Willis V Hart Said: On the Corporate Media Sh!ts Constantly Referring to Trump's Nondisclosure Agreement with Stormy the Stooge as a, "Hush Money Payment" And being that a great many of them have signed a nondisclosure agreement of their own (more than one, in all likelihood), they're clearly aware that what the former President did isn't even remotely out of the ordinary. But because it's Trump who we're dealing with. It's one step down from the Kennedy assassination.
Posted by Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 AT 8:15 PM.
Commentary: Not even even remotely out of the ordinary, huh? The Access Hollywood tape had just come out and another scandal could really have been devestating for the campaign. So it was decided that the voters could NOT find out. None of those other non-disclosure agreements that Willis mentions have anything to do with preventing the voters from being fully informed before voting. This definitely would have cost tRump SOME votes. tRump wouldn't have agreed to pay otherwise. This whole "protecting his family" business is pure BS.
Microsoft AI Copilot: Former President Donald Trump was convicted of felonies related to falsifying business records. Here's what happened:
Charges: Trump faced 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. These charges stemmed from a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election and attempts to buy the silence of two other individuals.
Business Expense Cover-Up: The charges were based on evidence that Trump improperly funded the payoff to Stormy Daniels as a business expense, disguising it as legal fees. The payments were actually for nonbusiness reasons.
Intent to Commit a Crime: Falsifying business records is a felony in New York if done with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of a crime. In this case, the evidence suggested that Trump made false statements to cover up crimes related to the 2016 election.
Other Potential Crimes: While the indictment did not specify the second crime that elevated the misdemeanor charge to a felony, New York election law prohibits conspiring to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. The Daniels payment occurred before the 2016 presidential election that Trump won.
In summary, Trump's conviction was based on the falsification of business records, which is a serious offense when done with criminal intent. It marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of a crime.
Willis Hart Said: On Attempting to Meet a Trump Hater Halfway (Listing Some of His Accomplishments While Also Enumerating Some of His Weak Points) Yeah, they're just not interested in that anything short of despising the man 24/7 makes you at the very least, Trump adjacent (to use their moronic lingo). My advice would be to try and skirt the subject altogether and if that doesn't work just walk away.
Posted by Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart on Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:18 PM.
Commentary: donald tRump has "accomplishments"? Is Willis saying he thinks donald tRump accomplished some good things as predisent? I mean, bad things can also be accomplished. Which, I'd say is the category that most of what donald accomplished as predisent falls into. Accomplishments that were harmful to the country. But I think that Willis is talking about accomplishments that were beneficial for the country.
So why doesn't he rattle off a few of these alleged accomplishments? Maybe he can't think of any? Is just guessing there must be some? Is that why he advises walking away? To avoid looking stupid when he can't come up with any?
Well, maybe Willis can't. I G00gled and found an interesting article (excerpts below). I'm not surprised that (by accident or because others in the dotard administration actually knew what they were doing) that some good things were accomplished. Though bad things (as per the article) were also accomplished (as the article notes).
30 Things Donald Trump Did as President You Might Have Missed... Trump's presidency may be best remembered for its cataclysmic end. But his four years as president also changed real American policy in lasting ways... We asked Politico's best-in-class policy reporters to recap some of the ways Trump changed the country while in office, for better or worse. 1/18/2021
01. Trump didn't repeal Obamacare -- he accidentally bolstered it. [donald trump tried to kill Obamacare, but instead] "grew government subsidizing of the exchanges by upwards of $20 billion per year". [see article for an explaination of how that happened]. Bad, Good. Though accidently. The intent was bad.
02. Trump refocused national security on great power competition. The 2018 Trump Administration strategy rewired the Defense Department's vast bureaucracy away from a focus on fighting insurgents and terrorists in the Middle East toward a long-term strategic competition with China and Russia. As a result, the military is changing how it trains personnel, which technologies it buys, and the geographic areas of the world where it prioritizes its forces. Good.
03. Trump failed to provide workplace guidance, making safety harder for workers. Arguably the most consequential decision Trump made involving American workers was something it chose not to do: It declined to implement a so-called "emergency temporary standard" when the coronavirus pandemic hit. ... [as a result] Americans still face a dangerously unpredictable range of safety conditions when they show up to work. Though OSHA has cited some companies for coronavirus-related transgressions, many large corporations received meager fines even in cases where workers died from Covid-19. Bad.
04. Trump boosted religious organizations in education. Bad? I'm guessing. Given that this was a Betsy DeVos rule change.
05. Trump's Interior Department set a new standard for ignoring Congress. [They] got away with it: Democrats complained but never followed through on a subpoena threat. By the final six months of the Trump administration, Interior officials completely stopped attending House hearings meant to flag issues with the department. The behavior all but guarantees that future administrations will follow suit. Bad.
06. Legal marijuana spreads across most of the country. Despite its anti-weed rhetoric, the Trump administration stood to the side as 18 states liberalized their marijuana laws from 2016 to 2020, including staunchly conservative states like Mississippi and South Dakota. Despite former Attorney General William Barr’s anti-trust scrutiny of cannabis deals, the federal government remained relatively hands-off on marijuana policy. Good. Though this "accomplishment" was achieved via inaction.
07. Trump curbed relief for defrauded students. Trump dismantled Obama-era policies that were designed to curb abuses by for-profit colleges, including rules designed to make it easier for borrowers to obtain loan forgiveness if they were cheated or duped by their college [under the direction of] Education Secretary Betsy DeVos... Bad. Though "Biden has already committed to swiftly reversing Trump’s changes to the rules".
08. Trump made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering. The Trump administration played a major but little-noticed role in pushing Congress to enact the most sweeping overhaul of financial crimes safeguards in decades, measures intended to stop money flowing to terrorists, drug traffickers and other wrongdoers. The legislation made its way into the National Defense Authorization Act... Good.
09. Trump shrank the food safety net -- a lot. Under Trump, the Agriculture Department scaled back the $60 billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food support program for low-income Americans formerly known as food stamps. ... 755,000 Americans have lost their access to food aid under SNAP, according to the USDA's own estimates. Bad.
10. Millions of workers lost access to extra pay for long hours. Under Trump, the federal government rolled out a series of employer-friendly rules and decisions ... One of the most significant: His Labor Department finalized an overtime rule notably weaker than that issued under Obama, leaving millions of workers ineligible. Bad.
11. On gas emissions, Trump went the opposite direction from the rest of the world. ... The Trump rollbacks [of Obama-era rules aimed at cracking down on methane emissions] ... were considered so out of the norm that even oil companies such as BP and Shell publicly spoke out against them. Bad.
12. Trump imposed a near-ban on government use of Chinese drones. Like many Chinese products and services, Chinese-made drones became a focal point for the Trump administration. Federal agencies seeking to end China's dominance of the drone market, amid concerns that equipment could be used to spy, have looked for ways to bolster domestic production. Good?
13. Trump made it possible to follow the Pentagon's money. The Pentagon makes up the largest slice of discretionary spending in the federal budget, so it might surprise you that until Trump, no one had conducted an audit of where America's defense dollars go ... The overall exercise is seen as a milestone in the odyssey to someday verify where all our defense tax dollars are going. Good.
