote for Hillary than have ever before voted across party lines.

President Bush is voting for Hillary ~ that is astounding! I believe unprecedented, as well.

[Rory]

The election isn't won or lost over a few hundred cuck republicans.

Magog Bush pitching for her serves to dissuade more of her actual base, to tune out/vote Stein/whatever than it does to gain GOP voters for her - it's at best a wash from her perspective.

She needs voters to get out in force to win - they don't show up for her tired, repetitive, and frankly uninspired negative campaign message, and she loses.

[lyrimal]

[Iamwhomiam]

As always, it's a numbers game. You'll see why I'm unconcerned and have an opportunity to help advance the Green Party nationally by voting for Stein.

Scroll to the bottom for NYS numbers of registered voters, affiliated and unaffiliated.

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/enrollment/county/county_apr16.pdf

This information should be available for voters in all states' on their State Board of Elections website.

[dada]

Hang on, let me put on my pre-game show sports commentator hat...

Bill: I tell you, Bob, Hillary better watch it. These polls keep saying she's pulling ahead. Don't want that hurting voter turnout.

Bob: Well Bill, We're still far out from the big day. The polls can get tight again.

Bill: That's right, Bob. And those polls can't get tight, unless they get loose.

Bob: You said it, Bill. Alright, Bill, let's talk about Donald Trump's voters.

Bill: Alright, let's take a look, Bob. He's got the racist, the women-hater, Tea Party, troll...

Bob: You know, Bill, those trolls may have been Trump's biggest mistake. Alienating everyone with their childish antics.

Bill: They're out of their league, Bob.

Bob: Not the kind of team you want running your campaign, Bill. And then Trump has the couch potatoes.

Bill: We call them 'non-voters for trump,' Bob.

Bob: Too bad they can't vote with a television remote, Bill.

Bill: Get with the times, Bob. Vote by clicking 'like' on facebook.

Bob: heh.

Bill: Okay, Bob, we're going to take a commercial break here.

Bob: That's right Bill. When we come back, we'll talk to an undecided voter.

Bill: Wow, Bob! We found an undecided voter?

Bob: No, I'm just kidding, Bill. Stay tuned.

Bill: Look at those polls, they're getting tight!

Alright, I guess I put on two hats this time.

[backtoiam]

Bill: Alright, let's take a look, Bob. He's got the racist, the women-hater, Tea Party, troll...

This is the first time since the early 90's I have felt even remotely interested in an election or cared what really happened. At first I was only interested because the bizarre nature of the situation. Now i'm irritated and it actually feels good.

People in this country are slowly realizing that the bullying name calling nature of identity/race/gender politics has gone too far. People are sick and tired of being called names simply because they are desperate for a decent job and better paycheck. Most of these people could care less about all this pseudo media driven race/identity/gender pandering and their actions are showing it.

Hillary couldn't draw a crowd of flies with a cup of sugar at her events. After the debate thousands of "racists, women-hater, Tea Party, trolls" crammed into an airplane hanger to see Trump speak and thousands more couldn't even get inside.

People are sick of this shit and so am I. I hope the DNC ratchets up the name calling and becomes even more insulting to all these people that simply want a better life because it is having the opposite effect of what they hoped for. I hope the Democratic Party become meaner and even more insulting because it is driving people away from their simpleton insults and the 4chan type crowd are eating them alive.

After all these years, for the first time, I take pleasure in watching the DNC wallow around alone with no supporters except the rich elite, transnational corporations, and banks. I have never seen such a racist, sexist, and gender manipulative display as we are witnessing right now and I hope the DNC trips on it. I'm fed up with em...

[Searcher08]

[dada]

Bill: Alright, let's take a look, Bob. He's got the racist, the women-hater, Tea Party, troll...

People in this country are slowly realizing that the bullying name calling nature of identity/race/gender politics has gone too far. People are sick and tired of being called names simply because they are desperate for a decent job and better paycheck. Most of these people could care less about all this pseudo media driven race/identity/gender pandering and their actions are showing it.

Didn't mean to offend you, backtoiam..

Just calling it like I see it. In my opinion, we're watching clinton, the establishment's war criminal du jour, win by doing absolutely nothing. And watching trump is like watching the proverbial train wreck in slow motion. This is a lesson in what happens when you let children run your campaign.

