On WTNPH's Allegation That It Isn't Trump, But Hillary Clinton Who Has Russia Connections

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.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence of Clinton corruption via "pay-for-play" or "quid pro quo". As Snopes and Politifact point out. And as the scumbag Peter Schweizer himself admits (Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes).

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).

OST #204

Pure Idiocy #2

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart on the debunked fake news story PizzaGate. Again.

Willis Hart: On the Scurrilous Accusation that I Get All of My News from Fake News Sites (You Know, as Opposed to Legitimate Sources Such as Rachel MadDUH, the Young Jerks, the Clinton News Network, the New York Crimes, the War Street Journal, the Washington Compost Heap, the Weekly Substandard, Snopes, Dan I'd Rather Not, Spittin' Chris Matthews, PolitiCON, etc.) I get my information from a wide variety of sources, NONE OF WHICH I TAKE AT FACE VALUE (as opposed to these leftist degenerate fools who hang on every word that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow say as if it was gospel). So, with this Pizzagate story, for example, yes, I did watch some of the Youtbe videos on it but I also went directly to Wikileaks and examined the emails for myself and, guess what, folks. It appears that these Podesta brothers (along with a small cadre of other perverts) ARE communicating in some sort of pedophilia code. and not only is the mainstream media not covering these cretins, they're giving them cover!! So, ya' still bent out of shape over this fake news, leftists? P.S. And, no, I never said a single time that Mrs. Clinton herself was involved in this. That was a bald-faced lie and the person who said it is a dirty, slimy, low-down slice of shit. Excuse my French. (12/18/2016 AT 5:08pm).

WHO said Willis gets all his news from fake news sites? WHO said it, you idiot?! As usual, zero details. He just goes off on a litany of news sources he doesn't like (via childish name calling). I guess he couldn't come up with a insult-name for Snopes.

Snopes might be on his list because I included a Snopes link in one of my comments in a response to Willis talking about fake news. He said fake news is a "nonsensical talking point". And I said, if that is the case, he must believe that the Pope endorsed Trump.

Then I wrote that Willis "believes fake news stories that have HRC at the heart of a child sex ring". Which is what the conspiracy theory says (Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria Home to Child Abuse Ring Led by Hillary Clinton).

Although during this exchange (which took place on WYD) I never said he gets all his news from fake news sites. I never said that, so if he's talking about me, he's lying. Also, I assumed that, since Willis buys the PizzaGate bullshit, he buys all of it. My mistake. He said he does not believe HRC is involved, and I ACCEPTED his response. What I wrote was "So you don't believe every aspect of it. OK".

So how does that make me a liar? I didn't lie. I assumed he believed the conspiracy theory in it's entirety. He said he did not and I said "OK". That isn't LYING, you moron! Or should I say "that isn't lying, you dirty, slimy, low-down slice of shit" (WTF is a "slice of shit"?).

BTW, the Podesta brothers are NOT communicating in some sort of pedophilia code. They're talking about cheese and pizza, idiot. Also, the MSM is NOT "giving cover" to pedophiles. According to NBC's Tom Costello "we've talked to the DC police. We've talked to the FBI. They have absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is true". (I have no link for this quote, as I copied it down when I heard it on Chris Matthew's show on 12/5/2016).

It must be because they're Democrats. Republicans they arrest. Eventually. I refer to Dennis Hastert, who Willis, in one of his comments calls a "convicted pedophile". Which he isn't. He should be, but the statute of limitations ran out.

I mention this up because the evil blog troll Luke Spencer, when I pointed out that Willis had his facts wrong, replied "no surprise, Dervish and RN support Dennis H. That's exposing their true character".

A lie. Pointing out that Willis has his facts wrong (as he often does) isn't "support". Hastert SHOULD be a convicted pedophile. But he wasn't convicted of child molestation. He plead guilty to "structuring". So he is convicted. And he is a pedophile. But he wasn't convicted for pedophilia (which WTNPH's comment inferred).

Anyway, while I corrected the a-hole Luke, my comment doesn't seem to be showing up. I left another one and the first one reappeared. Now, I just checked and it's gone again (I commented twice after Luke's lie but right now I see neither). Commenting seems to be buggy on WYD (with MANY of my comments vanishing).

OST #189

100% Clueless

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart is convinced that the reason Hillary Clinton lost the election because the electorate agrees with him. Every one of his personal grievances against HRC were the VERY reasons why HRC "lost" to Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Over the Last Four Weeks or so Democrats and the Media Elites Have Blamed Everything from Voter Fraud to Racism to Russian Hacking to Internalized Misogyny for Hillary's Defeat and it Has Never Once Dawned on Them that the Real Reason for this Calamitous Event Was the Fact that They Had a Shit-Show Candidate Who's Wrecked and Destabilized Numerous Countries, Taken Money from Dirt-Bag Governments Like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Threatened to Nuke Iran, Armed Terrorists in Syria, Lied to the Families of the Benghazi Victims, and Screwed the Dirt-Poor Haitians... There comes a point in one's life when you have to look inward and, yes, that would be my advice to these people. Big time. (12/13/2016 AT 10:14pm. Also posted to WYD, 12/15/2016 at 4:40pm).

These are all reasons why Willis Hart voted against Hillary Clinton (and there is some truth in the grievances as he lays them out) but NONE of these reasons explain why ANY voter pulled the lever for Trump (OK possibly a few, but their numbers were surely insignificant).

And he mentions "voter fraud" again, which (as I pointed out in OST #186) is total bullshit. The Left points to election fraud (which is when the people running the election cheat, as opposed to individual voters). And YES, I believe that election fraud cost HRC the election (DSD #54).