14. Trump goosed the economy with tax cuts... Trump's biggest legislative achievement was arguably the $1.5 trillion tax cut package Republicans pushed through Congress, which he said would super-charge the economy. The 2017 tax bill slashed individual and corporate tax rates and made dozens of other major changes to the tax code that affected virtually every facet of the economy, from small businesses to university endowments. Good?, no Bad! The language in Politico article suggests this a good accomplishment. I disagree. "Democrats [did] a good job of convincing voters it mainly benefited the wealthy"... as per Politico. Yeah, because that's the truth. That's what republicans ALWAYS do. Cut taxes for the rich and corporations.
15. Trump cracked down -- mostly successfully -- on unwanted calls and texts. For years the federal government made little headway against the plague of unwanted automated phone calls that have annoyed Americans -- 19 billion such calls last year alone. Despite plenty of rancor, Trump and his agency heads succeeded in working with Congress to make significant headway in curbing -- but not yet eliminating -- the annoyance. Good? That hasn't been my experience. I'm getting more of these annoying calls now then in the past. As are other family members of mine.
16. Trump exiled climate scientists from Washington... Officials refused to publicize dozens of studies that carry warnings about the effects of climate change on the agriculture sector. The department even stopped the release of a plan on how to respond to the climate change crisis. Bad.
17. Trump took a big swing at finally fixing health-care technology. ... Early in 2020 ... the Trump administration released a big ball of rules meant to sweep aside barriers to sharing health information. The administration's rules have several targets but they focus on practices like "information blocking", whereby companies or providers might not release necessary data for competitive advantage... Good? As per the article "the Trump administration [due to the pandemic] has delayed the effective [implementation] date.
18. Trump rescinded rules protecting workers at federal contractors. ... In March 2017, Trump signed a Congressional Review Act resolution to revoke a regulation enacted under Obama the previous year that required businesses to publicly disclose any sexual harassment or labor law violations over the previous three years whenever they bid on large federal contracts. The goal of the rule was to prevent federal money from flowing to firms with a history of such infractions. Bad.
19. Trump went all-in on ending curbs on auto emissions, dividing the industry. ... he Obama administration’s plan would have required automakers to improve fuel efficiency by 5 percent per year, but the Trump administration rolled those targets back to just 1.5 percent improvement each year. Bad.
20. The anti-monopolists started winning -- despite Trump at first, then with his help. Bad!, later Good! And, no, not bad because I'm pro-monopoly. Bad because this isn't true. As per a 4/7/2024 Washington Monthly article, tRump's antitrust law was (under tRump) selectively applied to punish tRump enemies and reward his allies. My "good" is due to the fact that, "after he won the election, Biden committed to the cause like no other president had in modern times" [using the tRump era law].
21. A big crackdown on legal immigrants. While it was no surprise to anyone who followed his 2016 presidential campaign that Trump wanted to crack down on illegal immigration at the southern border, his administration also imposed tighter restrictions on legal immigration, even of the high-skilled workers he claimed to want in the country. Bad.
22. Trump impeded regulation -- even though Republicans wanted it. Trump's EPA essentially blew up a bipartisan deal to more strictly regulate toxic chemicals that Americans are exposed to daily and instead tapped a group of chemicals industry experts to run and advise the program. Bad.
23. Trump rallied the world against China's 5G dominance. The Trump administration put national security concerns around 5G in the spotlight, arguing that Chinese equipment used to build next-generation Internet networks posed a surveillance threat to Western countries. Good? As per the article, "Many countries are still mulling whether they share the alarm coming from US officials".
24. Trump doled out billions in aid to farmers. Faced with years of declining prices and shrunken foreign markets, farmers have been struggling throughout the Trump administration. Trump officials have tried to mend food producers' finances by doling out billions in assistance in order to keep the industry afloat. Bad? As per the article "the vast majority of the aid went to traditional row crop farmers, many of whom were part of Trump's political base".
25. Trump rolled back rules on banks designed to prevent another financial crisis. Bad. The Biden administration has paid a price (and been blamed) for the consequences of these rollbacks.
26. Trump galvanized an anti-Silicon Valley movement in the GOP. Lawmakers furious at Silicon Valley have for years taken aim at Section 230, a crucial 1996 legal provision that shields online platforms from lawsuits over the user content they host or decide to restrict. But it was a niche issue until Trump escalated the attacks over allegations that social media companies are biased against conservatives. Bad. This is a personal grievance of tRump. And, even though he now has his own social media company, he's going to cash in a sell his shares as soon as he is able. So, he probably still doesn't care. Like if, Truth Social were to be sued. Or Twitter, now that Elon owns it. Or perhaps Rumble. I doubt Conservative would like that.
27. Trump reduced environmental approvals for infrastructure projects. The impact [is that] New projects can be more polluting or damaging to the environment over the long term and still be approved... Bad.
28. Trump's White House took quiet steps to promote US development of AI. Good?
29. Trump rolled back rules on racially segregated housing. Bad.
30. Trump made trade a top priority, but had only mixed results. ... Trump fell far short on his promise to negotiate bilateral trade deals to make up for his decision to pull out of the TPP... Bad. I dont' say bad because I'm a free trader. I say bad because the moves tRump took hurt US consumers and US farmers. Because the CORRECT way to address this problem would be through congress. But the republican party is pro-free trade. At least most of them are. And some Democrats. I agree with the Bernie Sanders position.
Looks to me like most of the dotard administration's accomplishments were bad. The ones cited by this article, at least. But it's entirely possible that Willis likes some (or all) of those negative accomplishments. Or could (if he tried) come up with good accomplishments not cited in this article?
Note: The Politico article doesn't label any of these accomplishments good or bad. I did that. What follows the "good/bad" rating is my commentary.
In conclusion -- donald tRump was the worst president in US history, as a survey of historians has determined. (Released Feb 2024. The tally came from 154 presidential specialists who are current and recent members of the American Political Science Association. They were asked to give every president a score, from 0 to 100).
So, why is the Hartster defending dotard? And saying such idiotic defending only makes him "Trump adjacent"? I'm not aware of who (if anyone) is using this "lingo". I say people who defend tRump (the WORST president ever) aren't "tRump adjacent", they are trumpers... full stop.
I mean, if you can't take the "bold" stance to be 100 percent opposed to the horrible Orange Turd, that makes you part of the problem, not a part of the solution. IMO.
According to the Libertarian trump-voting blogger Willis Hart, being a Russiagate denier is what's required to be one of the best.
I don't know. Believing that Dotard was "framed" for colluding with Russia and that it really was a "witch hunt" (despite it being so f*cking obvious) kind of causes me to question your journalistic abilities. IMO it's also incredibly dishonest.
Wills must be a Jimmy Dore fan as well. Not because he's a Progressive, but solely due to his defense of Dotard. Like these three journalists. All of who were desperate to see Dotard "re-elected" over Joe Biden. Not because they are fans of Dotard, but to punish the DNC for not nominating a Progressive (and America as well).
Although now (according to Dore) Bernie Sanders is a "cuck" for getting behind Biden. And Greenwald (originally an AOC fan) now says she's a sell out as well. A female "cuck", if there is a word for that. Because Bernie and AOC both realized the Orange Turd HAD to go because American might not survive another Dotard term.
