Hillary Clinton Shakes in Fear As Rand Paul UNLEASH Hell on her in Congress
Jesse Watters: How much longer will the Democrats get away with this?
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and many other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong? M.B. MATHEWS
Exclusive — Book: Paranoid Hillary Clinton Campaign Feared Russians Would Poison Her with Donald Trump Debate Handshake
Former Secretary of State and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign staffers were so paranoid they actually thought the Russians would poison her via a handshake with her opposing candidate for president, Donald Trump, at one of their debates, a forthcoming book reveals.
The episode is recounted in the book Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, an excerpt of which was obtained exclusively by Breitbart News ahead of the book’s publication. The book comes out next week.
Haberman’s book uncovers that senior advisers to Clinton actually believed—in an extreme state of paranoia—that Trump would engage in some kind of secret plot with the Russians to deliver a poison to her via handshake before the third debate in 2016. The remarkable scene, right out of the comedy The Interview where an entertainment show host who was set to interview a fictional Kim Jong-Un is approached by U.S. intelligence agents and taught to try to poison him during a handshake, is recounted in Haberman’s book.
Haberman writes of the 2016 campaign:
Democrats found themselves almost perpetually disoriented by autumn. During preparations for the third debate, Clinton’s team was disrupted by a warning from the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said he had been told that Russians might try to poison Clinton through a handshake with Trump, to inflict a dramatic health episode during the debate.
Haberman writes that Clinton herself “did not take it seriously,” but that Ron Klain—who is now President Joe Biden’s White House chief of staff and was helping Clinton prepare for the debate—“wondered how Trump would poison Clinton but not himself.”
So Clinton’s then-Communications Director, Jennifer Palmieri—who now is a co-host of the Showtime series The Circus—set off to investigate whether Sen. Feinstein’s husbands concerns about Trump delivering Russian poison to Clinton during a handshake were valid.
“Her communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, took the prospect seriously enough to check it out; the warning turned out to be mere speculation from a historian with no knowledge of Russian plans,” Haberman writes.
Even though Haberman’s claims that Hillary Clinton herself did not believe the concerns, there was no handshake between Clinton and Trump during that third debate.
This revelation is hardly the only salacious one about the Clintons in Haberman’s book. In addition to that finding, Haberman also reports that Clinton’s campaign lawyers attempted to shop flimsy unverifiable attacks against Trump to the New York Times—her publication—before the 2016 election, after pushing similarly shoddy attacks to the FBI.
“Clinton and her team felt wronged—by Comey and the FBI, by the email hacks, and by the media coverage, which they believed was stacked against them,” Haberman writes. “The campaign and prominent Democrats were frantic to get people to pay more attention to possible connections between Trump’s world and Russia, which the FBI had been investigating for months. A lawyer for the Clinton campaign helped seed funding for in-progress research led by a former British spy that resulted in a dossier filled with unconfirmed salacious allegations against Trump. They also focused on research into computer servers used by his company; people connected to the campaign then gave the information, claiming the Trump Organization was communicating with a Russian state bank, to the FBI. A campaign lawyer pitched my New York Times colleagues on a story about the server activity and the FBI investigation into it. But after several discussions with the reporters, the evidence did not support the incendiary claim.”
Are Democrats Deliberately Choosing Impaired Candidates?
Once could be excused. Twice is suspicious. Three times seems like a strategy. Are Democrats choosing infirm, intellectually challenged, feeble people to run for office so that they can be easily manipulated?
Joe Biden was and is clearly infirm, physically, psychologically, and cognitively.
John Fetterman is also clearly infirm due to two things: He has had a recent stroke which seems to have left him cognitively impaired, and he also has a rather prominent swelling on the back of his neck, which could be the sign of several very serious conditions.
Kamala Harris is intellectually suspect, linguistically incontinent, and verbally incoherent. Why are these people being chosen by the Democrat Party for the highest offices?
My observation leads me places I would rather not go. With Joe Biden in the White House, he is clearly doing what he is told by others. This much is clear; he simply does not have the stamina, the wisdom, or the political acumen necessary to be an effective President of the United States. His gaffes, his verbal dyslexia, his delusional prevarications, his garbled verbiage, and his ability to reliably make statements his handlers have to mop up afterward, are all deeply troubling. No political party would run such a candidate unless two things were happening: One, the election would be guaranteed to affect a win for the candidate, and two, the candidate would simply be a figurehead for the real powers behind the throne. Biden would have to know that others would be running his presidency. Were he and Jill that easy to roll?
If someone offered a Democrat the most powerful position on the planet and told him, “Don’t worry, we will do all the hard work, you just relax and sign the papers,” wouldn’t most Democrats close the space between them and a pen at the speed of light? Biden would have to have assumed that his old buddy, Barack Obama (and his underlings) would be doing the heavy lifting, allowing Lunchbucket Joe to cruise, basking in the reflected glory without lifting a finger.