There were, however, a number of (I don't know how many) blue-collar Whites who voted for Trump. And the reason they voted for Trump was because he ran an anti-globalization/anti-TPP campaign. While HRC ran as a 3rd term for Obama. Obama supports the TPP. HRC said she didn't, but clearly the blue-collar Whites who voted for Trump didn't buy it. And HRC never said she would do anything to bring any jobs back (to my recollection). While Trump did (even if he is lying).

Willis Hart's list of personal grievances? NOT a factor. He SUPPORTS globalization/free trade, which is why he voted for Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson. Johnson did better this time, but it was because he got the votes of Republicans who support free trade. The White blue-collar workers whose jobs have (and are) being outsourced voted for Trump because he said he'd bring those jobs back.

They did NOT vote for Trump as a HRC protest vote because of what she did as Secretary of State. Sorry Willis, but you're TOTALLY clueless on this. BTW, there were voters who voted Trump because of racism. Although these were (for the most part, I'd bet) not White blue-collar workers whose jobs are being outsourced, they are White racists who don't ordinarily vote.

Anyway, Willis lecturing the HRC campaign and saying the reason HRC lost is 100% due to her foreign policy, when the reason is that they didn't reach out to the White blue-collar workers who globalization has hurt is ironic. Given his support for free trade.

For the record, I did have a big problem with HRC in that she is a hawk. I actually agree, although not 100% with Willis (HRC did not lie to the Benghazi families. That's bullplop). But that is absolutely NOT why she lost. She lost due because of election fraud, firstly. And secondly it was because Obama supports the TPP. And HRC supported the TPP. And HRC didn't reach out to the White blue-collar workers who are losing their jobs because of globalization.

Willis THINKS he gets it. But he is 100% clueless, as his post demonstrates.

OST #187

Willis Hart Is A Misogynist Hypocrite (Re Samantha Bee Being A Stupid "B")

Even though the election is over and Donald Trump will be our next preznit (baring the Electors voting for the popular vote winner), the Libertarian idiot Willis Hart is still attacking Hillary Clinton and posting mildly critical (at most) comments about the Orange Buffoon. Or fluff like "It's different. I grant you that" (re Trump's tweeting continuing when he is preznit).

This time the hypocrisy and misogyny of the Hart idiot is in regards to former president Bill Clinton and how (back in 2013) Willis was not all that concerned about WJC being a "cheater".

Willis Hart: On Bill Clinton Being a Cheater... Fair enough. But after 13 years of noncheaters, maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again... I'm just sayin'. (9/25/2013 AT 4:26pm).

A cheater, but not the wife of a cheater. That is someone we DEFINITELY do not need as president. Fact is, when a cheating husband cheats, it is the wife's fault. And while not a big deal when Bill Clinton did it, it IS a big deal now and is something Willis uses... to criticize Hillary Clinton! (as well as another woman who DARES to defend/support her).

Willis Hart: Note to Samantha Bee... You stupid bitch. You stupid, stupid bitch. Yes, Trump is a douche-bag and, yes, he's said some sexist things... but your candidate, your goddess, Mrs. Clinton... denigrated the women who her husband has been accused of sexually assaulting and having affairs with (calling them "trailer trash" and other such insults)... [blah, blah, blah] her philandering husband... (11/17/2016 AT 11:26pm).

Gee, what a surprise that the Hartster uses the "B" word to describe a liberal woman pundit/political comedy show host he doesn't like. If she were also Black the insult would almost certainly have been that Samantha Bee is a "minstrel" as well (because, in addition to being a misogynist, WTNPH is quite racist).

BTW, Trump has said "some sexist things". Ya think? But what about his bragging about sexually assaulting women (grabbing them by the pussy)? Willis thinks that was just Billy Bush having "a conversation with Donald Trump about chicks". And, YES, that is an exact quote!

Bragging about sexually assaulting women is "a conversation about chicks". A DOWNGRADE from "locker room talk"! Can there be ANY doubt that the Harster is a misogynist? Seriously?

OST #184

Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Incredibly Eager To Believe Any & All BS He Reads About Hillary Clinton & "Flunkies"

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.

OST #182

On WTNPH's Concern For HRC Health Truther Drew Pinsky Getting Canned

Makes sense that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart would defend him, given that Pinsky is a fellow Libertarian (Pinsky "has increasingly spoken of the tyranny of governmental overreach").

On the other hand, when Willis wrote about an incident that took place on Dr. Drew's program back on 8/4/2016, he seemed to think Pinsky was a Leftist (Willis authored an outraged post in which he complained about "some transgender" grabbing Conservative Pundit, Ben Shapiro, on Pinsky's show. Part of the outraged seemed to have something to do with Pinsky allowing "some transgender" get away with it. See OST #140).

But perhaps Willis, since authoring that post, has discovered that Pinsky is actually a Libertarian? Whatever the case may be, Hart's current outrage concerns Dr. Drew's HLN program being cancelled. Possibly because he's jumped on the lunatic "Health Truther" train (and Willis approves of this line of attack).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that HLN Cancelled Dr. Drew's Program Only Several Days After He Questioned Not Just Mrs. Clinton's Health but Her Healthcare (the Fact that She's on Coumadin, for Example, an Old Drug that Is Rarely Used These Days) [Link]... It could be a coincidence (I guess that they're also deep-sixing Nancy Grace - THANK GOD!). But how many more coincidences are the Clintons allowed before we start to get a wee-bit suspicious? I mean, they are beginning to stockpile (Bill Clinton's "chance" meeting with the AG, Seth Rich and four or five others ending up dead, Bernie Sanders getting butt-fucked, etc.). (9/6/2016 AT 4:15pm).

OK, so IMO it's far more likely that DJT is suffering from a serious health problem that could affect him being commander-in-chief. What with that bogus doctor's note he put out. It's cause to think, what's he hiding? Whereas HRC has released an actual doctor's report on her health.

As for why HLN cancelled Dr. Drew's program, I frankly do not give a shit. I've never watched any of his programs, nor watched HLN. Except when Joy Behar had a program on that channel (The Joy Behar Show, which ran on HLN from 2009 to 2011).