According to the website "Your News Wire" (yournewswire.com, YNW) Denzel Washington said that "Trump's Election Saved Us From Orwellian Police State". He said this in regards to the Devin Nunes memo. This would be the memo in Nunes staff members cherry picked info to falsely state that the FISA warrant to keep an eye on Carter Page relied solely on the Christopher Steele dossier and that falsely claims the FBI lied to a FISA judge by excluding this information.
"If the Democrats had won the election, we never would have found out they were using false documents to get warrants to spy on American citizens and political opponents. We never would have known this. Think about it!" said Denzel Washington at a press conference in New York. (2/3/2018 yournewswire article by Baxter Dmitry).
Libertarin blogger Willis Hart, a Hillary Clinton hater and YouTube watcher, referenced this Denzil Washington "quote" in a recent blog post.
Willis Hart: On Denzel Washington Recognizing the Potential Nastiness of a Hillary Presidency and Having the Balls to Say Something About it. [YouTube video from Screen Hoopla in which a picture of Denzil is displayed while Mr. Hoopla reads the yournewswire article]. It's nice to know that not everyone in Hollywood is brain-diseased. Well done, Denzel. (2/7/2018 at 3:49pm).
My response? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. This reminds me of when the fake news fool (AKA Willis Hart) cited a "news" story from Sputnik News, another pro-Russian, propaganda fake news website.
Rational Wiki: YourNewsWire... is a Los Angeles-based clickbait fake news website known for disseminating conspiracy theories and misleading information ... Joel Harding (a Kremlin propaganda expert) believed that Russians were using YourNewsWire as a mule or proxy to spread disinformation.
Regarding Denzel Washington, Snopes says he "has been a supporter of Barack Obama in the past, but as of August 2016 he had not formally endorsed any presidential candidate". So, did Denzel go from being an Obama to a Trump supporter? Given the fact that YNW is a fake news site, I'm guessing no.
Snopes: There is no evidence that Washington made this comment, though it isn’t the first time he has been accused of being a Trump supporter without factual support. At a red carpet event for his film "Fences" he responded to a question about how he voted in 2016 with "none of your business". YourNewsWire is a fake news site that is notorious for making up sensational quotes and attributing them to celebrities or politicians. For example the site started a false rumor that actor Sylvester Stallone said former President Barack Obama was a "closeted homosexual" and claimed, again falsely, that actress Julia Roberts had said former First Lady Michelle Obama “isn’t fit to clean Melania Trump's toilet". (Did Denzel Washington Say Trump's Election Saved Us From an "Orwellian Police State"?).
Willis must be suffering from a very serious "brain disease" to be buying into all these fake news stories. The YouTube "video" he includes with his post isn't even a video, but someone reading the YNW article while a still picture of Denzel is displayed. Something that SHOULD automatically cause someone interested in the truth to independently verify the claim that Denzel actually said anything of the sort.
Anway, I assume that Willis, given that he says "well done" in regards to the fake quote, agrees with it. Despite it being utter stupidity. Stupidity because Congress JUST reauthorized the FISA law with ZERO changes. So, IF the FISA law means the US is an "Orwellian Police State", the police states persists. Trump's election did NOT "save us" from it. Nunes ONLY objects to this supposed "FISA abuse" in regards to the FISA warrant granted to spy on Carter Page.
Slate: Last week, Congress passed a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for six years. Section 702 is the surveillance law that authorizes the government to target foreigners located abroad to collect foreign intelligence information. However, we know that the government also sweeps up substantial quantities of Americans' communications under Section 702. Despite the public's calls for additional privacy protections, Congress passed the bill and called it a reform while hoping that no one would notice that it actually increases privacy risks.
...the definition of foreign intelligence information that may be collected includes anything that is relevant to U.S. foreign affairs, which means that foreign journalists, activists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople could be targeted. (Americans Wanted More Privacy Protections. Congress Gave Them Fewer by Robyn Green).
So, what Slate is saying is that, Trump's election DID save us from an Orwellian Police state. Looks like I was wrong. I mean that sarcastically, of course. My God, is Willis Hart a trumping moron or what?
BTW, even though I'd absolutely support revising Section 702 of FISA to provide more protections for American citizens (something that has NOT happened under Trump. Although I admit it likely wouldn't have happened under Hillary either) it definitely appears as though the Carter Page warrant was 100% on the up and up. There was no abuse, and that trumpers think the Devin Nunes memo discredits the Mueller investigation (as trumpy moron Sean Hannity believes) is further proof that these people are surely brain diseased. In the extreme.
Video:YouTube Willis includes in his post in which "Screen Hoopla" reads YNW article containing FAKE Denzel Washington quote (3:20). Based on this video, which is 100% BULLSHIT, Willis concludes "that that not everyone in Hollywood is brain-diseased" and offers kudos to Mr. Washington, saying "well done, Denzel" (for having a fake quote attributed to him). Idiot!!!
Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. Like when the racist-in-chief insisted that (in regards to the events in Charlottesville) both sides were to blame. And that, on the Nazi/KKK side, there were some "very fine people".
Sentiment the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart apparently is in agreement with. Although he, unlike Trump, never even said that Nazis and KKKers were in the wrong (I refer to Trump's 2nd scripted and reluctantly read statement). Because ALL Hart's outrage is directed at the people protesting racism.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hordes of Young, Lost, Stupid, Illiberal, and Fully Indoctrinated College Students Apparently Think that by Shouting People Down, Tearing Down Statues, and Calling Anyone Who Disagrees with Them a Nazi or a Racist, They Are Somehow Putting On Display Virtue and Moral Superiority. Not a legacy that I'd be proud of and I seriously doubt that down the road they'll be proud of it, either (those that ultimately develop critical thinking skills, I'm saying). (9/9/2017 at 8:28am).
Why shouldn't people carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags be called a Nazis or a racists? They're carrying the flags, so they're OBVIOUSLY self-identifying as such. Also, WTF is wrong with speaking out against these things? If people have the free speech right to protest the removal of statues honoring traitors, surely other people (non racists) have the right to counter-protest? Apparently the Hartster believes they do not.
BTW, all these Confederate statues were NOT erected immediately following the end of the Civil war (1865), but during the Jim Crow/KKK-ascendant era (1900-1910), and then again (more monuments built) during the Civil Rights era (1955-1960). Obviously the point of the statues was not to "honor our history" but as a message to African Americans. "We liked it when you were slaves and don't be getting it into your heads that you're in any way equal" is what these statues are meant to say to Black people.
It's long past time for these monuments to White superiority to go. We need to get rid of them. The people who want to keep them (people who took to the streets chanting "Blood and Soil") are the illiberal ones. They are narrow minded and bigoted. As are the people who support them (Willis Hart and his ilk). They are incredibly illiberal.
The counter-protesting "hordes" aren't putting on a "display of virtue and moral superiority" (to make themselves feel good about themselves, I guess)... they are counter-protesting because they are genuinely outraged. They are also in disbelief that this shit is still an issue in 2017 (I know I am, at least). But to Willis Hart it's "indoctrination"... to not be a racist! Or tolerant of racists, at least. Some of them are "very fine people", after all.
