Posted on 07/22/2016 4:33:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Republican National Convention's rowdy chants about Hillary Clinton -- "Lock her up!" -- have caused liberal journalists to get extremely distressed. In its lead editorial on July 21, The Washington Post fulminated that team Trump's "descent from standard red-meat partisanship to unprecedented accusations of criminality displays contempt for the rule of law and a startling disinterest in fact and reason."
That's strong brew. It's too bad for them that it's completely false. Somehow, the Post writers are acting like they were born yesterday, or slept through the last Republican presidency. They've chosen to overlook that their liberal friends in news and entertainment were active participants in an eight-year anti-GOP hatefest.
Take CNN commentator Jack Cafferty, who on Oct. 17, 2005, gushed to Wolf Blitzer about the idea of Karl Rove in prison: "What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted? ... He might want to get measured for one of those extra-large orange jumpsuits, Wolf, because looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that ... they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one."
The legal expert known as Rosie O'Donnell insisted to Geraldo Rivera on April 30, 2005, "This president invaded a sovereign nation in defiance of the UN. He is basically a war criminal. Honestly. He should be tried at The Hague."
And Michael Moore delighted Chris Matthews on July 23, 2007: "Personally, I'd like to see a perp walk coming out of the West Wing of the White House." Matthews inquired: "Do you think they're guilty of war crimes?" Moore replied: "Absolutely. ... I think we need a trial, in this country, where Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would be brought up on charges for causing the deaths of so many people."
Al Franken, now a United States senator, wildly talked of executions for Bushies over the Valerie Plame matter on David Letterman's "Late Show" on Oct. 22, 2005. "You know, George H. W. Bush, the president's father, was the head of the CIA, and he has said that outing a CIA agent is treason." Letterman agreed: "It is treason, yes." Franken added: "And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed."
This being a "civilized" audience in Manhattan, they laughed, and then Franken implied executing President Bush might be a logical follow-up if Rove confessed about higher-ups. "In that case, the president -- and I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting president." Letterman played along in this grisly game. "Have we ever come close in the history to executing a seated president?" Franken answered: "No, this will be the closest."
Let's conclude with the one and only Ed Schultz, who, like others in liberal hate radio, specialized in wanting Republicans dead. On his show on May 11, 2009, he begged for Dick Cheney's demise. "Lord, take him to the promised land, will you? I don't even wish the guy goes to hell. I just want to get him the hell out of here." On Feb. 24, 2010, Schultz shouted, "You're damn right Dick Cheney's heart's a political football! We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!"
Dear Washington Post ranters: There's nothing "unprecedented" about calling your opponents criminals or wanting them dead. Liberals have excelled at that rhetoric forever.
Dress her in an orange jump suit.
[The Republican National Convention’s rowdy chants about Hillary Clinton — “Lock her up!” — have caused liberal journalists to get extremely distressed.]
Good.
And then there is the old favorite “Jail to the Chief!”.
“Jail to the Chief!”........
The only title of “chief” that Hitlary commands is “Chief Liar”.
In Hillary’s case the FBI present things she did that no one disputes, and that normally would result in criminal indictments. There’s a real case that Hillary is a criminal. Practically everyone agrees that that FBI guy let her off the hook.
The main difference is the were/are specific laws broken by “Hill and the Gang”, not just a feeling that something was done wrong.
Or that movie about assassinating Bush.
——unprecedented accusations of criminality ——
I prefer to think the chants were assertions of criminality
Accusation ended when the director of the FBI spelled the criminal actions out
Jail cells for more than one are awaiting:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/fbi-exoneration-of-hillary-clinton-raises-disturbi/
“... What if she succeeded in toppling the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to have him replaced by feuding warlords who control anti-Western terrorist groups that not only failed to produce democracy but instead produced destruction, chaos, terror, torture and death?
What if Mrs. Clinton managed her Libyan disaster using a non-secure email system even though she regularly sent and received state secrets? What if she sent many emails containing state secrets about her Libyan war to her friend Sid Blumenthal? What if Mr. Blumenthal had been turned down for a State Department job by the president himself?
What if Mr. Blumenthal did not have a government security clearance to receive lawfully any state secrets? What if Mrs. Clinton knew that? What if the FBI found that Mr. Blumenthal’s emails had been hacked by intelligence services of foreign governments that are hostile to America?
What if there were terrible secrets that Mrs. Clinton wanted to keep from the public and for that reason she used private servers and nongovernment-issued mobile devices? What if those terrible secrets involved her enabling the unlawful behavior of her husband and his shoddy, unlawful foundation? What if Mrs. Clinton made decisions as secretary of state that were intended to enrich her husband and herself, and she needed to keep emails about those decisions away from the public?
What if the president recognized all this and authorized the FBI to conduct criminal investigations of Mrs. Clinton?
What if, after the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, the president warmed up to his former rival? What if Mr. Trump so got under the president’s skin that it drove him to embrace Mrs. Clinton as his chosen successor and as the one Democrat who could prevent a Trump presidency?
What if the president sent word to the Department of Political Justice to exonerate Mrs. Clinton no matter what evidence was found against her? What if, in response to that political interference, the FBI investigation of her failure to safeguard state secrets and her corruption took irregular turns?
What if FBI management began to intimidate FBI agents who had the goods on her? What if FBI management forced agents to sign highly irregular agreements governing what the agents can tell anyone when it comes to what they learned about Mrs. Clinton?
I heard the chanting but sincerely believe a firing squad is in order for the massive crimes against the Republic
The question will be how many will be shot dead
“Jail cells for more than one are awaiting:”
Thanks for pasting in that article. Lord knows what’s happened that we don’t know about. Maybe some juicy stuff will come out between now and election day.
I don’t know how Hillary will stand up to Donald unless, on her alleged misdeeds, she hides behind “I’ve been cleared of that and have no more to say about it.”
Trump had the goods/real story on Jeb, GW and the Bushco cartel, and he basically neutered them in a few months this year.
Trump has the goods on the Hildebeast including your excellent summary and more that we don’t know about.
He will silence/neuter the Clintoons/Obama in the up coming months.
A+ speech by Trump.
Been ill so not around lately.
It’s over for Hillary.
So sorry to hear you’ve been under the weather.
Hope all is well, or at least much better!!, now :)
Testifying before Congress, AG Lynch dodged, bobbed, and weaved on a simple question:
Is it illegal to hand off classified materials to someone who does not hold a security clearance?
Demand Congress follow-up using these questions (hat tip SERKIT):
<><>Hillary was allowed to disclose classified data to others not holding security clearances, including her inner circle, her own attorneys and other aides outside the State Department.
<><> Are there documents that Hillary's inner circle were shown that the Congressional Committee is not allowed to see?
<><> Can the Congressional committee see those same documents, un- redacted, as Hillary showed them to others?
<><> Since there was no criminal intent on Hillary's part (according to Comey), and criminal intent is required (according to Comey), what criminal intent would be necessary to show the oversight Committee the same documents?
<><> Why can't the Congressional committee see everything?
<><> What if Hillary gave those documents to the Committee - would that simply be careless....... or would it be criminal?
<><> would Comey give Congress a pass? (hat tip SERKIT)
fu al franken the clown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.