I didn't see the name trump in that article
Did Tripp say what she thought of Melania side stepping her serial sexual abuser husband and if he should step down now?
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by seemslikeadream » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:01 pm
by Cordelia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:12 pm
Pele'sDaughter » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:44 pm wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5144087/Linda-Tripp-says-Hillary-Clinton-destroyer-women.html
The woman who outed White House intern Monica Lewinsky as Bill Clinton's 'mistress,' paints the former president with the same brush as men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Kevin Spacey – a sexual predator.
Linda Tripp felt compelled to speak out to DailyMailTV after two decades of silence, saying that giving the President 'a pass' for his behavior all those years ago brought us to where we are today.
Tripp has pointed to that time in history as giving men in power the permission to abuse their status in order to satisfy their sexual appetites.
But Bill Clinton wasn't the only one to abuse his power. Tripp calls Hillary, 70, a 'destroyer of women' who would do anything to protect their 'political viability.'
Working at the White House for the Clinton administration for two years, Tripp says she witnessed 'unfathomable' deeds of the 'unscrupulous' couple that makes her confident America 'dodged a bullet' when Hillary lost the presidency to Trump.
Tripp is stepping forward again to reveal the true character of Hillary, who she describes as a scheming wife who would grow stronger when her horndog husband misbehaved.
From her farmhouse home in the hills of Virginia, Tripp said: 'I think the most hurtful thing for me to watch during the campaign was [that] she touted herself as a champion of women. She is a destroyer of women should they get in her way.'
Tripp's disdain for the Clintons is palpable.
It was her second husband who encouraged her to speak out when, as they watched the election results usher in Hillary's defeat last year, Tripp turned to him and said: 'The nation will never know what a bullet it dodged tonight.'
She recalled: 'He said, "That story is one that should be told."'
Tripp explained: 'What I saw for two years is nothing the American people could have fathomed. Most politicians speak with forked tongues but this was something quite different. There are no rules, no laws that apply to them.'
She added: 'I think by nature Bill Clinton would turn the other cheek knowing as he does what his role was with these women. But Hillary's role was that she said, "We'll just have to destroy them," and she means it.'
Looking back, Tripp said, she 'underestimated' the Clintons and, 'the power of a joined force.'
The power Tripp observed as wielded by Hillary made her uncomfortable.
She said: 'I don't pretend to know the inner workings of that marriage. I can only say it was a marriage the likes of which I had never seen.
'When he was in the doghouse, which was routinely, she became stronger. And with that strength came power.
'She was able to act as the de facto President until his behavior improved.'
Tripp worked for, and admired, George Bush Sr but, when Clinton took office in 1993, her excitement at having a President 'of her generation,' quickly soured.
She said: 'It was a lifelong dream to work in the White House. I pinched myself every day that I was allowed to work [there] in any capacity…to be allowed to be a small part of it was such an honor and a blessing.'
But with the arrival of the Clintons that 'changed very, very quickly.'
Tripp said: 'I think we just approached life differently but that really didn't appall me because we're all people of different viewpoints.
'It was something far more sinister than that. They are completely unscrupulous.'
[....]
'He was the leader of the free world and she was an intern, a kid, who happened to be extremely emotionally young for her age.
'To them it was presented as a) it didn't happen and b) if it did happen it was consensual and nobody's business.'
Tripp has dismissed the change of heart expressed by Clinton allies now saying Bill should have stood down over the scandal as, 'a day late and a dollar short.'
[....]
The rest of the rehash is at the link. I only copied and pasted the part that was relevant to Hillary.
by Grizzly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:33 am
I am hopeful that the commendable discovery process involved in US litigation will bring to light further details of the genesis of Christopher Steele’s ludicrous dossier on Trump/Russia, and may even give some clues as to whether Sergei Skripal and/or his handler Pablo Miller were involved in its contents.
The decision by the Democratic National Committee to sue the Russian Government, Wikileaks, Julian Assange personally and the Trump campaign is an act of colossal hubris. It is certain to reveal still more details of the deliberate fixing of the primary race against Bernie Sanders, over which five DNC members, including the Chair, were forced to resign. It will also lead to the defendants being able to forensically examine the DNC servers to prove they were not hacked – something which astonishingly the FBI refused to do, being instead content to take the word of the DNC’s own private cyber security firm, Crowdstrike. Unless those servers have been wiped completely (as Hillary did to her private email server) I know that is not going to go well for the DNC.