But maybe Pinsky was fired for spouting off on this Right-imagined conspiracy theory? If so I say "good for them" (whoever at HLN cancelled him). If he's going to go out of his way to say "hey, I'm a nut who buys into Right-wing conspiracy theories", I say he should be cancelled.

BTW, in regards to Coumadin (a brand name for the drug Warfarin), it "is still very commonly prescribed by doctors" (according to Snopes). So, while it may be an old drug ("it was approved for use as a medication in 1954"), that it is "rarely used these days" is a false assertion.

But this is part of the Health Truther spiel. Which Dr. Drew is apparently on board with, given the fact that (as the Daily Beast notes), the "page-and-a-half letter from Dr. Lisa Bardack, Clinton's physician at Mount Kisco Medical Group, [addresses] all of Pinsky's grave concerns [re HRC's health]" (Dr. Drew Leads the Hillary Clinton Health Truthers).

So he's ignoring the evidence right in front of him and just going with the narrative/conspiracy theory, in other words. The one that says HRC is at death's door (and thus not fit to lead the country). And Willis buys it, apparently. Whereas the Hartster has not once mentioned the BS letter from Manhattan gastroenterologist Harold Bornstein (Trump's doc) and the bizarre letter he wrote. The one that said Trump (if he "wins") would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency".

As for "coincidences", I fail to see how this qualifies. The only reason this could qualify as a "coincidence" is if you thought Dr. Drew getting fired was somehow of benefit to HRC, which I don't see. I mean, the conspiracy theory lives on. It isn't as if Dr. Drew continuing to add his voice to the chorus (and using his show as a platform to do so) would make a difference in the election.

The more logical explanation is that Pinsky's ratings slipped. Or that his bosses heard his rant and said "get rid of this quack" (which would be what my reaction would've been, were I an HLN bigwig).

FYI, Willis mentions Seth Rich, which is a reference to another conspiracy theory that says Rich (an HRC for potus campaign staffer) was the source of the DNC WikiLeaks dump, and that HRC had him murdered for his betrayal. To which I say (WTNPH mentioning the conspiracy theory, not the conspiracy theory itself)... figures. He's down with ALL the HRC conspiracy theories. All the while totally ignoring all the Trump ones.

Image: HRC "health truther" Drew Pinsky, a Libertarian nut who (like Willis Hart) thinks democracy is tyranny and who has said that "ObamaCare will fail" and that he is sick of the government.

OST #177

Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Sez That If You're Female & In The Public Eye, You've Got To Be A "Babe" (Regardless Of Age)

In a 8/24/2016 commentary, the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart criticizes Hillary Clinton not for Benghazi or her email server (as he has in the past) but for not being a "babe". And he does this via an exceptionally stupid observation regarding HRC aide Huma Abedin.

Willis Hart: America's Next First Lady? [3X pics of Huma Abedin] Well, she is an improvement over the previous few (Mrs. Clinton herself, especially - SO not a babe). That's for certain (her ties to that radical Islamist publication, notwithstanding). (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

If/when HRC is elected president, Huma Abedin will NOT be the First Lady, you moron! First Lady isn't a position that has to be filled. If we elect a woman president, obviously there won't be a First Lady. Or someone else will perform the duties of White House hostess. But won't be called "First Lady", as that could feed the HRC lesbian rumors. Which is foolishness an HRC administration wouldn't need to be distracted with (Pam Geller is Convinced That Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin Are Definitely Lesbians).

As for Huma's "ties to that radical Islamist publication", an 8/21/2016 NYP article notes that Huma worked (for 10 years) as the "assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother [Saleha Mahmood Abedin], who remains editor-in-chief". And then the article goes on to talk about objectionable articles authored by her mother (anti-woman's rights, US brought 9/11 on itself). And the assistant editor position is one Huma held while "she was also working in the White House as an intern for then-first lady Clinton".

Is this cause for concern? Perhaps. Wikipedia notes that "experts on Islam and the members of the journal's advisory board called [the NYP article] ridiculous [because the article] cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles". Additionally, "CNN reported that those familiar with the journal described it as "scholarly, academic and nonpartisan [and that its content] does not raise red flags". NOT a "radical Islamist publication", in other words.

In any case, just because Huma Abedin worked for her mother doesn't mean she shares her mother's views*. Or that she STILL shares them*. And HRC obviously disagrees with Saleha Mahmood Abedin's views* (*if Saleha Mahmood Abedin views are what Rupert Murdoch's NYP says they are). Also remember that Huma Abedin does not set policy. And, while the HRC campaign may not be addressing this presently, I'd be surprised if it doesn't come up before the election. Possibly in a HRC/DJT debate (if he doesn't chicken out).

This, btw, is a subject on which I'd have thought that Willis might go after HRC for. Given how much he hates HRC and Islam (being an Islamophobe). Instead he authors a post that has Huma as First Lady (a title I seriously doubt she'd want) and in which he ogles Huma while dissing Hillary. For their looks. As if that has ANYTHING to do with Huma as HRC's advisor or what HRC did as First Lady.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the a-hole cartoonist Ben Garrison (a fellow misogynist) and his cartoon that says Melina Trump will make the First Lady position "great again" (this would be the drawing in which he depicts Michelle Obama as a frowning muscled tranny with a bulge). Given how much Willis seems to like this Garrison douche (OST #148).

BTW, I don't know if WTNPH is referring to HRC not being a "babe" now (at 69), or when she was First Lady (ages 46 to 52). Huma Abedin, in the pics Willis used, does look good at 40, while HRC (as FLOTUS) entered the White House at age 46 (1993-2001). But I think she looked pretty good then. Not many women get to the "elderly" age range and are still considered "babes" (Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Dolly Parton, Raquel Welch). But not women who age normally (don't get procedures).

