They Were Buying Access to Power and the Power Is Gone

Ethics Experts Alarmed By 93% Decrease In Clinton Foundation Donations Since $250 Million Peak In 2009  | The Daily Caller

“Money was pouring in when Hillary Clinton was a senior official and a candidate for president. The fact that foundation donors received special access to the Secretary of State isn’t surprising, nor is the fall in foundation funding after her 2016 election loss. Many people thought people were supporting the former president, but it really looks like they were cozying up to who they thought was going to be the future president — a situation that can’t be repeated,” the POGO General Counsel told the Daily Caller.

“Now, with ethics concerns raised about Mnuchin and Kushner, as well as judges, it is vital that Congress put politics aside and pass an ethics reform package for all three branches of government. Congress must eliminate conflicts of interest, restrict special access, prevent trading on insider knowledge, and stop public servants who cash in for personal or private gain. Recent surveys show that corruption is a major public concern, but with the foxes guarding the henhouse, I’m unsure who will step forward to fix the problem,” said Amey.

Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen

Now when can we do the same to Obama?

Glenn Youngkin Cruises to Upset Victory, Ending Clinton Era – PJ Media

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich lost in the Massachusetts gubernatorial primary in 2002. Former Attorney General Janet Reno ran for governor of Florida in 2002 but lost in the primary. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala lost her congressional re-election race last year.

Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson won two terms as governor of New Mexico, but withdrew from consideration to be Barack Obama’s commerce secretary due to corruption.

And you may recall a former Housing and Urban Development secretary named Andrew Cuomo.

Bill and Hillary are now afterthoughts in today’s party, which is run by Ron Klain, Bernie Sanders, and Pramila Jayapal.

Hillary’s career ended ignominiously, as perhaps the only candidate who could lose to Donald Trump in a general election. Bill’s philandering is frowned upon today more than ever in the #MeToo era.

McAuliffe was the last. And now it’s over.

I really thought McAuliffe’s final strategy of flipping on his entire campaign message, yelling racist and Trump over and over, and then having Randi Weingarten deliver his closing argument was going to pay off. Weird.

— AG (@AGHamilton29) November 3, 2021

October 8, 1998

Impeachment Trial of Bill Clinton - On This Day

On October 8, 1998, the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings, and Clinton was impeached by the House on December 19, 1998. The Senate trial began on January 9, 1999, presided over by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Just over a month later, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate and the impeachment was shelved.

Concerning the Drudge Report

This is part two on my thoughts on FNC and Drudge. You can find part one on FNC here: Chris of Rights: Concerning Fox News

Quoting myself:

There has been much talk about Drudge turning away from the right and Trump in particular in the last year or so. FNC has been the subject of similar criticisms recently, particularly since Election Night 2020.

I’m curious to see what these two will do now that Trump is out of office.

Drudge is a different case than Fox. I have made the case often over the last year that Matt Drudge is not a conservative and never has been one.

Two things drove what appeared on Drudge, and neither have anything to do with conservatism:

1. Drudge considers himself an old-style muckraker. He looks for the juicy political stories and he goes for splash and sizzle. So, he’s likely to do this no matter who’s in office.
2. It’s always personal with Drudge, not political. He hates, I mean truly loathes, the Clintons. And he thought the Obamas were arrogant fools.

So, initially Trump was useful to Drudge. He opposed the hated Clinton machine.

If Hillary had won in 2016, I’m certain that the Drudge Report would have attacked her mercilessly for four years.

But she didn’t.

If Hillary had run again in 2020 and gotten the Democratic nomination, I am just as certain that Drudge would once again have been on the Trump train.

But she didn’t.

And it was apparent that she wasn’t likely to do so by 2018. So, once Trump had defeated Clintonism, his usefulness to Drudge ended.

Also, Trump definitely gave Drudge plenty of opportunity to be a muckraker. He was able to link to personal scandal after personal scandal and to articles showing dissent in the Trump administration. Trump himself helped with that with tweets attacking members of his own Cabinet.

Of course, this had the effect of souring Trump on Drudge. And thus began the battle between them. A battle Drudge was determined to win, no matter what the cost to his media empire.