The bulb in Kamala Harris' attic is also known to be a little dim. She is supremely arrogant, lacking in leadership and a decent work ethic. She is lazy, entitled, and is unable to keep staff due to her abrasive and very ambitious personality. She was not even able to get enough votes from her own party in 2020 to get on the ticket for POTUS and is so impaired on so many levels that no one wants much to do with her. So imagine our surprise when she was chosen by the Democrat Party as Biden’s running mate. The most unpopular Democrat candidate gets to be vice-president without having a single thing to offer except her well-documented pliability. Kamala’s myriad word salads and bizarre rants about “working together” and the “passage of time,” to name just two, reveal a vapidity that is hard to explain unless her intellectual betters viewed her as malleable in return for the perks of being Veep. She is a mental cipher now a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
John Fetterman’s candidacy seems to be another cruelty perpetrated on the American public in the name of winning at all costs. The candidate for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania has physical and mental problems that preclude coherent statements and reactions to the pressures of running for office. He has already revealed he is not up to the job.
Yet Fetterman is another case where the Democrat Party has chosen the weakest, not the strongest, candidates. It is almost as though the party has made a decision to deliberately choose impaired, malleable, but ambitious people who have failed in their past attempts at wielding power or who are recognized as those who might sell their souls for some power. Were the candidates told, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this"? Were they told, "We’ll handle the voting aspect of this, you just do what you’re told and you’ll cruise your way to power”?
It would make sense if this were indeed the case, because we already know that the Democrats’ insatiable lust for power creates new cynical methodologies: Choose the weak to represent the stronger powers behind the thrones. A malleable winner is preferable to a strong, self-sufficient winner who may not take orders from the real powers behind the thrones. That the Left has an agenda is clear; it involves weakening the populace through policies such as a national gun registry. But they cannot put those policies in place unless the selected leaders promote those radical agenda items which further the leftist cause.
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and many other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong?
After all, why run candidates with minds of their own when you can run a candidate who has a mind that can easily be hijacked for radical leftist causes?
Image: Governor Tom Wolf
The DOJ and FBI are beyond fixing
Republicans and conservatives like to say that we must reform the Justice Department and FBI. I disagree. If we win the majority in Congress, they both need to be gone. That means completely gone, with no attempt to reform or rebuild them. That may sound like an overreach but the time to restore our constitutional republic is upon us.
Do any of us really believe that we are somehow safer or more secure with an intact DOJ and FBI? They are irredeemably corrupt. Weeding out some of the more sinister miscreants within those organizations will not change the culture that has evolved over the past few decades. We have already tried that, and it made matters worse.
We should thank Barack Obama and Joe Biden for clearly illustrating to the American people the dangers inherent in an enforcement arm of the federal government. We are now living in a police state that will, through intimidation and force, move the country toward one-party rule and totalitarianism.
How many more lives must be destroyed before we all understand that we are under attack for what we believe including (indeed, especially) exercising our First Amendment rights? It has moved far beyond just Donald Trump and virtually anyone associated with him. Now, if you sell pillows for a living and in any way suggest that you believe the 2020 election was a fraud, then you’re on the list for FBI harassment and possible arrest. Never mind all that “free country” and “Bill of Rights” stuff.
Image by Andrea Widburg.
This is obviously not the American way. It is, however, the type of behavior that was instrumental in stirring up the American Revolution. We are witnessing a “long train of abuses and usurpations.” President Trump recently said that, if he were to serve a second term, he would fire 50,000 swamp creatures across several government agencies. God bless him, but that number is woefully inadequate. It literally needs to be upwards of a million pink slips if we are ever to restore our constitutional government.
I understand that people have become accustomed to the nanny state and that we need to move forward slowly, with respect for both the constitution and the rule of law, but we’ve been going in reverse for more than a century. There are now well over 400 federal government agencies, and almost all of them are unconstitutional. People are beginning to understand that the “nanny” can morph into an unholy witch at a moment’s notice. Our representatives need to start making big changes to try and unravel this mess before it consumes us. Defunding it is a good place to start.
The Constitution clearly spells out the government’s role. Nowhere does it call for a government police force. There is also little doubt that, as matters now stand, removing the DOJ and FBI would enhance domestic tranquility. These rogue agencies consider half the American population their enemies. That’s hardly a recipe for domestic tranquility. We did just fine without them for nearly a century, and we would be better off if they were gone tomorrow.
After all, the Constitution intended for the states to absorb the policing duties that are now assigned to the federal government. If a state “department of justice” and its police force become corrupt, that does not affect the lives and rights of American citizens in the same way that it does at the national level.
It’s also easier to fix corrupt agencies belonging to the individual states. Those institutions are closer to the people and can more readily be protested or elected away. If a state government becomes in any way oppressive, people have the option of leaving. Most would not but, depending on the level of oppression, many would.
You need look no further than what is happening in California today. A torrent of people is leaving the state. This solution is not available at the federal level. Most people do not have the means to leave the country and would not want to leave if they did. They are Americans.
If the government needs lawyers to defend itself or to prosecute individuals within the government, they can be hired out of the private sector as they were before the DOJ’s creation. Think of how much money would be saved yearly—somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of a trillion dollars.
What manner of ominous changes might we face without ten thousand government lawyers and their police force? Perhaps, securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity? Maybe an American renaissance? The pre-COVID booming Trump economy was largely the result of his efforts at deregulation. Downsizing the government is the ultimate form of deregulation and what better place to begin than with the corrupt police state.
Frank Liberato is a pseudonym.
No comments:
Post a Comment