And I really don't care. It's like the circles of hell. Pop-Politics is the ninth circle. Maybe not the ninth, I don't know. It's a circle of hell. For some reason I can't quite understand, some people like to hang out there. I try not to. Sometimes I do some satire about it.

[backtoiam]

Didn't mean to offend you, backtoiam..

You didn't offend me. I didn't really take those as your own emotions and thoughts. I took it more as a simple observation of what we are all watching. No problem.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/09/the-worlds-fixated-on-trump-but-hillary-could-drag-us-all-into-a-catastrophic-war-writes-peter-hitch.html

I can see no good outcome of this. Adversarial politics are a good thing, but only if both sides are ultimately willing to concede that their rivals are entitled to win from time to time. But that attitude seems to have gone. Now the rule is that the winner takes all, and hopes to keep it if he (or she) can.
A narrow defeat for Trump will poison the republic. Millions of his supporters will immediately claim fraud at the polls, and nothing will convince them otherwise. The bitterness of the Florida ‘hanging chad’ episode of 2000 will seem like brotherly love compared with that fury.
A victory for Trump – decisive or narrow – will give astonishing powers to a lonely, inexperienced, ill-educated old man who (I suspect) is increasingly terrified of winning a prize he never really intended or expected to obtain.
A clear victory for Hillary Clinton would create even greater problems. Educated, informed people here believe that there are serious doubts about her health. Even if they are wrong, her militant interventionist foreign policies are terrifying.
I lived through the Cold War and never believed we were in real danger. But I genuinely tremble at the thought of Mrs Clinton in the White House. She appears to have learned nothing from the failed interventions of the past 30 years, and scorns Barack Obama’s praiseworthy motto: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff.’
She will do stupid stuff, and drag us into it, you may rely upon it.
How odd it is, to hear on the air the faint but insistent sound of coming war, here in this place of sweet, small hills, rich soil and wistful, mountainous horizons.
Men came here in search of what we all really desire, to be left alone to get on with the really important aims of life, to build a home and raise a family, to see the fruits of their labour, to believe what they wish to believe.
I cannot quite work out how the good, sane impulse that gave birth to the USA could possibly have led us to this nightmare choice between two equally horrible outcomes.
I shall just have to carry on hoping that I am wrong.

Rory, I had two reactions to this blog. The first was a sort of reverse Mandela effect reaction of, "Holy shit! Christopher Hitchens is still alive and blogging! I thought he died years ago!" Then I actually clicked the link and said, "Oh. Peter. Never mind!"

Second, after reading. I agreed with everything in the snip above up until where he says, "I lived through the Cold War and never believed we were in real danger." I'm going to have to call bullshit on that remark, either from amnesia or ignorance. He was almost 11 when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened. That's how old I was when Able Archer happened. Of course, I had no idea that that was happening at the time, but the fear of the prospect of nuclear war because of the deployment of Pershing missiles was very palpable here as I recall, and probably even more so in Western Europe (for those of you who haven't watched Deutschland 83, get Hulu and watch it, I'm only four episodes in and I highly recommend it). So it boggles my mind that Hitchens never believed we were in real danger during either 1962 or 1983. Nice cloistered ivory tower he must live in.

This might make me real unpopular on this thread, but I think anyone who believes that the current threat of nuclear war is greater than 1962 or 1983 because of who may or may not become President is fundamentally wrong. I'm not saying we don't face a greater threat now, I think the possibility of a nuclear response in the event of a gigantic Arctic methane release would constitute a greater existential threat. I'm just saying it matters jackshit who's sitting in the White House should that come to pass.

[seemslikeadream]

yep ...it's kinda what I was thinking when I posted this

Point of No Return: Global Warming Created by the Chinese
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40059


but also I don't want an insane narcissist with the codes either

[dada]

People in this country are slowly realizing that the bullying name calling nature of identity/race/gender politics has gone too far.

I disagree with you there. I think people don't care about that stuff, unless it challenges the structural racist and sexist foundations of society. Attack feminists and progressives, no one gives a shit. But attack white male privilege, then all of a sudden people care.

And I have no problem with bullying the poor, misunderstood, sexually frustrated white boy. Let them cry, waa waa. I make no secret of the fact that I'm at war with troll culture.

edited to add: (I'm talking about 'poor' as in "oh woe is me!" not 'poor' as in dollars. I'm poor in dollars. I'm a poor in dollars white boy. Not misunderstood, or sexually frustrated. People understand me just fine.)