For the record, I am ANGRY that Trump is emboldening the "Alt-Right". Everyone who doesn't lack critical thinking skills should be. Because racism is STUPID. And people who think that the rest of us should sit back and say nothing because chanting "Jews will not replace us" while marching and carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags is free speech... these are the people lacking virtue and morals! Because they stand with the Nazis and "slavery was cool" enthusiasts.
As for why Willis Hart stands with racists and against people protesting racism... obviously it is because he is a racist and a bigot himself. I mean, condemning racism is an easy one. Although it's a test the so-called president also failed. Explaining why Willis is still writing screeds about how horrible Hillary Clinton is. And is largely silent about Donald Trump. Except to criticize people who don't like Donald Trump.
And (can you believe it?) he also blames the Left for these racist scumbags crawling out from under their rocks to march and protest in public! "What do you expect" he says. What with the Left "slandering" Whites as racist (HRC's whole "deplorables" comment, etc). Telling the truth, in other words. Un-f*cking believable! Although perhaps not so much, given the fact that Willis actually authored a pro-KKK post.
The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart thinks it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has "Russian Connections". Connections that indicate corruption.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that at or Around the Same Time that Mrs. Clinton's State Department Was Signing Off on the Transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate, Tens of Millions of Dollars Were Flowing in to the Clinton Foundation from Numerous Associates in this Project AND Bill Clinton Received $500,000 for Belting Out Some Bullshit and Platitudinous Speech In Moscow [Link].
No, it isn't a smoking-gun but the fact that Mrs. Clinton didn't report at least $2.35 million of this largess (this money coming from the head-honcho of the project, no less) indicates to me that she was at least concerned about the appearance of it. Speaking of "Russian connections". (3/6/2017 at 5:24pm).
That it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has Russia connections is the exact same allegation that Donald Trump has been making. Most recently via twitter.
I wonder if the Trump-defending Hart LIKED either or both of these tweets? Anyway, the House Intelligence Committee isn't looking into the "Bill and Hillary deal" because it wasn't a Bill and Hillary Deal". According to Newsweek "we really don't need to investigate [the] Uranium deal" because the charges are bogus.
...allegations, first aired in 2015, that the Clinton family benefited from a "pay for play" scheme, whereby U.S. uranium reserves were supposedly transferred to the Russian owners of a mining corporation in return for donations to the Clinton foundation [are] false.
[in] 2010... Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake in mining company Uranium One. Clinton, as [Secretary of State] had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption... First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state. (Why We Really Don't Need To Investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Uranium Deal" by Josh Lowe. 3/28/2017).
Hillary Clinton might have been "at least concerned about the appearance of it", given the fact that Hillary hating Trump defenders like Willis (who is also a fan of the lying scumbag Peter Schweizer) are so eager to defend Trump and indict her.
Poltifact disputes the suggestion that Bill Clinton being paid 500k by Renaissance Capital (a Russian investment bank) in 2010 was a payoff to get HRC to approve the Uranium One deal. Given the fact that "then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent State on CFIUS, said Clinton herself never intervened in committee matters" [quote via Snopes].
Regarding Willis' claim that the deal would "transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate"... Uranium One is a Canadian company (although the "Russian Conglomerate" Rosatom does now own a 51% controlling share in it). But "Russia cannot export the material from the United States". They're getting the profit, and NOT the uranium. It isn't being "transferred" anywhere (it's staying in the United States).
The real reason for the purchase (as per Politifact) was likely that Russia was "interested in Uranium One's assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer". BTW, I'm not saying approving the deal was the right way to go. I'm thinking that it should NOT have been approved. But is as usually is the case when it comes to those who have money and power... they get what they want.
Which isn't to say HRC isn't guilty of "glaring conflicts of interest". But there is a difference between ignoring conflicts of interest and outright naked corruption, for which there exists the opposite of a "smoking gun" (facts that show HRC wasn't involved/couldn't approve the deal).
Video: Peter Schweizer appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss Clinton Cash, 4/26/2015. GS: "...an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote ... 'there's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation'. ... Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?" to which PS replied "no, we don't have direct evidence". (8:04).
The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart LOVES to bash Liberals. And he LOVES it even more if he can bash Liberals for criticizing Donald Trump.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Some of Donald Trump's Critics Are so Moronic that They Actually Believe that the Dude's Sons Killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger, and a Triceratops [see video below]. Yes sir, that's a special kind of stupid. (3/26/2017 at 4:30pm).
The video in question, titled "Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset" (5:48).
I don't think that this is a case of people being stupid, it's a case of people not paying attention. Thinking of what they're going to say instead of listening. Or not expecting that the object of the interviewer is to make them look stupid. I mean, I've seen similar pranks on the Tonight Show. Word replacements that people, if they were paying attention, would catch.
My guess at to what is going on? Predictive perceptual signaling, which is a phenomenon in which the brain attempts to predict future perceptual input.
Most of us have had the experience of finding a glaring error in some written work that we had previously checked several times. For example when blogging I often find at least one simple error on a post once it has actually been published, despite proofreading it thoroughly before submission. In such circumstances it seems impossible that one can have overlooked such an obvious error.
The reason that such mistakes get missed is that we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive. When proof reading something we ourselves have written we know what we were planning to write. We therefore tend to perceive the words we think we put on the page, rather than those that are actually there. (11/9/2014 article by Rob Hoskin PhD, the Neuroscience Department of Sheffield University).
The portion of the article I quoted has to do with seeing words what we expect to see, and not the words that are actually there. But the same applies to spoken words. Clearly the people being interviewed did not expect to hear the words "Woolly Mammoth", "Saber Toothed Tiger" or "Triceratops" because they are expecting "Lion", "Tiger" or "Elephant". And therefore they did not hear the names of extinct animals.
A more likely an explanation than people actually being so stupid as to they think the Trump sons killed extinct animals, no? And that, IMO, is ALL this video proves. That people hear what they expect to hear and not what is actually said. And that people aren't expecting that when an interviewer asks a question, the REAL intent is to prank them.
If the interviewer had said, "wait a minute, did you hear what I said - pay attention", I predict that zero of the people being interviewed would agree that the Trump sons could have killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger or a Triceratops.
BTW, the brain uses predictive perceptual signaling because "in the vast majority of cases expectation improves perception". According to the article "there is ample evidence from behavioural science that being able to predict the content of an upcoming stimulus improves our ability to successfully perceive it".
For more information read the article. Bottom line is, the human brain often deceives us. Also note that nobody in the video repeats what the interviewer said. Nobody says "yes, I agree that Eric and Donald Jr. killing that Woolly Mammoth was bad".
But the Hartster wants SO MUCH to believe that Liberals are this stupid. So he sees this prank and thinks, yeah, these people heard EXACTLY what the interviewer said and agreed that the Trump sons hunted and killed extinct animals. It is a "fact". Which points to Willis being the one that is "so moronic", IMO.
The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart seems to think that Donald Trump should get "cred" with the Left for lying. As per this commentary.