I cannot better Glenn Greenwald’s article on why it is a terrible idea to sue Wikileaks for publishing leaked documents – it sets a precedent which could be used to constrain media from ever publishing anything given them by whistleblowers. It is an astonishingly illiberal thing to undertake. Nor is it politically wise. The media has done its very best to ignore as far as possible the actual content of the leaks of DNC material, and rather to concentrate on the wild accusations of how they were obtained. But the fundamental crookedness revealed in the emails is bound to get some sort of airing, not least as the basis of a public interest defence.
I have often been asked if I regret my association with Wikileaks, given they are held responsible for the election of Donald Trump. My answer is that I feel no remorse at all.
Hillary Clinton lost because she was an appalling candidate. A multi-millionaire, neo-con warmonger with the warmth and empathy of a three week dead haddock and an eye for the interests of Wall Street, who regarded ordinary voters as “deplorables” (a term she used not just once, but frequently at fund-raisers with the mega-wealthy). Hillary Clinton conspired with the machine that was supposed to be neutrally running the primaries, to fix the primaries against Bernie Sanders. The opinion polls regularly showed that Sanders would beat Trump, and that the only Democratic candidate who Trump could beat was Clinton. Egomania and a massive sense of entitlement nevertheless led her not just to persist to get the candidacy, but persist to rig the candidacy. She then proceeded to ignore major urban working class battleground states in her campaign against Trump and focus on more glamorous places. In short, Hillary was corrupt rubbish. Full stop, and not remotely Wikileaks’ fault.
Wikileaks did not go out to get the evidence against Hillary. They were given it. Should they have withheld the knowledge of the rigging of the field against Bernie Sanders from the American people, to let Clinton benefit from the corruption? For me that is a no-brainer. It would have been a gross moral dereliction to have done so. It is also the case that Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. Had they been given dirt on Trump, they would have published. But they were not given any leaks on Trump.
I should put in an aside here which might surprise you. I like Anthony Weiner. I have never met him, but I watched the amazing 2016 fly on the wall documentary Weiner and he came across as a person of genuine goodwill, passion and commitment, undermined by what is very obviously a pathological illness. I realise that was not the general reaction, but it was mine.
But – and now I am going to really annoy people – I have to say that from an international perspective, rather than an American domestic perspective, I am also not in the slightest convinced that Trump has been worse for the World than Clinton would have been. Trump has not, to date, initiated any new military intervention or substantially increased any military conflict during his Presidency. In fact his current actions more closely match his words about non-intervention during his election campaign, than do his current words. Despite hawkish posturing, he has not substantially increased American military intervention in Syria.
My reading of the reported chemical weapon attack on Douma is this. Whether it was a false flag chemical attack, a pro-Assad chemical attack, or no chemical attack at all I do not know for sure. But whichever it is, it was used to attempt to get Trump to commit to a major escalation of American involvement in the war in Syria. So far, he has not done that. The American-led missile attack was illegal, but fortunately comparatively restrained, certainly in no way matching Trump’s rhetoric. All the evidence is, and there is a great deal of evidence from Libya and Afghanistan, that Clinton would have been far more aggressive.
That leaves the dichotomy between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions. Certainly there is every sign of a sharp tilt to the neo-cons, His apparent preference in his press conference with Macron today for an extended presence of France, the former colonial power, and US troops in Syria is deeply troubling. His sacking of the sensible Tillerson from the State Department, and his appointment of the odious John Bolton as National Security Adviser all appear to be terrible signs. But still, nothing has actually happened. There is a reading that Trump is placating the neo-cons with position and rhetoric while his actions – in Syria and in what a hating political class fails to acknowledge has all the makings of a diplomatic coup in North Korea – go in a very different direction.
It is beyond doubt that Hillary, who cannot open her mouth without denouncing Russia for causing her own entirely self-inflicted failure – would be taking the new Cold War to even worse extremes than it has already reached, to the delight of the military-industrial complex and her Wall Street friends. It is open to debate, but I would contend that it is very probable that President Hillary would have launched a major attack on Syria by now, just like she presided over as Secretary of State in Libya.
So my answer is this. Firstly, Clinton caused her own downfall by arrogance, and by failing to grasp the alienation of ordinary people from neo-liberal policies that impoverished them while the rich grew massively richer. Secondly, I strongly suspect that if Hillary were President, more people would be dead now in the Middle East.
So no, I have no regrets at all.
by seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:46 am
They were a lot quicker off the mark last time. It was 17 June 1972 when burglars in business suits were arrested in the offices of the DNC at the Watergate complex in Washington DC, as they attempted to place bugging devices and photograph documents in the hope of gathering damaging information on Nixon’s opponents. Just four days later the DNC swung into legal attack mode.