After the debate thousands of "racists, women-hater, Tea Party, trolls" crammed into an airplane hanger to see Trump speak and thousands more couldn't even get inside.

Well you know what they say. There's no accounting for taste. Here's me sipping coffee and reading the times.

[slimmouse]

Think you're informed about the Clinton server and foundation? So did I - until...
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... erver_and/
this Judicial Watch panel on 9/29/16. There's a TON of info we haven't heard. This is going places

Thanks enormously for this Grizzly, which merely confirms what the established facts about the Psycopathic Clintons, (along with their Bush counterparts) have proven for years.

Namely that the world is run by a psycopathic mafia.

Throw in the fraudulent financial system which taxes every last human being on the planet a few cents on the dollar, and its not hard to understand why there is so much misery and suffering in the world.

To say noting of our "medicine"

Or our "food"

I could go on and on.

@ Slad. I have a really hard time in understanding where youre coming from just now.

[seemslikeadream]

then I will repeat myself


you love the Bundys?

you love right wing assholes?

you love the founder of Judiicial Watch?

they are lying scumbags....

have I made myself clear?

Clinton-Obsessed Judicial Watch Hosts Discredited Conspiracy Theorists To Push New Misinformation
Research ››› September 22, 2016 7:37 PM EDT ››› BOBBY LEWIS


Conservative anti-Clinton group Judicial Watch announced a “special panel presentation” promising a “scandal update” on the Clinton Foundation and the emails of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch, itself a hub for baseless smears against the Clintons, invited to the panel two discredited Clinton conspiracy theorists known for making claims based on “bogus” data.
Judicial Watch To Hold A “Clinton Scandal Update” Panel On “Emails And The Clinton Foundation”

Judicial Watch To Host “Educational Panel Discussion” On The Clinton Foundation, Clinton Emails. Right-wing group Judicial Watch announced a “special panel presentation” they entitled “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation.” The panel is a response to “the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal” related to Hillary Clinton’s “email system and the Clinton Foundation.” From the September 22 press release:

In response to the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal tied to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system and the Clinton Foundation, Judicial Watch announced today that it will host an educational panel discussion: “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation.”

Panelists include the author of the New York Times best-seller Clinton Cash and President of Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer; Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel and founding partner of the Washington, D.C., law firm diGenova & Toensing; and Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. Moderator will be Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. [Judicial Watch, 9/22/16]

Judicial Watch, Schweizer, And diGenova Frequently Peddle Clinton-Related Misinformation

Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch Is A Driving Force In Peddling Baseless Clinton Scandals. As a leading conservative activist group, Judicial Watch has repeatedly pushed a false narrative about Hillary Clinton’s emails to both the right-wing and mainstream press. Records obtained by Judicial Watch are used in the GOP Majority House of Representatives investigations into the Benghazi attacks and Clinton’s email server. Media outlets have also regularly used Judicial Watch’s baseless reports in stories about the Clinton family, often making misleading claims about Democrats and progressives. [Media Matters, 10/2/15]

Judicial Watch Was Founded By A Clinton-Obsessed Conspiracy Theorist. Judicial Watch was founded in 1994 by Larry Klayman who, during the 1990s, filed at least 18 different lawsuits against Bill and Hillary Clinton accusing them of various conspiracies, and hundreds more against multiple governmental agencies, The Washington Post, and even his own mother. As The Week noted in 2013, Klayman pushed a conspiracy theory that “the Clintons orchestrated the murders of several of their associates in the 1990s,” which, in various iterations, has been repeated by right-wing media, notably with Trump confidante Roger Stone who accused the Clintons of murdering over 40 people. Klayman also believes President Obama is "our first 'Muslim' president" and “not even a naturalized U.S. citizen and thus is in the United States illegally.” [Media Matters, 3/25/15, 4/12/16]

Judicial Watch Reports Routinely Dupe The Media. Despite Judicial Watch’s long history of questionable information, media outlets regularly turn to them for damaging stories about the Clintons. In August 2016 Judicial Watch claimed that a Clinton Foundation official, Doug Band, emailed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, to allow a Foundation donor to speak to a “substance person” about Lebanon. The media repeated the story, alleging it raised “questions about whether [the Clinton Foundation] worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department.” Judicial Watch and the media ignored the complete lack of evidence that any Clinton Foundation donors ever influenced State Department policy. [Media Matters, 8/10/16]