Willis Hart: On Trump Versus the Left. I find this whole thing a bit perplexing in that if you take the time to look at his positions, he's actually kind of a leftist himself. For example, the dude's a) a protectionist, b) a believer in the graduated income tax (the first $50,000 tax free, as I recall), c) a person who wants an enormous infrastructure project (bigger than Obama's, for Christ!), d) a person who while he denigrated Obamacare has seeming signed on to something virtually identical, and e) someone who wants to establish a brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave.
No, it's not a down-the-line leftist agenda but it's certainly close enough to where you would think that the left could at least work with the guy, no? Oh and, yeah, he eviscerated George W. Bush. That alone should give him some cred. (3/25/2017 at 4:19pm).
Apparently Willis does not realize that Trump LIES. And he lies constantly. As Thom Hartmann says, Trump won by running as a Progressive Progressive (in many respects). As Willis points out. But Democrats (and many others) know that Trump lies. He says what he thinks will get him what he wants at the time. He makes promises with no intention of following through, unless doing so is easy.
Like with canceling the TPP. That took no work. All he had to do was not move forward with it. Devising a national health care bill, on the other hand, requires work. Trump promised "repeal and replace" because it got him votes. Then he pushed a garbage bill that he did not understand, then gave up after 18 days (when, as Lawrence O'Donnell points out, Obama's bill took 18 months).
BTW, Trump did NOT "sign on to something virtually identical". The AHCA (American Health Care Act) was a not a health care bill. It was a tax cut bill. As the NY Times pointed out "the beneficiaries would be the richest Americans who for years have complained that the Affordable Care Act unfairly burdened them with the responsibility of subsidizing insurance for the poor".
The objective of the ACA was providing health care for most Americans (nixed by the Supreme Court which tossed the Medicaid expansion). The objective of the AHCA was CUTTING TAXES [1]. People would have lost coverage under it. 24 million, if I recall correctly. "Virtually identical" my ass.
A believer in the graduated income tax? So what? What we know is that Congress will move on tax cuts targeted at the wealthy. Now that "repealing" Obamacare has failed. I'm sure that's at the top of their agenda (What Trump and the GOP Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich).
The enormous infrastructure project is another giveaway to the wealthy, as Trump proposes funding it by giving "$137 billion in federal tax credits to private investors who want to back transportation projects". Also, we're talking about projects on which "tolls or user fees" could be charged. So, we pay (via tax breaks) for investors to build the infrastructure, but they own it and make money off it. Sounds like a great idea. If you're a wealthy investor looking to buy infrastructure (that the government pays you back for via tax credits). Then sit back and collect the profits. Clearly a bad deal for taxpayers and end users (people who will be paying the tolls and user fees), though.
As for the "brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave", CNN Money describes the proposal as a "gift to the rich [because] 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more". Big surprise.
BTW, even though Willis obviously does not realize it, Trump only "eviscerated" gwb because he thought it would harm Jeb's candidacy. I mean, Trump SUPPORTED the Iraq war (despite his lies). He's on tape saying so (on Howard Stern). Once Jeb dropped out Trump's "lie" accusation (re gwb and WMD) changed to "I don't know" (SWTD #326).
Work with him to give taxpayer money to the already wealthy? WHY the f*uck would Democrats work with Trump to accomplish that? And "cred" comes from ACTION, not words. Words that are mostly lies. If Trump wanted TARGETED tax cuts (nothing for the wealthy), was to do the infrastructure right (raise taxes to pay for it) or offer tax breaks/credits to anyone (not just the well off) for child care/leave? Then yeah, Democrats would work with him. Heck, I think Dems would work with Trump on lowering the corporate income tax (if all loopholes were eliminated and it was estimated that revenues would go up as a result). And he agreed to go after offshore tax havens and inversions (although Trump doesn't know what a corporate inversion is).
But I don't see that happening. Especially given the FACT that if he was to put forward proposals that appealed to Democrats... Ryan and the GOP controlled Congress would turn on him. In any case, that Dems won't work with him is NOT "perplexing", unless you're dumb enough to not realize that Trump lies constantly. But apparently the Willis is dumb enough. Even though he implies he knows Trump is a liar.
On "Trump Is a Liar" Versus "the Media Is Biased and Corrupt"... In a saner time we could have entertained both notions. Not today, though. Not with the Fox Newses, MSNBCs, Salons, Breitbarts, and Huffington Posts of the world delivering what can only be called pure partisan pablum 24/7 and a public that is all-too willing to lap it up. No Sir. (2/23/2017 at 11:15pm).
WTF? Maybe Willis thinks Trump only lies sometimes? I mean, clearly Willis thinks Trump is telling the truth re his A to E list. As opposed to lying. Because that's what he does. Lies about EVERYTHING. Although I think he might be "protectionist". Even though he has his Trump crap manufactured outside the US. And brings in labor on work visas (or illegally) to work in his businesses.
Doesn't mean he couldn't be a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. I mean, following the rules as they are doesn't mean you can't be in favor of changing the rules. Even if the new rules will cost you. MAYBE. But I doubt it. Given the fact that everything else Willis THINKS the Left can work with Trump on - he's lying about.
Trump "actually kind of a leftist himself"? Via his LYING WORDS only. No "Leftist" action except cancelling the TPP (yet). And that didn't require any Leftists to work with him to accomplish. I'm sure some (Bernie Sanders, other members of the Progressive caucus) would have been willing to if it had been necessary.
BTW, the people with DO give Trump cred for lying? That would be his base, AKA the #trumpdupes. Everyone else knows he's a liar who lies about everything. Even most of those who voted for Stein or Johnson. Excepting idiots like the Hartster, who think Trump can be believed on ANYTHING. I guess.
Notes [1] According to estimates made by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the AHCA would resulted in tax breaks totalling 600 billion, most of which would go to the wealthiest Americans. (Poltifact).
Video: Thom Hartmann: If Trump Actually Ran As A Republican, He Wouldn't Have Won The Election! Thom talks about how Donald Trump used populist ideas to gain support among voters. Published 11/17/2016 (5:54).
The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart, while not a Trump voter nor Trump supporter, none-the-less (and inexpliciplity) defends the Orange sexual-assaulter-in-chief. And worries that he may be removed from office for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that if the Political Establishment, Mainstream Media, and Intelligence Community Ultimately Succeed in Pushing Trump Out of Office Over What Has Thus Far Been Absolute Bullshit it Will Change the Fabric of the Country and In a Way that We May Not Appreciate... Yeah, I would say that we all need to stop and take a deep breath before we decide to cross that particular Rubicon. Don't you (the few sane people still around) agree? (3/7/2017 at 5:27pm).
First of all, I do NOT agree. Although I am certain that Willis would not categorize me as a sane person (while he absolutely would say he is). Also, I'd say that the fabric of our country already has been changed in a way many do not appreciate. Via the election of a man who was in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution as soon as he was sworn in. That would be the clause of the Consitution which "bans payments from foreign powers like the ones to Mr. Trump's companies".
Trump putting his sons in charge of running his companies is not a blind trust! As Forbes points out "transferring control of the assets solves one problem (management) but doesn't change the fact that Trump still knows what he owns. He knows how his actions, as President, can affect his business interests even if he's no longer in charge".