So, that’s how we got here. But what does it mean going forward? It’s hard to say. I don’t think Drudge dislikes President Joe Biden (D-USA) in the same way that he hates the Clintons and the Obamas, or in the way that he grew to hate Trump. But he still has that muckraking instinct, and you see that already a little bit. Going to the page, you’re already starting to see some negative articles regarding the Biden administration. Soft ones so far, but the tone change is apparent.

Of course, there’s still far too many articles attacking Trump. But it’s only been 7 days since he left office. Once this latest impeachment farce is over, perhaps he will leave Trump alone. That might depend upon what Trump does.

I think that you will see the Drudge Report appear to start slowly drifting to the right again. But if Biden can remain somewhat scandal free, the drift might be a slow one.

The Battle For the Soul of the Democratic Party

There’s been an interesting little feud among the Democrats this last week or so, and I think it may represent more than just squabbles on how President Barack Obama (D-USA) should run his re-election campaign.

First it was Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker (D), who went on Meet the Press:

Newark N.J. Mayor Cory Booker (D) expressed reserve about the Obama campaign's Bain strategy against Mitt Romney, telling "Meet The Press" viewers on Sunday that he was "uncomfortable" with the line of attacks.

"This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides," Booker said. "It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity."

Booker was referencing the Obama campaign's Monday release of a series of documentary-esque Bain videos.

Booker later back tracked somewhat, but I’m convinced he meant what he said, and the back track was due to pressure from the White House.

This was followed by former Senator Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN):

Booker is not the only Democrat to question the aggressive, negative portrayal of Romney’s work in private equity.  Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. said today he agreed with “the substance” of Booker’s comments and “would not have backed out.”

“I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances,” the Democrat said in a separate appearance on MSNBC earlier in the day.

Next came Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA):

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday, Patrick called Bain “a perfectly fine company.”

“They have a role in the private economy, and I’ve got a lot of friends there … on both sides of the aisle,” Patrick added. “I think the Bain strategy has been distorted in some of the public discussions.”

And if that wasn’t bad enough, on the same day we also got former President Bill Clinton (D-USA):

Clinton found himself in similar circumstances. “I think he had a good business career,” he said of Romney, when queried about Bain. He also called Mitt’s record “sterling”, adding “So I don’t think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work.”

I think what you’re seeing here is far more significant than questioning Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital, or even just a defense of Bain Capital.

For years now, many of us on the right have been saying that there is a radical wing to the Democratic party, and that this radical wing hates the foundations of America. They are Marxist to their core and want to shred the Constitution and remake the United States according to their Marxist ideal. These people are hungry and angry, and extremely determined. Many of us have also been saying that this radical wing now has control of the Democrat party, and that Barack Obama is the face of their movement.

I think what you’re seeing here is the realization by some in the Democratic party that there’s truth to this statement. Don’t be confused here. Clinton and Booker are lefties through and through. They believe in social justice, abortion on demand, and most of the other things you see as part of the Democratic party platform.

But, they’re not America haters. They love America. They love the free enterprise system, and they’re capitalists at heart, even if they don’t always realize that their goals and intentions fly in the face of free enterprise. Why do you think the Clintons went to New York after they left the White House? They wanted to be where the money is.

They see what Obama has been doing as an attack on free enterprise (which it is), and they’re finally standing up and saying “Enough!” Clinton and Obama have never been the best of friends, and I believe that should Obama lose in November, that this simmering feud is going to boil over. Clinton is going to make a very strong effort to wrest back control of the party and restore it to “his” vision.

You’ll see the results almost immediately if he’s successful. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08) will lose her leadership position. Blue Dogs will resurface in time for the 2014 elections, and the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee will be very Clintonesque.

On the other hand, if Clinton fails, expect the Democratic party to move even further to the left, regardless of the outcome of the elections in November. Expect them to become even angrier and more shrill. But don’t expect to see a TIME Magazine cover with Pelosi’s picture on the cover and the title “The Politics Of Hate” like you did in 1994 with Newt.

Frankly, as much as I loathe to see these people in power, the latter scenario is probably a better one for America (as long as Obama loses, that is). The more these people expose themselves and their hatred for America’s founding principles, the more it damages the Democratic party. I’m not stupid enough to pull a James Carville and predict a 40 year rule for the GOP, but I do think that a GOP majority is stronger when the differences between them and the left are more striking and visible.

November can’t get here soon enough. Is it really only the first of June?