Peter Schweizer
Peter Schweizer’s Marquee Book Is Filled With Lies And Misinformation. Peter Schweizer, President of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), is also the author of Clinton Cash, a discredited anti-Clinton book often cited by right-wing media that purports to expose the corruption of the Clinton family. Schweizer’s book is filled with 20-plus errors, distortions, and fabrications including a false press release, political double-standards, the omission of key information (to which Schweizer admitted,) and taking quotes “badly out of context.” [Media Matters, 4/30/15, 5/23/16]

Peter Schweizer’s Entire Career Is Full Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing. Peter Schweizer’s career features a long history of sloppy journalism and embarrassing mistakes. In 2005 he falsely accused then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of underpaying workers at a vineyard she owns. In 2012, Schweizer’s GAI claimed President Obama skipped half of his daily intelligence briefings, though The Washington Post Fact-Checker blog reported that GAI’s data was “bogus” and that under Schweizer’s standard, “Republican icon Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time." The Post’s fact-checker gave GAI’s claim “three Pinocchios.” [Media Matters, 4/20/15]

Peter Schweizer’s Lies And Misinformation Have Been Cited By Donald Trump. Schweizer’s error-ridden Clinton Cash has been referenced by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to reinforce his lies about Hillary Clinton. Trump cited the book on June 22 to claim the Clintons personally benefitted from a uranium deal with a Russian company, Uranium One, headed by a Clinton Foundation donor. However, Time magazine noted Schweizer’s conspiracy theory was “based on little evidence.” [Media Matters, 6/20/16, 6/20/16]

Joseph diGenova
Joseph diGenova Was An Early Benghazi Misinformer. In 2013, Joseph diGenova appeared on Fox News with his wife, Victoria Toensing, and alleged the Obama administration was threatening Benghazi whistleblowers to keep quiet. However, by that time Benghazi witnesses had already reportedly testified to the FBI, an independent review board, and spoken to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) regarding the events of September 11, 2012. DiGenova also pushed the falsehood that soldiers were “relieved of their duty because they insisted there be a military response” to the Benghazi attacks, even though a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. [Media Matters, 4/30/13, 10/29/13]

Joseph diGenova Was Scolded By A Congressman For “Unseemly, Undignified” Investigative Conduct. In 1998, Roll Call reported that diGenova and his wife were excoriated by then-Rep. Bill Clay (D-MO) for their conduct in the then-ongoing Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clay lambasted diGenova for “becom[ing] so closely aligned with the President's critics and so personally identified with the scandal itself as to have relinquished the air of impartiality, non-partisanship, and professionalism required of leaders of a serious congressional investigation." Clay called their conduct “unseemly, undignified, unworthy of this committee, and generally detrimental to important Congressional functions." [Media Matters, 4/30/13]

Joseph diGenova Led A Right-Wing Media Frenzy About Hillary Clinton’s Indictment. On the January 5, 2016, edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, diGenova predicted that Hillary Clinton would be indicted for her private email server within “the next 60 days.” Even though the FBI investigation was never a criminal investigation, right-wing media from Rush Limbaugh, to the Washington Examiner, and the Daily Mail ran with what Fox host Sean Hannity called an “overwhelming” case for Clinton’s criminal prosecution. On July 5, 2016 -- 182 days after diGenova’s prediction -- FBI Director James B. Comey announced that the investigation was closed and the FBI could not “find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” [Media Matters, 1/7/16; Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System, 7/5/16]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ion/213270

MONDAY, AUG 22, 2016 07:00 AM CDT
Judicial Watch vs. Hillary: The conservative group has a long history of spreading Clinton lies
Right-wing strike force Judicial Watch is not letting up on Hillary's emails — the media shouldn't enable them
HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

Back in the 1990s the political establishment made fun of Hillary Clinton for her comment that the press was missing the real story of “the vast right-wing conspiracy” that had been dogging her family throughout her husband’s presidency. Any mention of it provoked eye-rolls and knowing smirks among the cognoscenti, who were all absolutely sure that it was just more evidence of Clinton’s guilty conscience over something.
But she was right. And there was some real reporting on it even at the time although, as it was revealed, the Republicans would throw out another shiny object and the press pack would go running in the opposite direction like a herd of gazelles. So it was very difficult to get a handle on the whole story. For instance, this 1999 article by Jill Abramson and Don Van Natta in the New York Times laid out the previously untold story story of the small group of conservative lawyers who concocted the Paula Jones lawsuit and were instrumental in pushing the Monica Lewinsky matter, among other things. As it happens one of those lawyers was a fellow named George Conway, who was not yet married to Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, who is now Donald Trump’s latest campaign manager. The Drudge Report drove much of the scandal, and George Conway was believed to have been Drudge’s main source, most memorably the story about President Clinton’s alleged “distinguishing characteristic” which pundits and commentators gleefully discussed on television for months. It’s a small right-wing world after all.