Then, there is the fact that Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner a "senior advisor", in violation of an anti-nepotism law that "states that a public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment a relative to an agency or office that is run by the official". (Jared Kushner cleared for Trump job, breaking with decades of legal advice).
The head of the Congressional watchdog organization, Public Citizen says (re the Trump administration) "we expect them to continue to overreach". I expect they will too, and that Trump could be removed from office for that reason. Or Trump could be removed under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, "which would allow the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers, or the vice president and a majority of such other body as Congress may by law provide, to declare the president unable to serve, making the vice president the acting president" (25th Amendment chatter: Dems, pundits mull ways to remove Trump).
The reasoning for invoking the 25th would be Trump's insanity. Many people believing that he is disconnected from reality. A lot of his (dis) information coming from far Right media. Breitbart, InfoWars and other outlets for far Right conspiracy theory baloney.
Although Willis refers (I believe) to the possibility of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia prior to his installation. To which I say, if it has "thus far been absolute bullshit", that doesn't mean the situation will remain the same. If Trump were to be removed due to collusion with Russia, there would have to be solid evidence.
Trump is NOT going to be removed from office if the conspiracy theory remains a theory. So WHY does Willis suspect that he might? Possibly because he is a total moron? Or possibly because he is down with the effort to discredit any actual evidence (should it come to light)?
Why won't Trump share his tax returns? Is it only because they show he is not as wealthy as he claims, or is it because they would prove he has financial ties to Russia?
But instead of saying we need to investigate, Willis just declares the notion of any evidence existing that might be cause for impeachment "bullshit". Although he does qualify that with a "thus far". But then he goes on to suggest that removal from office could occur even if the evidence never goes beyond "bullshit".
Which is not going to happen. So why the hell does he pontificate on the possibility of that improbable event? When that possibility is zero or close to it? I mean, maybe Republicans would go along with "bullshit" in order to get Pence in, but I think that (unless Trump seriously melts down) they would be doing so much damage to their party (angering Trump supporters) that they wouldn't dare do it.
The only reason I can come with (as to why Willis thinks Trump could be removed from office based on "bullshit") is because there is NO evidence he'd accept as non-bullshit. I mean, there is some pretty strong indications that Trump and his campaign violated the Logan act. This would be the law that seeks "to prevent the undermining of the government's position [by forbidding] unauthorized citizens [from negotiating] with foreign governments".
Violating the act is a felony. Michael Flynn resigned because of "phone calls in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak [during which] the two apparently discussed sanctions the Obama administration was developing to punish Russia over allegations of interference in the 2016 presidential election". A clear violation of the Logan act.
The NYT notes that "it remains unclear whether then-President-elect Trump... knew about Mr. Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador". But if evidence came to light that he did? I'm thinking that the Hartster would also view that as "bullshit". Even if Trump himself (in addition to Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Jeff Sessions in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate) is shown to have violated the Logan Act (by discussing foreign policy with Putin as president elect, for example), it will all be "bullshit".
A total FAIL from the misogynist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.
Willis Hart: On Clinton Flunky, Bill Ivey, Articulating to Fellow Clinton Flunky, John Podesta, that the Best Way for the Democrats to Garner and Maintain Power Is for Them to Take Advantage of an "Unaware and Compliant Citizenry"... But he didn't use the word, pussy, and so the media ignores it. (10/14/2016 AT 6:06pm).
So, it's only the WORD "pussy" and NOT the fact that Trump was bragging about sexually assaulting women that explains why the media is covering this Trump hot mic conversation? Of course not. That Willis suggests this is totally absurd. Everyone who isn't of a certain persuasion knows what Trump said was wrong. And it had little to do with a specific word, crude and offensive as it is.
That persuasion is a man who thinks it's OK to joke about sexual assault (or a woman, unbelievably). Willis Hart has proven himself to be such a man. Someone who would brush off what Trump said as "locker room talk". Which is why I wonder how many women he has sexually assaulted (OST #136).
As for Clinton "flunkies" writing that they (The HRC campaign/Democratic "ruling elites") will benefit from an "unaware and compliant citizenry", I plugged the phrase into Google and the following debunking by Snopes came up. Snopes says FALSE.
Snopes: A more objective reading suggests that Ivey was actually stating the opposite... that a lack of awareness and a tendency toward compliance on the part of the citizenry in recent years was the result of the conflation of entertainment and the electoral process (as exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump), and these phenomena present a problem for democracy which must be countered. (Wacky Leaks).
This more objective reading makes a hell of a lot more sense, BTW. The rubes supporting Trump are the ones who are "unaware and compliant". Proof of this is that they think a inexperienced and politically stupid reality TV star is a good choice for president of the most powerful nation in the world.
In my strong opinion - when people are aware (politically informed) they tend to vote Democrat. An opinion that studies tend to bear out. For example, Pew reports that "Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education" (A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation, 4/7/2015).
Also, according to political analyst Larry Sabato, "the higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic". PoltiFact ruled that this statement is "mostly true" (Is education level tied to voting tendencies? 11/5/2012).
So why the HELL would Bill Ivey (a Democrat) write that we need more stupidity (unawareness) when that is EXACTLY what is benefiting Trump? Which is why I knew this story was BS before I found the Snopes article. Willis, on the other hand, believes it because he thinks everyone who isn't for Gary Johnson is "unaware" (stupid or misinformed). Something that points to this country being in VERY bad shape, if it were true, given the fact that less than 1% of voters selected Johnson the last time he ran.
Me, I think it's a sign that we aren't in that bad shape. People not being dumb enough to vote for Johnson, that is. There is still the issue of so many people being dumb enough to support Trump. And dumb enough to believe idiocy like HRC and "flunkies" thinking an uninformed and compliant citizenry will benefit - instead of hurt - Democrats.
But the Hartster is clearly THAT dumb. I mean "dumb" politically, not intelligence-wise. Willis Hart is not uninformed. I'd say he is misinformed. VERY misinformed.
Another commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart that gets filed in the WTF category. To be clear, the "hypocrisy" Hart refers to in his post never actually occurred. He's just guessing and getting offended by what he guesses would happen (which is something he LOVES to do. Get offended by hypocrisy, that is. But the dope usually posts about actual/perceived hypocrisy. As opposed to hypothetical. AKA it didn't happen).
Willis Hart: On Billy Bush Getting Suspended by NBC Because He Once Had a Conversation with Donald Trump About Chicks 11 Years Ago... And I suppose that if Trump and Bush had been two gay guys talking suggestively about a handsome man the punishment would have been exactly the same. Yeah, right. (10/11/2016 AT 4:16pm).
A conversation about chicks? During which they (Trump and Bush) spoke "suggestively". You see my issue here? This is worse than getting offended by something that didn't happen. Donald Trump referred to what was said as "locker room banter", but Hart downplays it even more! Anderson Cooper was correct when he pointed out (during the 2nd potus debate) that what Trump and Bush were talking about was sexual assault.
SEXUAL ASSAULT! As opposed to "talking suggestively", you piece of shit! Oh, and YES, I think anyone talking about sexually assaulting someone should be treated the same. Although that person was Donald Trump, not Billy Bush. So it's (I'd say) at least debatable if Billy Bush should be punished. Perhaps. Wikipedia says he laughed (and more... see video below). Maybe a suspension is in order for laughing? Although Wikipedia says that he's now fired.