But LOOKS are how the misogynist Hartster judges all women. Or most women (perhaps he gives women who share his political views some leniency). I mean, he's written many posts about how he watches Fox Nooz for the hottie anchor babes. Babes he has ranked based on hotness.

In any case, as for HRC not being a "babe", that certainly is not a requirement for First Lady that I have. Although I'd say Michelle Obama is a babe (despite what WTNPH's mancrush Ben Garrison thinks). Although I think HRC definitely (at least) started out as a babe (see image of 18YO HRC below, a picture I found attached to an article titled "Did you know Hillary used to be this hot?").

Images: [1] An 18 year-old Hillary Rodham is shown in her 1965 senior class portrait from East High School in Park Ridge IL. [2] HRC was 1st Lady from 1994 to 2001; this image is from 1995 when she was 48. Perhaps (at this point in her life) she isn't a babe any longer, but I think she looks pretty hot in this particular picture.

OST #174

In What Bizarro Universe Should HRC Be Prosecuted For Having A Private email Server Even Though She Did't Break The Law?

In the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's Bizarro universe, apparently. And he also thinks that because Republican FBI Director James Comey decided not to prosecute HRC that "someone got to him".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in FBI Director James Comey's Bizarro Universe, the Terms "Extremely Careless" and "Gross Negligence" Are World's Apart... Somebody got to him. And if you listen to the man's presentation, everything that he said pointed straight to a recommendation to indict (the fact that dozens of these messages were considered classified AT THE TIME, the fact that her server wasn't even as secure as Gmail, his admission that other people would have been penalized for these transgressions, etc.). And then, kaboom, nothing!!! Oh well, time to move on, I guess. (7/6/2016 AT 5:17pm).

So previously Willis indicated that he was positive that HRC would be forced to run her campaign from a prison cell, meaning she would be prosecuted and convicted before voting in November of 2016 (OST #133). Now that that has not happened (which I predicted it would not) Willis thinks "someone got to him"?!

No, the reason HRC isn't being prosecuted is because she did not break the law. As he indicated in testimony today (7/7/2016) before the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Jason Chaffetz. (Note: audio clips sourced from The Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016 and transcribed by me).

AUDIO CLIP #1 Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgement is that she did not. Jason Chaffetz: You're just not able to prosecute it, or did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer, but the question I always look at is - is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgement here is that there is not. AUDIO CLIP #2 James Comey: When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with those whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So, given that assessment of the facts [and] my understanding of the law, my conclusion was (and remains) no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in a hundred years focused on gross negligence. So I know that's been a source of confusion for some folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would and nobody did. (Audio clips via the Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016, Transcribed by me).

Stephanie Miller (on the 7/6 edition of her show) informed her listeners and viewers there would be no charges because "the case lacked the aggravating factors that have lead prosecutors to press charges in the past. Comey noted those previously charged in such instances intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information, or did so in such vast quantities that they must have known what they were doing...".

In addition SM noted (quoting an AP story) that such mishandling of information was routine and "consistent with the State Department culture over the past 2 administrations".

So, the standard (regarding decisions on whether or not to bring charges) is (apparently) not "gross negligence" but whether or not the person violated the rules intentionally. Although Willis is clearly convinced that the standard is Gross Negligence alone.

But it isn't. HRC did not break the law because there was no intent. End of story.

The only reason the Hartster finds this "bizarre" is because he strongly dislikes HRC and desperately wanted to see here prosecuted. BTW, that the bush administration also mishandled sensitive information? Yeah, that happened. And the bush White House also deleted a 22 million emails ("a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act") in a successful attempt to coverup election fraud - AG Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases (SWTD #331).

What's truly bizarre IMO is that Gonzales was pressured to step down. And then, kaboom, nothing! This when the evidence CLEARLY pointed to INTENTIONAL violations of the law (bushie attempts to manipulate the vote to get gwb re-elected).

And the main reason this HRC email server controversy went as far as it did - a fricking FBI investigation (when there was no investigation re actual bushie crimes) is because Republicans use EVERY opportunity to attack Democrats. And refuse to stop even when THEIR OWN investigations conclude that Democrats did nothing wrong.

They just "investigate" again (and again, and again)! This explains the 13 published reports on Benghazi. All of which found that there was no "stand down" order, no intelligence failure leading to the Benghazi tradegy, and no administrative wrongdoing (Benghazi By The Numbers).

Now I hear that Congressional Republicans plan to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate HRC re her private email server. And the FACT that the purpose of this "investigation", JUST LIKE the Benghazi "investigation" was to politically harm HRC's presidential campaign (Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Is Illegally Targeting Clinton).

And yet, the outrage of Willis concerns ONLY these fake HRC scandals (he's also quite outraged re HRC/Benghazi) and not the fact that these "investigations" are purely political? And illegal, given that it's a violation of federal law (31 U.S.C. § 1301) to use official government resources for political purposes.

OST #156. See also SWTD #338.

Is Willis Hart Suffering From Cognitive Problems Due To A Permanent Anoxic Brain Injury?

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).

OST #141

Hillary Clinton Will Be Convicted, Go To Prison Over Her eMail Server, & End Up Campaigning From Behind Bars (All Of This Occurring B4 Voting In November)

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).

OST #133

They're All Neocons Now

So now even the Republicans who some say are "seemingly sensible fellows" (John Kasich and Chris Christie) are spouting all sorts of crazy buffoonery about arming this group and shooting down planes from that group. I mean, it's almost as if the Republican party as a whole is under this spell and with the biggest case of amnesia ever (the fact that Iraq was one of the top two or three foreign policy blunders in U.S. history with these bozos seemingly not learning a thing).

Even Donald Trump, who is correct that going into Iraq was a huge strategic blunder says he's going to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. As if that isn't what Obama HAS been doing. In any case - what to do? The blogger Willis Hart suggests voting Libertarian. I say no.