The book “The Hunting of the President” and the new e-book “The Hunting of Hillary,” both by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, finally put together the overall narrative of what happened. But even at the time, it was obvious that there was a concerted effort, funded by millionaire GOP donors, to throw mud on the Clinton administration in an attempt to either get the president impeached or force him to resign. We all know how that ended.

One of the biggest players in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was an outfit called Judicial Watch, formed in the early 90s by a conservative gadfly named Larry Klayman. Klayman was a one-man wrecking crew who filed more than 18 lawsuits against members of the Clinton administration costing them millions of dollars in legal fees. The most notable of these was a $90 million invasion of privacy suit filed against Hillary Clinton and others on behalf of the “victims” of Filegate, one of the many scandals for which both Bill and Hillary Clinton were completely exonerated by two different independent counsels. The lawsuit was colorfully described at the time by Jacob Weisberg of Slate:

Klayman has found an opening to harass his political opponents, inflicting costly all-day depositions on Harold Ickes, [George] Stephanopoulos, James Carville, Paul Begala, and many others … Klayman asks administration officials about whom they date, where they go after work, whether they were expelled from school for disciplinary problems. One 23-year-old White House assistant was interrogated about a triple murder that took place at a Starbucks in Georgetown. Klayman videotapes these depositions, excerpts of which air on Geraldo when Klayman appears on the program, and publishes the transcripts on the Internet. This is in pursuit of a case about the invasion of privacy, remember … The ultimate goal of the Filegate suit appears to be to inflict this treatment on Hillary Clinton.

That was just one of many Judicial Watch lawsuits, including one in which Klayman sued his own mother for $50,000, that went nowhere. But they did achieve their true purpose, which was to damage reputations, smear political opponents and inflict huge legal fees on anyone who happened to be in the administration.

Klayman left Judicial Watch in 2003 and ended up suing them (naturally.) His recent activity has included a rare righteous lawsuit against the National Security Agency for spying on Americans, and accusations that President Obama is a Muslim who is trying to institute Sharia law. Just this month he added another name to the list of more 80 deaths for which he says Hillary Clinton is responsible. And yes, he’s representing two Benghazi families in wrongful death suits against her.

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch has continued its work without him. During the Bush administration they made a couple of half-hearted attempts at bipartisan “watchdog” activity by submitting Freedom of Information Act requests for Dick Cheney’s energy task force members and the White House guest logs for lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Obama presidency proved to be more fertile ground. Judicial Watch has accused the administration of creating dozens of “czars” that don’t exist, and has made a fetish out of lying about the Obamas’ travel expenses. This so-called watchdog group has engaged in some truly weird conspiracy-mongering. Via Media Matters:

Judicial Watch claimed that the Justice Department was helping to “organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman,” the Florida man who shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin. In reality, the unit of the DOJ was sent to Florida in order to defuse tensions in the community, and as the Orlando Sentinel reported, they “reached out to the city’s spiritual and civic leaders to help cool heated emotions.”

Judicial Watch claimed that the Islamic State (ISIS) had set up a terrorist camp in Mexico “just a few miles from El Paso, Texas,” facilitating the smuggling of terrorists into the United States. Conservative media outlets picked up Judicial Watch’s claim. Authorities in both the U.S. and Mexico rejected the group’s fearmongering.

This is the same Judicial Watch that currently has the press panting over every release of the Clinton State Department emails they’ve received from their FOIA fishing expedition, rushing on the air and to print based upon the organization’s often erroneous and misleading press releases. Tom Fitton, the organization’s current president and author of the book “The Corruption Chronicles: Obama’s Big Secrecy, Big Corruption, and Big Government” proudly declared, “Judicial Watch has had more success investigating the IRS, Benghazi and Clinton email scandals than any House committee.”