But, in regards to Billy Bush being fired... (1) I don't know why he was hired to begin with. I suspect his last name might have something to do with him getting a well paid but easy job. (2) Actual hypocrisy that Willis does not point out would be that nothing was done AT THE TIME. I mean, the exchange exists on video, so obviously other people were aware of what happened. I presume.
Yet nothing came of it until now. Now that it's out and causing bad publicity for NBC. They caved re "criticism online and calls for his resignation". Not that I care. But if there is any hypocrisy (REAL hypocrisy, not hypothetical) this would be it, you idiot Hart.
An idiot as well as a misogynist. I mean, "talking suggestively" about a woman and sexually assaulting her (grabbing a woman by the genitals) are two very, VERY different things. Also (in another context) referring to a woman as a "chick" is OK (I guess). But remember, we're discussing sexual assault. So, to refer to the victims of such an assault as "chicks"... I find that offensive as well.
And, yes, I think Trump has groped. In fact, there is a victim who alleges he did exactly what he says in the video.
Jill Harth, a pageant owner who dealt with Trump in the mid-1990s, sued the businessman in federal court in Manhattan in 1997, alleging "relentless" sexual harassment and assault by Trump, Newsweek reported. In her lawsuit, Harth described a 1992 business meeting she and Trump had at a New York restaurant in which he allegedly reached under the table, touched her thighs and grabbed my intimate private parts. (These Women Say They Know First-Hand Trump Lied When He Denied Really Groping Women Against Their Will by Tierney McAffe. People Politics 10/10/2016).
So he was telling Billy Bush the truth. Looks like it to me, anyway. But, according to the Harster, when Donald Trump recounted his exploits to Billy Bush, it was just "two gay straight guys talking suggestively about a handsome man beautiful woman". NOT sexually assaulting women.
But this is not at all surprising coming from a blogger who has written multiple posts in which he suggests that drunkenness equals consent (if the man and the woman are drunk and have sex and the woman later aserts she was raped... she's lying and the truth is that she changed her mind. Also rape culture is a "thoroughly discredited concept").
Yeah, right. (Note that this a-hole Hart has a history of defending Donald Trump. Although he says he's voting for the liar Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson).
Video: Donald Trump brags to Billy Bush on how he cheats on Melania and sexually assaults women. Access Hollywood video recorded sometime in 2005 (3:19). Billy Bush was fired after the release of the video on 10/7/2016 while Trump went on to be predisent.
The following from BrainAndSpinalCord.com. Information which is pertinent to a point I'm going to make regarding the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.
Adequate oxygen is vital for the brain. ... When oxygen levels are significantly low for four minutes or longer, brain cells begin to die and after five minutes permanent anoxic brain injury can occur. Anoxic brain injury which is also called cerebral hypoxia or hypoxic-anoxic injury (HAI) is a serious, life-threatening injury; it can cause cognitive problems and disabilities. (Anoxic Brain Injury).
There are many reasons I suspect Willis may be suffering from cognitive problems, but I am not the only one who thinks Mr. Hart has "apparently shed his ability to reason". This observation regarding the Hartster by a former commenter on his blog, as well as a "fellow" Libertarian Rational Nation.
"Shed his ability to reason" due to damage caused by an anoxic brain injury? The following commentary by Mr. Hart COULD explain how that might have occurred.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that I'd Still Waiting for John Oliver's 22 Minute Epic Diatribe Directed at Hillary Clinton (You Know, to Balance Out the Over-the-Top One that He Bludgeoned Trump with); One of the Biggest Piece of Shit Lawyers and Politicians Since Nixon... I can only hold my breath for so long, people. (5/4/2016 AT 5:25pm).
Hillary Clinton is "one of the biggest piece of shit lawyers and politicians since Nixon", huh? And yet Willis sez that, if you held a gun to his head, he'd vote for her over Donald Trump. Even though Hillary Clinton (Willis also sez) is going to be indicted, convicted and go to prison (for "crimes" she committed re her email server) BEFORE voting in November (OST #133).
(This commentary, btw, marks the 2nd time he's referred to Hillary Clinton using the phrase "piece of shit", whereas in the past the hypocrite took GREAT offense when a Lefty blogger referred to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement". See OST #119).
But it is HIGHLY unlikely that HRC is going to be indicted. Also, I'd say the probability of a conviction and locking up behind bars of Clinton has about a zero percent chance of occurring. Zero, as in none. BTW, NONE of these assertions by Willis are a joke. Unlike the John Oliver "22 minute epic diatribe directed at Hillary Clinton" that Willis is holding his breath waiting for.
At least I THINK he's joking in regards to Oliver. I'm pretty sure that he knows there will never be such an episode of "Last Week Tonight". Although if not... if he is actually holding his breath? Although not continuously, as he'd be dead if that were the case. As opposed to authoring (on the average) 3 posts daily.
If he actually is holding his breath, then that could result in an anoxic brain injury. And it absolutely could explain why he's shed his ability to reason (cognitive problems).
There has to be some explanation as to why Willis would vote for Hillary over Donald if HRC is comparable (re piece of shitness) to Nixon. With all the Trump defending (this commentary not withstanding) the Hartster does on his blog, it's pretty clear he views the Trumpster as AT LEAST marginally better.
Trump is, after all (according to WTNPH) the "only Republican candidate who's making sense on Syria", "doesn't seem hellbent on a second cold war", "had the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", was disgusted by the "bum's rush" the media is guilty of (in attacking the Donald), and has thought on multiple occasions "that maybe, just maybe, he isn't that bad".
Not that bad because all his racist, bigoted and misogynistic comments (SWTD #324) are actually only (in WTNPH's opinion) "impolitic statements".
Yeah, I think the majority of the country would not describe racism, bigotry and misogyny as "impolitic". But these kind of comments would not be considered unusual coming from an socially intolerant Conservative Trump-supporting blogger. Or perhaps someone suffering from cognitive problems due to a permanent anoxic brain injury caused by holding his breath for to long.
Video: As for Trump having "the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", the Donald did say "I guess" when asked (in a 2002 Howard Stern Interview) if he supported the Iraq invasion. Which was at "the get" (RIGHT when the war was beginning). But Willis is apparently unaware of what Trump actually said at the time, instead believing Trump's lies about being against the war from the beginning (there is more than one WTNPH commentary praising DJT in this regard on his blog). But, given that Willis thinks that bush LYING us into the Iraq war was just "ham-handed and ultimately tragic", it's impossible to take what he says on this topic seriously. Especially given the fact that he believes the lying Trump and downplays the lies of gwb (OST #113)(2:41).
I think it's finally happened. The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has completely lost his marbles. By which I mean he's flipped his lid; gone totally bonkers. And who knew that it would be delusions concerning the 2016 potus hopefuls that would push him over the edge?
Willis Hart: On the Fact that, While I'm Not a Huge Trump Supporter (Johnson's My Candidate), I Do Take Some Solace from the Likelihood that at Least the Dude Won't be Forced to Run his Campaign from a Prison Cell or from a Pre-1990 Time-Machine in Which the Old Soviet Union Still Exists... Yep, there is that. (4/16/2016 AT 9:43pm).