First of all, the Libertarian running for president, Gary Johnson, has ZERO chance of getting elected president. If you want to prevent the most hawkish candidate from getting elected, then I say there is ONLY one choice, and that choice is Bernie Sanders (SWTD #323).

The following is an excerpt from Senator Sanders' campaign website...

Bernie Sanders: I opposed the first Gulf War... because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. ...in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish. While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region. (Issues: War & Peace. Excerpted from the Bernie 2016 website).

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what Gary Johnson would do differently, if by some miracle he was elected president (God forbid). And, while Sanders has a real chance of getting elected to the presidency, there is actually no chance at all of a president Johnson. I know I sure as hell would never consider voting for him, given the fact that Libertarians don't believe the government should be doing shit to provide for the General Welfare.

And they're solidly on the side of the wealthy and corporations. Because, if you shrink government, you diminish the power of The People, leaving an opening for the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum (Exposing Libertarianism: The Belief That We Should Give More Power to Those Who Are Corrupting Government).

Yes, we currently have a huge problem with the wealthy bribing our elected officials to do their bidding. But the solution is to reform the system, not jettison it! Our elected officials are supposed to do our bidding, not the will of the donors and special interests. Yet folks like Willis think the solution is to shrink government so it can't do anyone's bidding. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

That Libertarians profess not to believe this would be the result leads me to think they're either incredibly naive or lying. As for Willis Hart? It appears to me that he's a genuinely duped true believing ignoramus.

As for the Harster and Senator Sanders, Willis has said on more than one occasion that ALL politicians are "mixed bags" (quote: "basically every politician who's ever frigging lived... are quintessentially of a mixed nature"), so given the fact that "by far, the biggest category of [federal government] discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs" you'd think that Willis wouldn't be as hostile to the idea of Sanders winning the democratic nomination as he has been (quote: why can't "Hillary... put this guy... away?").

"This guy" being Senator Sanders and "put away" meaning end his presidential campaign easily). This "wish" (or expectation) that Hillary Clinton should be beating Sanders even though she is clearly considerably more hawkish (Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record).

Yet there have been ZERO commentaries from Willis lauding or acknowledging Senator Sanders for his anti-war (or at least considerably less hawkish) voting record/positions (President Bernie Sanders Will Save America From Endless Counterinsurgency Wars and Protect Our Nation's Veterans).

Whereas the Harster HAS praised Trump for saying going into Iraq was a strategic mistake and for not being a neocon (or listening to them).

So, while the Hartster does signal Trump out for praise as compared to the rest of the Republican field (in regards to his claims of being against the Iraq war and being less neocon), he has authored no commentaries even acknowledging that Bernie Sanders is considerably less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Proof that Hart's claims of being "moderate" and "centrist" are similar to Fox Nooz's assertion that it's "fair and balanced".

OST #123

Prediction: Willis Hart Wrong Re "Democrats Need To Look Elsewhere For A Candidate... Before The Bitch Gets Indicted"

The misgoynist blogger Willis Hart has a prediction regarding the likely Democratic potus nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Willis Hart: ...just maybe, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate (you know, before the bitch gets indicted). (3/19/2016 AT 4:16pm).

Previously Willis said HRC is a "lying piece of shit lawyer who may in fact be wearing a jump-suit by election time". MAY, he said. Now he's sounding a LOT more convinced that an indictment is coming. I mean, he didn't say "the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate because the bitch might be indicted".

My prediction is that the Democrats won't "look elsewhere" as it is too late. HRC is well on her way to securing the nomination. Personally I'm for Bernie Sanders, but I'm sure that he's NOT the "elsewhere" Willis is referring to, given that he thinks Sanders is an "economically illiterate socialist buffoon", a "creep", and a "dim bastard" who needs to "climb out of some primordial morass learning how to stand upright while simultaneously keeping the spittle intact".

I'll guess that, even though Willis was enthusiastic about the candidacy of the Republican inexplicably running as a Democrat Jim Webb, he's talking about VP Joe Biden. You know, the guy who decided not to run and currently has zero delegates.

So, no that isn't going to happen. We hear that the Repub establishment might try to take the nomination from Trump via a brokered convention, but HRC is the establishment candidate. And she will likely have enough delegates. If she's the voter's choice AND the establishment's choice she is going to get the nomination.

Anyway, getting indicted for her emails? The likelihood of that happening is extremely low.

TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous". ...chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea ...a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness" [TPM, 2/1/15]. ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her". ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. ..."there is no evidence..." [ABC News, 2/1/16] (Experts Push Back Against Right-Wing Media Claim Clinton Emails Violated Federal Law by Cydney Hargis. Media Matters 2/1/2016).

Willis also claims that HRC "kept sensitive national security information on what now appears to have been a poorly encrypted system", suggesting (as the RW media has suggested) that she put this info at risk. But "security logs... show no evidence of any foreign hacks" (No evidence of hack in Hillary Clinton's email, former tech aide tells FBI).

Bottom line here... I seriously doubt there will be any kind of indictment. Very seriously.

Finally... in regards to the Hartster's previous outrage concerning a Lefty blogger (on a Progressive site he used to visit and comment on) referring to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement", and him saying "I don't condone ad hominem attacks"... what a f*cking hypocrite (OST #119).

But that WTNPH would have one opinion re Sarah Palin and another when he lobs a practically identical fecal-based pejorative at Hillary Clinton is not a surprise at all. Same as it's no surprise that he wanted the Conservative Webb to be the Democrat's nominee (Why EVERY Conservative Should Support Democrat Jim Webb For President).

Video: "This guy's not a Democrat" says Progressive radio host Thom Hartmann (on 3/4/2016) re Jim Webb saying "no, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton" but he might vote for Trump (Jim Webb: I won't vote for Clinton, but I may for Trump)(1:29).