Considering the outcomes of the IRS and Benghazi “scandals,” it would behoove the press to show a little skepticism. The history of this group is very clear. The first time it waged its campaign of character assassination against Bill and Hillary Clinton, it’s perhaps understandable that the press failed to recognize they were being manipulated by political operatives. The trumped-up Obama scandals added up to nothing as well. There’s no excuse for the media to fall for it again.
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/judicia ... nton-lies/

Cliven Bundy, Larry Klayman, And Absurd Lawsuits
By A.H. Neff

5/21/16 5:00pm

Alexis De Tocqueville studied democracy in the early U.S. more closely than anyone except the slave-owners and morally compromised abolitionists who created it. There’s a pithy quote available from him on almost any aspect of our system, for any occasion. He’s the Hallmark cards of political science.

Among many trenchant insights, De Tocqueville observed that Americans turn politics into lawsuits. As he put it, “Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”

As proof of that, look to Brown v. Board of Education on segregation, Roe v. Wade on abortion, and Bush v. Gore on whether the current season of “Veep” prematurely rips the scab off too many terrible memories.

It’s time to amend De Tocqueville, long past time to honor his work by giving his observation currency. Now, it should be, “Scarcely any conspiracy theory bubbles up from the right-wing fever swamp that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a lawsuit against Barack Obama.”

Today’s case in point: Bundy v. Navarro, Reid, Reid, and Obama.

Ah...“Bundy” Bundy has become a name to conjure with in the last 50 years. There’s McGeorge Bundy, an architect of the U.S. war on Viet Nam, whose safe-words were “McMuffin” and “MacGyver.” There’s Ted Bundy, an allegedly personable and handsome young man executed in 1989 for homicidal misogyny. And there’s Al Bundy, who’s managing the current presidential campaign of Saruman the Orange.

The plaintiff in Bundy v. Navarro, et al, is the latest famous Bundy: Cliven Bundy, America’s Deadbeat Rancher, trademark registration pending.

The defendants are Senator Harry Reid, his son Rory Reid, a federal judge named Gloria Navarro, and the aforementioned Kenyan Socialist Muslim.

Cliven Bundy first came to the general public’s attention in 2014, when Bundy and other Second Amendment Twerkers had an armed standoff at his ranch in Nevada with agents of the federal Bureau of Land Management. The confrontation occurred because Bundy refused to pay more than 1.1M$ in BLM fees for grazing his herd on federal land. BTW, Bundy’s been stiffing the taxpayers for grazing fees for more than 20 years.


Most recently, Cliven has been in solitary confinement in a federal corrections facility in Nevada. He’s awaiting trial on federal criminal charges for his grazing fee donnybrook.

Even though Bundy lives in Nevada, he got arrested in Oregon. He thought he could travel there safely to support his sons and others arrested for the grazing fee dust-up and also for seizing a wildlife refuge in Oregon so they could dig a trench in the refuge and fill it with what the media delicately identify as “human feces.” For freedom.

The federal government shipped Bundy back to Nevada to stand trial. Instead of putting his time in solitary to good use by crocheting a reproduction of the Articles of Confederation, Bundy filed suit.

Keep in mind that Cliven Bundy does not recognize the authority of the federal government. That’s why he won’t pay grazing fees. That’s why he refused to enter a plea at his arraignment in Nevada on the federal criminal charges.

That said, he is suing federal officials pursuant to federal law, in federal court, a branch of the federal government, to vindicate his federal civil rights, for which he wants to recover 50 million federally issued U.S. dollars, because he can think of six impossible federal things before breakfast.

The theory of Bundy’s lawsuit
First, Reid and his son Rory want to steal Bundy’s land so they can sell it to Chinese Communists who want to build a solar power facility on the site.

From paragraph 12 of the Complaint: “Not coincidentally it has been widely reported and disclosed that Defendant HARRY REID at all material times owned 93 acres adjacent to the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville. He thus coveted his neighbor’s property and chattels.”

“Not coincidentally…” Exactly. There are no coincidences in Bundy World, where the 10th Commandment gets cited as a legal basis for a civil rights claim.

In the rest of the world, however, coincidences abound, and the Reids are innocent of the sinful behavior Mr. Bundy ascribes to them.

Back in 2014, two years before this lawsuit infected the federal docketing system, Politifact rated Bundy’s theory about the Reid’s conduct a “Pants-on-Fire” lie. Also in 2014, the Las Vegas Sun - which is the Las Vegas newspaper that Sheldon Adelson didn’t buy and turn into a chew toy - reported that the secret foreign owners of City Wok actually coveted land that was 165 miles from Bundy’s ranch. Snopes also rated this theory false and noted that the Commies terminated their agreement to buy land in 2013 - before the grazing fee confrontation at Rancho Loco.