On 21 June, Lawrence O’Brien, the then DNC chairman, announced a $1m lawsuit against the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. It would be a full two years before Nixon boarded Marine One for the last time, yet O’Brien even then spoke of “a developing clear line to the White House,” from the arrest of the five burglars. “This is not partisan, it’s patriotic … It is our obligation to the American people,” he declared. Nixon’s campaign chairman, John Mitchell, was, naturally, unimpressed and labelled the suit “another example of sheer demagoguery”.
This time the DNC is merely peddling “a left-wing conspiracy theory”, or so declared Roger Stone, a Trump associate and one of those named as defendants along with a now familiar cast of characters. They include former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. “NO proof or evidence,” Stone wrote in a defiant email to Reuters.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/do ... 15111.html
Polly Sigh
Newly released emails show that, in at least one instance, Natalia Veselnitskaya (the lawyer from the Trump Tower meeting) worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office — contradicting her past claims that she had no ties to the Kremlin.
Though obvious, it's now undeniable thanks to Veselnitskaya's emails obtained [she claims hacked] by Putin opponent Khodorkovsky's org, 'Dossier.' She only admitted she was a Kremlin agent/informant when confronted with the emails by Richard Engel.
Emails obtained by Putin opponent Khodorkovsky & shared with RichardEngel exposed Natalia Veselnitskaya as an informant for top Kremlin official, Yuri Chaika. So, Don Jr, Kushner & Manafort conspired with a Russian govt official for dirt on HRC.
by Grizzly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:54 am
by seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:55 am
Grizzly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:54 am wrote:^^^ what does that have to do with Craig Murray's article? Besides the 78 posts on RussiaRussiaRussiaTrump!!!
no surprise what he would have to say Christopher Steele’s ludicrous dossier on Trump/Russia.......Democratic National Committee
Corroborating Evidence in the Trump/Russia Dossier
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rbp ... Xs/preview
seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:53 am wrote:Dr. Dena GraysonVerified account
DemocraticMemo says DOJ corroborated #SteeleDossier claims on CARTER PAGE:
- met Rosneft head IGOR SECHIN's aide offered brokerage fee for sale of Rosneft shares in exchange for lifting sanctions
- met Divyekin offered HRC kompromat & warned of TRUMP kompromat
Dr. Dena Grayson
This is a literal SMOKING GUN Steele wrote in Oct'16 of a brokerage fee for the sale of 19% of #Rosneft shares in exchange for TRUMP lifting #sanctions.
*Just 2 months later*, Rosneft sold 19% of its shares + brokerage fee, some to unknown entities. Dr. Dena Grayson added,
https://twitter.com/TeaPainUSA
Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic
by Grizzly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:50 am
by seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:51 am
Because your mind will hear nothing but TrumpRussiaTrumpRussiaTrumpRussia!
To my own astonishment, and after a full 36 hours of hard thinking to try and escape this conclusion, I am in intellectual honesty obliged to reconsider my lifelong support for the European Union, due to the unqualified backing of the EU Commission for the Spanish Government’s dreadful repression in Catalonia.
There is in practice a link between racism and authoritarianism. You don’t get many racist anarcho-syndicalists. You don’t get many anti-racist fascists. It doesn’t just work at the extremes – the “Alf Garnett” caricature of a devotion to the monarchy, strong central authority and the military, accompanying racism is a recognisable truth.
Yesterday, we got the joyous union of both tendencies, as Westminster passed the Brexit Bill which simultaneously promised to keep pesky foreigners out of Britain and remove centuries of equally pesky checks on executive power.
There is no motivation for Brexit other than racism.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ean-union/
by Grizzly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:44 pm
by seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:27 pm
by Cordelia » Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:05 am
“I remember landing under sniper fire," Mrs Clinton, 60, had said in recalling the March, 1996 Bosnia visit.
"There was supposed to be some sort of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton’s Bosnia story “joins a growing list of instances in which Sen. Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking.”
https://www.denverpost.com/2008/03/24/c ... in-bosnia/
by RocketMan » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:28 am
Presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) sued Hillary Clinton for defamation in federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday, claiming Clinton lied about her to harm her campaign.
"Clinton falsely stated that Tulsi—an Army National Guard officer and United States Congresswoman who has spent her entire adult life serving this country—is a 'Russian asset.' Clinton’s false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi’s presidential campaign," Gabbard said in the suit.
She alleges that Clinton's comments have cost her more than $50 million in personal and professional damages.
Clinton's office was not immediately available to comment on the complaint.
by Grizzly » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:33 pm
[/url]
by RocketMan » Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:26 pm
by Cordelia » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:14 pm
by RocketMan » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:26 pm
And they would always have to deal with the photo of her walking down the aisle with Slick Willie while Ghislaine Maxwell benevolently looks on...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests