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).

OST #121

Wills Hart Astounding Hypocrisy Re OK For Him To Call Hillary Clinton A Piece Of Shit, Not OK For Lefties To Refer To Sarah Palin As Excrement

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart likes to present himself as a Moderate type of guy who dislikes both Republicans and Democrats equally, but he's a total phony and hypocrite.

Willis Hart: On the Prospect of a Trump Versus Clinton Race this Fall... I'm taking a mental shower just thinking about it (an erratic ego-maniacal snake-oil salesman versus yet another lying piece of shit lawyer who may in fact be wearing a jump-suit by election time). (3/3/2016 AT 3:44pm).

First of all, Hillary isn't going to be wearing a jumpsuit (due to being convicted of crimes relating to having a private email server). This assertion is delusional thinking you'd expect coming from some far Right nutter.

Secondly, Willis referring to HRC as a "lying piece of shit" is rich, given his sustained outrage when he read similar comments concerning Sarah Palin on a Lefty blog (back when he ventured outside of his echo chamber).

Willis Hart Post: Sarah Palin obviously exploited that motorcycle rally today. But, come on here, folks... some of the vitriol of late; "media whore", "trailer trash", "classless piece of excrement", "trashy wench"... it's really starting to scare me, people. (5/30/2011 AT 4:26pm). Willis Hart Post: On Sarah Palin Being a Classless Piece of Excrement... The debate (between me and this small contingent of progressives) isn't about whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be President (she isn't)... It's about how low people apparently have to go to feel superior. ... Look, folks, I'm sure that there are conservative blogs out there that are equally vile toward the President... But, as of now, I haven't seen a single one. (6/2/2011 AT 7:54pm). Willis Hart Post: The Indecency of Extremism... Only in the farthest fetters of far-left (i.e., progressive) la-la land would the "defending" of Sarah Palin against slurs such as "worthless piece of excrement"... be considered as "defending Sarah Palin". It's insane, folks. (6/29/2011 AT 3:30pm). Willis Hart Comment: I don't condone ad hominem attacks, Shaw. I don't condone that guy calling you "vermin". I don't condone Lesley Parsley calling Sarah Palin "a worthless piece of excrement". (3/16/2012 AT 1:10pm). Willis Hart Comment: Hopefully, I will never go quite that far. [calling SP excrement] (4/7/2012 AT 3:32pm).

That's a HELL of a lot of bellyaching over one comment (from Lesley Parsley on Sue's blog). It offended Willis so much he got scared. Presumably because he couldn't believe Progressives would sink so low (weird, given how much he hates Progressives, referring to them as Regressives). Yet he does the same thing in regards to Hillary Clinton?

Willis said "hopefully, I will never go quite that far", but now he has. Only in the farthest fetters of extreme Conservative (i.e. Libertarian) la-la land would engaging in the hurling of poop-based insults such as "lying piece of shit" (when said person previously objected vigorously to this kind of behavior) not be considered hypocritical in the extreme. The suggestion that Willis Hart was EVER a "moderate"? It's insane, folks.

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).

OST #119

Surprise! Libertarian Blogger Buys Rightwing Spin Re Mitch McConnell Vow To Not Consider Obama Scalia Replacement

The blogger Willis Hart claims to be a Libertarian-leaning Moderate, but (as is so often the case) he allows the Rightwing media to inform his views.

Willis Hart: On Mitch McConnell's Threat to Block Any Potential Obama Supreme Court Appointment... It's unfortunate but being that Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term it's hard to be surprised by it. Welcome to D.C. in the 21st Century, folks. (2/17/2016 AT 7:50pm).

Not really, according to Media Matters... and yes, Media Matters is Leftwing. A source Willis would dismiss out-of-hand, most likely with a pejorative like labeling them part of the "Regressive media".

Media Matters: Media are making false comparisons between current Republican rhetoric and past Democratic actions and comments to undermine the president's pledge to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Unlike Democrats in the past, Republicans are indicating they will refuse to even engage in the nomination process at all, an abdication of their basic constitutional responsibilities that is unprecedented. [quoting CBS, 2/15/2016] Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court. "It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed", Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait". He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench. He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin. (Media Use False Comparisons To Undermine Obama's Supreme Court Nomination).

Of course we don't know if Congressional Republicans will follow through with their threat yet, but Schumer objected to the nominees... he was NOT refusing to consider ANYONE... making the Willis' claim that "the Democrats did it too" bullshit.

In fact, the Democrats were never even given an opportunity to follow through with Schumer's "threat", because there were no further SCOTUS vacancies after Roberts and Alito were confirmed WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES. Which, I would say, is the biggest difference between the McConnell and Schumer statements... Schumer was talking about hypothetical appointments, while McConnell is speaking of an ACTUAL appointment. A fact that makes this McConnell/Schumer statement equating such a f*cking brain-diseased narrative.

BTW, the reason behind the Schumer statement? He made it because the Democrats felt snookered by both "balls and strikes" Roberts and "elections should be for sale to the highest bidder" Alito.

Senate Democrats regret supporting Roberts, Alito (excerpt from a 7/23/10 The Hill article by J. Taylor Rushing) Twenty-two Democrats backed Roberts in 2005, while four supported Alito four months later. From the rank and file to senior members, Democrats widely said they were particularly frustrated that Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, portrayed himself as an umpire merely calling balls and strikes. Instead, they say, he has joined the far-right wing of the court and been a leading voice in recent controversial 5-4 rulings. Some of the regrets have been caused by two recent 5-4 decisions with which Democrats have disagreed. Most notably, the Roberts court voted 5-4 in June 2008 to strike down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, a decision that broadened gun rights and was a severe blow to gun-control efforts. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony Kennedy signed the majority ruling.