My Theory as to WTF Willis is talking about?
Obviously, Hillary Clinton is the one who is going to be forced to run her campaign from behind bars. Because an indictment is coming soon (maybe Willis reads NewsMax?). But she's also going to be convicted and imprisoned - and all of this before voting in November! Because we all know how speedy the justice system operates. At least in the fevered imagination of someone afflicted with (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome, apparently (SWTD #333).
As for running a campaign from a "pre-1990 time machine in which the old Soviet Union exists", maybe he's referring to Ted Cruz? Or, is this a "Bernie Sanders is a Commie" reference? What Willis is talking about is unclear.
In any case, I guessed that Willis read about the coming Hillary Clinton indictment on NewsMax because they recently ran a story in which Ronald Kessler (an individual who WTNPH praises as "a 2-time winner of the Peabody award and an individual who has consistently criticized presidents from both parties") was reported to have said (on NewsMax TV's The Steve Malzberg Show) that a Hillary Clinton indictment is coming "definitely before November".
Although Kessler thinks Obama will pardon her, but the "damage will have been done". By this I'm guessing what Kessler thinks will happen is that HRC will be indicted, she will lose the election (the damage), she will be convicted, and then Obama will pardon her.
Unless he's with Willis in believing that HRC will receive a trial of UNPRECEDENTED speed, be convicted and campaign from behind bars. I'm unclear as to what Kessler means. He says the pardon will come too late... so does that mean he's saying a pardon can't save her campaign (meaning he thinks an indictment, trial and conviction will ALL occur before voting in november).
If that's the case, then I'd say that CDS has driven him just as insane as it appears Willis is. If not? Then my assessment is that CDS has only resulted in a level of insanity somewhat lesser than the Hartster's.
In any case, note that Willis said he was "not a huge Trump supporter", by which I take it he means he's somewhat the Trump supporter? Does he think Trump would be a good 2nd choice behind Gary Johnson? And perhaps Willis feels this way because Trump's racism, bigotry and misogyny are in line with his own? I'm guessing yes, given the fact that Willis referred to Trump's racism, Islamaphobia and misogyny as "impolitic statements".
Image: Photoshopped image produced by a an individual suffering from CDS (Clinton derangement syndrome).
Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, specifically in regards to the email controversy).
The Libertarian Willis Hart does it in the following post.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Trump Allowed Himself to get Punked by the Smarmy, Hero-Worshiping, Intellectually-Challenged, Nearly Unwatchable, and Bonkers Left-of-Center TV Host, Chris Matthews... How embarrassing is that? I mean, if you can't match wits with a slant-headed, buffoonish wack-job like Matthews, what chance do you have amongst world leaders? Maybe the "establishment" is right for a change.
P.S. And as far as abortion (the issue that Trump flubbed) goes, I don't doubt that Trump gives a rat's ass about it and that dullard response to Matthews was strictly what he thought that his target audience wanted hear. The dude was pandering, in other words. (4/3/2016 AT 4:11pm).
(Note: Regarding the struck word - I replaced "don't" with "doubt" because I think it's the word Willis intended to use).
My one sentence response? Not enough pejoratives (and yes, I mean that sarcastically).
So my impression is that the Hartster REALLY doesn't like Chris Matthews. But why use this topic to bash him? This is the interview in which Trump said that he thinks abortion is murder and that women should be "punished" if they exercise their right to choose.
And Willis has no problem with the response... because he guesses that Trump is "pandering". So, if elected he'll leave things as they are, I guess. Although Trump did say he thinks it's a states' rights issue. Sure, because we should have different abortion laws in each state.
Makes a lot of sense that Willis would get behind/defend Trump on this, given the fact that Libertarians generally oppose abortion. No, wait. Aside from the Pauls, my impression has been that they're for a woman's right to choose (Libertarian Party Platform: Abortion is a woman's choice and does not concern the state).
BTW, all those pejoratives and Chris Matthews is still only "NEARLY unwatchable"? How many more insults would Willis need to add to the list for the "nearly" to go away, I wonder?
Anyway, apparently "pandering" is OK in Willis the Trump defender's eyes. At least when it's not a Democrat doing it.
Willis Hart: On Breitbart's Michelle Fields Claiming that She Was Roughed Up by a Trump Lackey When the Video Clearly Shows that She Wasn't... How many more of these ludicrous incidents do we have to endure before we can finally conclude that women are just as capable of lying as men are and that we should probably be a tad more skeptical when these accusations (and worse; the Duke lacrosse case, for example) are thrown around? Me, I'm already there. (3/27/2016 AT 5:03pm).
When Willis says he's "already there", I assume by "there" he means a place where facts don't matter and he believes what he wants to believe. Because Fields is a liar and the video "clearly shows" she wasn't roughed up MUST be why the "Trump lackey" Corey Lewandowski was charged and arrested for misdemeanor battery by the Jupiter FL police.
This must also be why The Daily Beast has reported that "Video shows Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbing reporter Michelle Fields".
Despite the Trump camp's outright denial that any such altercation occurred, viewers can see at the 10-second mark that Lewandowski reached with his left arm for Fields's left arm, briefly grabbing her. Lewandowski's grasp then broke before he reached again, this time on her left arm, which is where Fields showed she was bruised the day after. (3/11/2016 Daily Beast article by Andrew Kirell & Justin Miller).
And, because the video shows Fields lies must explain why Washington Post reporter Ben Terris said "I had been a witness to the incident between Fields and Lewandowski".
Ben Terris: As security parted the masses to give him passage out of the chandelier-lit ballroom, Michelle Fields, a young reporter for Trump-friendly Breitbart News, pressed forward to ask the Republican front-runner a question. I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump's 41-year-old campaign manager.
Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm. "I'm just a little spooked", she said, a tear streaming down her face. "No one has grabbed me like that before". She took my arm and squeezed it hard. "I don't even want to do it as hard as he did", she said, "because it would hurt". (Inside Trump's inner circle, his staffers are willing to fight for him. Literally by Ben Terris. 3/10/2016 The Washington Post).
Ben Terris is obviously lying as well. And how stupid to do so when the video "clearly shows" they are! Although it doesn't. And the video showing that Lewandowski does grab Fields, and that there was a witness likely explains why Lewandowski was arrested. In my opinion. Fields being female having NOTHING to do with why she should be believed or not. Although the misogynist Hart apparently thinks Fields is getting the benefit of the doubt simply for being female (despite the fact that there is a male witness).
And, YES, I'm correctly labeling this as misogyny... because Willis is bringing up the Duke LaCrosse case due to his strongly held belief that women FREQUENTLY lie about being raped. When what he thinks actually happened (90 percent of the time) is that two drunk people had sex and the lying slut regretted it (OST #81).
Anyway, that Willis ludicrously says the video shows Fields is being dishonest (when it shows she is being honest) is proof (IMO) that the Hartster is a man that is VERY capable of lying.
Supporting Document
[DSD #19] The Libertarian Trump Defender. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he defends Trump, acts as an apologist for Trump, downplays Trump comments, or goes after Trump protestors).