But this theory of the Reids’ conduct - like the theory of the supremacy of the 2nd Amendment over the actual Supremacy Clause in the Constitution - continues to feast on Bundy brains.

Another defendant in Bundy’s lawsuit is Gloria Navarro. She’s a federal judge in Nevada.

Judge Navarro’s presiding over Bundy’s criminal trial. She won’t let a lawyer named Larry Klayman defend Bundy until Klayman clears up questions about disciplinary proceedings against him in other states.

According to Bundy’s lawsuit, however, Navarro is really bench-blocking Klayman because she’s a Latino activist who hates Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was represented by Klayman in lawsuits about Arizona’s “stop and prove your citizenship” law.

Bundy also alleges that Judge Navarro’s taking her cues from Harry Reid and Obama so their buddy Hillary will appoint Navarro to a higher court if the Wicked Witch of the Western Suburbs wins the election.

Finally, Bundy alleges that Obama is orchestrating this massive conspiracy because Bundy offended him: after the BLM standoff, Bundy compared his mistreatment by federal storm troopers - Bundy’s words, from paragraph 9 of the complaint - to slavery in the U.S.

“Plaintiff BUNDY publicly equated his and his family’s situation to the plight of ‘Negroes’ in the old South, whereby they were enslaved by a tyrannical government, as he and his family believed they were, given the threats and violent attacks on his family members, his cattle and the Bundy’s supporters.”



In paragraph 21, Bundy says he meant no offense. He says he:

“chose the word ‘Negro’ believing that this was a proper term for African-Americans, having looked up the word in Webster’s dictionary. He meant no disrespect and insult to African-Americans, particularly since he was equating his and his family’s plight with them. Indeed, the Reverend Martin Luther King referred to his people as “Negroes” and he is recognized as the greatest African-American civil rights leader in American history.”

Bundy says this racial analogy angered President Obama so much that he dog-whistled for the storm troopers at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2014. Referring to Bundy, Obama said,

“As a general rule, things don’t end well if the sentence starts, “Let me tell you something I know about the negro.” You don’t really need to hear the rest of it. Just a tip for you – don’t start your sentence that way.”

Hilarity ensued at the Nerd Prom. This snappy Borscht Beltway patter also spurred Bundy to name-check another civil-rights icon in his complaint:

“In court papers earlier this week, his defense lawyer, Joel Hansen, called Bundy a political prisoner — like the late South African president and civil rights activist Nelson Mandela...”

A former president of the Harvard Law Review - no, not the one in the Oval Office - is sitting in a cubicle in the Department of Justice wondering what karmic failure landed this case on his or her docket. His or her job will be to write a motion to dismiss it.

Because the complaint is a complex web of allegations, writing a motion to dismiss it will be as easy as drunk drywalling.

However, after a flurry of motion practice, the complaint will probably be dismissed. After all, Bundy v. Navarro is just another right-wing fundie conspiracy theory, baseless in fact and law. A Bundy Fundie conspiracy, as it were. Nothing to see here. Don’t give it another thought.

However... if Bundy’s complaint is dismissed, he will have a right to appeal.

And, in 2017 or 2018, after the voters decide if Orange is the New Black, the appeal from that dismissal might reach the Supreme Court, via a petition for certiorari.

If he’s elected President, the Creamsicle-in-Chief will nominate a jurist with a world view like his to fill Scalia’s seat. If he wins, he’ll have a Republican majority Senate, which will confirm that nomination in a Mitch McConnell Minute.

And the Supreme Court will reverse the dismissal of Bundy v. Navarro by a 5-4 vote and send it back to the Nevada district court for trial on the merits. And Barry and Harry and Rory and Gloria will spend the next decade of their lives rolling that boulder of a lawsuit up the hill time and time again.

Mark Twain - not coincidentally, another keen observer of human affairs - opined that humor is tragedy plus time.

Here’s an axiom for that equation: tragedy plus time can be tragedy. See, for example, everything that happened in the eight years immediately following Bush v. Gore.

In this great country, yes, political questions can become judicial questions. And judicial questions can become governments.

Sweet dreams, dear Count, sweet dreams, and thanks for all your work.

Editor's Note: Of course, what Bundy has not yet realized is that Harry Reid has absolutely nothing to do with the LLC he claims belongs to Reid and his son.