Another ruling that had Dems regretting their support for Roberts and Alito? (this is the one that I alluded to above by pointing out that Alito believes that our elections should be available for purchase).

Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United", Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath (excerpt from a 9/17/2010 Common Dreams article by Matthew Rothschild) Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings. In a speech on 9/10/2010, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the "Citizens United" decision that the Court handed down earlier this year. Feingold called it "a lawless decision".

There was a lot of disatification with Roberts and Alito on the Democratic side, with MANY Dems saying they were mislead (Roberts and Alito Misled Us by Edward Kennedy, 7/30/2006). This is QUITE different than the reasoning the Congressional Repubs are currently putting forward regarding why they won't even consider an Obama nominee, which includes such nonsensical reasons as it being the last year of Obama's term. The Constitution doesn't say a potus can't nominate a SCOTUS judge in the last year of his presidency, Mitch! (Mitch McConnell's Arguments Against An Obama Supreme Court Nomination Debunked...)

"Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term"??! No, sorry Willis, he did not. But that Willis says this (in agreement with the BS Rightwing spin on their unprecedented obstruction) isn't surprising. Seems the Hartster LOVES these false narratives that paint both sides as equally horrible (because The "Both Sides Do It" Mentality Favors Republicans).

This "both sides do it" narrative is one the the Repubs play up, btw, because they realize NOBODY would buy it if they said they weren't terrible. So they TRY to make it seem like the Dems are equally horrible. This narrative also "gives advocacy to mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road third way types. But, more noticeably, it feeds into the idea of government is the problem" (WTNPH: "I have consistently praised bipartisan efforts... the Concord Coalition, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, No Labels, The Third Way, the Wyden-Ryan compromise on Medicare, etc").

But the Democrats simply are NOT as bad as the Repubs. I mean, as a Democrat, I acknowledge there are a lot of problems on the Democratic side, but Democrats are still way better than Republicans. Just take a look at the respective potus hopefuls on both sides, for Christ! On the Republican side the candidates are arguing over cutting taxes, who will go to war faster with ISIS and Russia, which one will torture more, who's going to restrict a woman's right to choose harder, etc. And they're all going to take healthcare AWAY from people, of course.

Image: A political cartoon representing the reality of the "choice" between the GOP and the DLC. First there was Bill Clinton, then there was Barack Obama. Now we've got a REAL choice with the 2016 potus primaries. We can choose a genuine Progressive (Bernie Sanders), or go with the establishment's choice again, another DLC corporate Dem in Progressive clothing (Hillary Clinton).

OST #111

Note To Olivia Wilde, Staunch Democrat & HRC Supporter

Change the lock to your dressing room or make sure it's locked/secured from the inside. A Libertarian gorilla named Willis Hart claims to have your dressing room key in one paw and the Fort Knox key in the other. Although I suspect it's a bottle of booze in that other paw. And I suspect he plans to use the alcohol to get you blackout drunk... so he can take advantage of you. By which I mean he'll rape you, then claim you voluntarily got drunk and regreted consenting to sex.

Thus ends my "note" (which won't be read by the person it's addressed to). But that never stops Willis (who has posted a note to someone who was deceased at the time).

As for what prompted me to write this note...

Willis Hart: On the the Likelihood that JFK, Al Smith, and the First Mayor Daley Would Be Proud of the Present-Day Democratic Party... Yeah, I'm gonna go with, somewhere between zero and the odds of a gorilla parachuting down to earth with the key to Fort Knox in one paw and the key to Olivia Wilde's dressing-room in the other. Extremely unlikely, in other words. (2/11/2016 AT 10:02pm).

I think this proves that Willis' claim of being a reasonable middle-the-road moderate who criticizes both sides equally isn't quite true. I mean, he does criticize both sides, but he clearly despises one side more than the other. He does not, for example, have a derisive pet name for neocons (whom he dislikes intensely). He just calls them neocons. But Progressives, or "Regressives" as he calls them?

BTW, that's what Willis is REALLY talking about in his post. The fact that it's Hillary and Bernie who are running on the Democratic side. And the fact that Bernie is pushing Hillary to the Left, with each of them promising more government programs (and more government spending). But the fact of the matter is that both parties have moved to the Right (Noam Chomsky: Republicans & Democrats Have Shifted to the Right, and the GOP Is "Off the Spectrum").

Yes, it is true that the 2016 Democratic presidential contenders are running to the Left, but that is what ALWAYS happens. Then they move back to the (supposed) Center after getting elected (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both did. Hillary very likely will). The difference this time is that a GENUINE Progressive is running this time. Bernie Sanders, if elected, won't move back to the "center", because he has been a Progressive for his entire political career. Hillary, not so much.

But, that Hillary has taken more Progressive positions in response to Bernie, has Willis writing ridiculous commentaries such as the one above. As well as others in which he spouts nonsense like referring to Sanders as a "economically illiterate Socialist buffoon".

So, would JFK, Al Smith, and the first Mayor Daley be proud of the present-day Democratic Party... because they've moved so far to the Left (Willis doesn't say this, but we all know it's what he means)? I'm going to go with NO. No, because the Democratic Party has moved to the Right, not the Left. (Democrats Have Moved to the Right, Not the Left).

BTW, while Willis might like to bang Olivia Wilde regardless of her political leanings, the fact is she is a "staunch Democrat" as well as a HRC supporter.

Article author: So I know you're a staunch Democrat - what were you feeling... when Hillary officially announced her campaign? Olivia Wilde: I think Hillary is a really exciting candidate for so many reasons... I think it's really important to protect our new health care law and I think Hillary would be focused on that. I think the equal rights of women in this country is something that's still not a law and she would absolutely be focused on that. Our justice system is a mess and she's aware of that [indicating support for Black Lives Matter?]... My dream is that [Elizabeth] Warren would be Hillary's V.P... (Olivia Wilde: Why I'm Backing Hillary Clinton For President by Melissa Leon. The Daily Beast 4/22/2015).

Yeah, so when Willis parachutes down to earth and opens the door (using the key) to Olivia Wilde's dressing room... I'm sure she's going to scream and tell Willis to get the hell out (and then call security).

OST #108

Concerning The Willis Hart Obsession With Rightwing Spun Fiction Re Hillary Clinton "Lying To Benghazi Families"

More Rightwing stoogery from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, again in service of sliming Hillary Clinton with lies.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Mrs. Clinton Told HER Family One Thing About Benghazi (i.e., that it Was a Planned Terrorist Attack) While Telling the Families of the Four Victims a Totally Different Thing (i.e., that it Was the Result of Some Youtube Video and that the Government Was Going to Go After the Fellow Who Made it) and Has Since Implied that the Families Are ALL Lying (this Despite the Fact that the Father of Ty Woods Has an In-Time Journal Entry Which Substantiates His Version of the Story)... This woman is so venal and, while I agree with those on the left that Trump is a pecker-head, I really have to ask you here, has the man ever done anything as underhanded as this? I'm suspecting that he hasn't. (1/26/2015 AT 3:59pm).

First of all, who the f*ck does Willis think bribed (as per the definition of venal) Hillary to blame the Youtube video for Benghazi?

Secondly, Hillary DID tell her family (as well as a number of others) that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack - and later (not "while") she DID tell the families of the four victims that the attack had something to do with the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video (IOM).

But Hillary did NOT lie! In both instances she was passing along the information she thought was accurate AT THE TIME!

Although the Rightwing "news media watchdog" Accuracy in Media goes with the "lie" BS as well.

"Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group", Hillary e-mailed Chelsea at 11:12pm on September 11, 2012 – even as the incursion raged on. At 3:04pm the next day, the then-secretary of state also spoke the truth to Hisham Qandil, prime minister in Egypt's Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government. She told him by phone: "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film". It was a planned attack – not a protest. Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda". And yet, three days later, she flat-out lied to grieving American citizens about "an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with". (13 Hours Confirms Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Lies about Benghazi by Deroy Murdock. Accuracy in Media 1/25/2016).

This Hillary "lied" BS apparently tracks back to a Conway Daily Sun (a New Hampshire paper) article.

...she [Hillary Clinton] then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn't tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film. (Clinton Talks Iraq and Benghazi With The Sun Ed Board by Daymond Steer. 12/30/2015).

But Hillary's "no" was in response to George Stephanopoulos asking her "did you tell them it was not the film?". To which Hillary answered "no". As in, NO, she didn't tell them it (the attack) was not about the film - she told them it was about the film (as the transcript confirms). And she told that that because that is what they believed at the time.

According to The Benghazi Hoax (an e-book by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt which I have read) "Reuters correspondent Hadeel al Shalchi says that she "reported what people told [her] they saw that day, all of whom she met face to face".

Hadeel al Shalchi's Reuters reporting says "there were protesters present when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked" and the assailants were described as "part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad" (Reuters' Early Report Of Protesters At Libya Attack Raises Questions by Michael Calderone. HuffPo 10/15/2012).

It is true that some in the Administration (including Hillary Clinton) originally believed that the Islamist militia group Ansar al Sharia was responsible for the attack. Because (among other reasons) Ansar al-Sharia said it was them via Facebook. But they later denied responsibility.

After which the State Department produced a report that said the attack had something to do with the IOM Youtube video. A report that was shaped by spokeswoman Victoria Nuland (a former Dick Cheney aid). Nuland insisted a reference to al-Sharia be deleted for political reasons. She says she was concerned that the inclusion of that information "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings" (Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department).

So, just because we all eventually found out that there was no link between the attack and the IOM video, that does not mean Hillary Clinton "lied". There is no proof she lied. And this charge that Hillary has "since implied that the families are ALL lying" is also bullshit (as the video below proves).

As noted in the 10/24/2012 Reuters' article Clinton: Facebook Post About Benghazi Attack Not Hard Evidence, "intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate"... although, in this instance, it appears the initial reports were correct and Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Although militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala (the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia) did also claim that the attack was in retaliation for the video. Even though "subsequent investigations determined... the attacks were premeditated" (Source)

Maybe there was not that much "fog of war" going on as there were people acting based on politics (according to David Brooks the "CIA... went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility [and] out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush"), but there absolutely were some questions (as the Reuters reporting shows) and surely ALL possibilities (of what/who was responsible for the attack) needed to be investigated.

By the way, I should note that the "politics" involved were not the politics others (including Willis Hart) have alleged, which woulf be that the Obama Administration went with the IOM video sparking the attack because it being an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist attack conflicted with their "al Qaeda on the run" narrative (and the truth would hurt Obama's reelection chances).

A narrative they did not have, btw. As the authors of The Benghazi Hoax point out "Obama... never sought to declare an early end to America's stepped-up operations against terrorism" (see SWTD #230 for more information. This commentary, btw contains excerpted portions of that commentary).

The bottom line here is that it is NOT a "fact" that HRC "told her family one thing about Benghazi (or anyone else) WHILE telling the families of the four victims a totally different thing", despite what the Rightwing stooge Willis Hart thinks. Which he ABSOLUTELY is acting as in regards to HRC, whom he has been bashing non-stop on his blog for awhile. Along with Bernie Sanders. The Republican candidates? Not so much.

Video: George Stephanopoulos (ABC This Week 12/6/2015) asks Hillary Clinton "did you tell them it was not the film?". Hillary's answer is NO, she did tell the families that the attack and video were linked.

See also: Rep Alan Grayson On The Republican Charge That Hillary Clinton Did Something Illegal Or Dishonest Re Benghazi (1/28/2016) DSB #31.

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, including in regards to the fake Benghazi scamdal).

OST #100