Saturday 22nd of June 2024

hillary lost because bill played the saxophone...

bill and hillary

As the date for the Alabama Senate special election gets closer, the (if true) appalling revelations about Roy Moore have reignited a dialogue that began with Donald Trump’s infamous Access Hollywood tape released last year. Moore is merely the latest character in a month-long tsunami of sexual assault allegations that have already claimed Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Al Franken, and so many more.

It also revived a national conversation about Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and all the other allegations of wildly inappropriate (proven) and forcible or illegal (not proven, at least yet) Clinton-era sexual shenanigans. Republicans and conservatives have used “Bubba” as their get-out-of-jail-free card for the past two years. But how can Democrats and feminists object to people like Roy Moore or Donald Trump now, when they went to the edge of the envelope to shield and protect Clinton from similar charges of exploiting vulnerable employees, and even possible rape?

The brouhaha was kicked up many a notch by MSNBC liberal Chris Hayes tweeting:

As gross and cynical and hypocrtical as the right's "what about Bill Clinton" stuff is, it's also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 10, 2017


A-list essayists Caitlin Flanagan and Michelle Goldberg quickly jumped into the fray, with think pieces provocatively titled (especially for non-Right writers), “Reckoning With Bill Clinton’s Sex Crimes” and “I Believe Juanita (Broddrick).” Matt Ygelsias probably outdid them all, writing in Vox that Clinton should have resigned in 1998.

Yet as worthwhile as the reading has been on both sides, it seems like everyone is still walking on eggshells to avoid the central point of exactly how and why “feminists saved Bill (and Hillary) Clinton in the 1990s,” as Flanagan pointed out. They may have been on “the wrong side of history,” but from a liberal or feminist point a view during the culture wars of the 1990s, they certainly didn’t think they were.

For one, there is the central and undeniable fact that Bill Clinton had won in 1992 and 1996 where a quarter-century of Democrats had failed—except for Carter, who wasn’t exactly known for his style or pizazz—largely because he had the  sexualized the office of the presidency, in a way then unheard of, even including his hero JFK. 1990s feminists knew this inconvenient truth all too well, and indeed, many of them breathed a sigh of relief because of it. Remember what kind of people the Democrats had at their head of their class before “Bubba” : pasty, intensely middle-aged, desexualized Debbie Downers like Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and Mario Cuomo. In the media-conscious world of the 80s and early 90s, they racked up one loss after another—1984, 1988, the 1994 mid-terms. The public—especially young people—was saying loud and clear, “We’re Just Not That Into You” to the traditional Democrats. As Michael Kinsley noted, after nominating choirboys since Humphrey in 1968, the Democrats got serious about wanting to win in 1992—and that meant nominating a far from “impotent” (in any sense of the word), irresistible-to-the-media “bad boy” who could get the job done with charisma to spare.

read more:


feminism old style...


From an old Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday, February, 1959

feminism new style...


meanwhile at the NYT...

Glenn Thrush, a reporter for the New York Times, is in professional limbo after a Vox article accused the journalist of sexual harassment. Thrush was suspended from the Times Monday pending an investigation just hours after the article was published.

"The behavior attributed to Glenn in this Vox story is very concerning and not in keeping with the standards and values of The New York Times," the outlet said in a statement Monday. "We intend to fully investigate and while we do, Glenn will be suspended."

Thrush was one of the reporters exposed by WikiLeaks as having run his stories by the Clinton camp for approval in 2016.

"Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u," an email exchange between Thrush and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's election campaign chief. "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this… tell me if I f*cked up anything."

read more:

news from the capital of fake news...

We have already mentioned on this site that a lot of Trump-promoting "fake news" came from Macedonia. Here is a bit more (fake or real) news about it. It is likely that Tito Veles, this little town in Macedonia "hated what Clinton had done to Yougoslavia". Did they take their revenge on La Woman?... Is it possible that King Murdoch financed their little operation?


While the world was reeling in shock at the election of Donald Trump as US President, the residents of a small Macedonian town were less surprised. For months, the residents of Veles had been making big bucks from pro-Trump stories. They told Sputnik how they put the once-mighty industrial town back on the map, as the world's capital of "fake news."Amid a sensationally bitter US presidential campaign, "fake news" became the country's hottest buzzword in 2016, with many US analysts declaring that the phenomenon played a significant role in Trump's success. 

Outrageous stories about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were shared millions of times on Facebook. Two of the biggest fabrications were claims that in 2013, 
Clinton said that Trump should run for president and that the Pope had endorsed Trump.

Clinton and her supporters have sought to blame shadowy 
"big data" analysts or "Russian hackers" for persuading the electorate to vote for the Republican candidate.

In reality, the "fake news" that dominated social networks during election season arose out of the kind of economic decline that most Trump supporters would recognize. But rather than the rust belt in the US, this story started in a small town called Veles, Macedonia.
The main protagonists are educated, IT-savvy young people with a desire to make money and skills that outstrip their job prospects. Their sole concern: making thousands of dollars by giving American news consumers what they wanted - stories about Trump. 
He and his school friends started their operations by buying plausible-sounding domain names, installing Wordpress on the new site to make it look like a legitimate blog, and then loading it with articles. Once they had 50-60 articles on the website, they applied to become affiliated with an advertising program such as Google Adsense, which earns them revenue from website traffic. 

US residents account for more than a quarter of the world's consumer market, making election fever there a prime opportunity to earn advertising revenue. This revenue may be based on the principle of pay per sale, pay per click on the advertiser's banner, or pay per impression, according to how many times an advertiser appears on the site. 

"The American click is the most valuable, so that's why they started doing this business. They targeted only American people and they targeted news about Donald Trump because we wanted to get a lot of American clicks, just to earn money." 

Although his site published pro-Trump content, Dimitar was not in fact a supporter of the Republican candidate. His preference was for Bernie Sanders, but news about the Democratic contender didn't get him as many clicks and, consequently, advertising profit. 

"I know a lot of my friends tried to post news about Hillary and Bernie Sanders but only Donald Trump news was very clickable and only the Donald Trump stories were very shared," he explained. 

Dimiter said that his site got shut down by in June 2017 by Google, which "went on this spree of shutting down sites that are here in Veles so in that period they pretty much took all of the sites." 

read more:



feminism, presidential style...

US journalist Edward Klein, former editor-in-chief of New York Times Magazine and author of multiple bestsellers, discussed the new explosive sexual misconduct allegations by four women against former US President Bill Clinton with Radio Sputnik’s Fault Lines Tuesday.

According to Klein, important Democratic Party sources and an official who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations have confirmed these new charges of sexual assault. A member of Clinton's legal team recently told Klein, "obviously, I'm aware of [the allegations], but can't talk about them." 

Four women claim the former president, no stranger to sexual misconduct allegations, sexually assaulted them after leaving the presidency when he worked for the playboy billionaire investor Ron Burkle at his Yucaipa companies. Clinton has faced sexual misconduct allegations throughout his career, including during his tenure as Arkansas governor, during his presidential campaign and while in the White House.

Read more:

feminism, fabricated fake news style...

Court documents confirm that Fusion GPS, financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, paid reporters in relation to the infamous dossier that alleged then-candidate Donald Trump engaged in “golden shower” urine show orgies at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow.

The US House of Representatives is stepping up pressure on Fusion GPS, a private research firm founded by two former Wall Street Journal reporters. According to recent documents filed by the House in court, Fusion transferred unspecified sums of money to unnamed journalists between June 2016 and February 2017. These journalists were known to have covered "Russia issues relevant to the [House Intelligence Committee's] investigation," according to the Washington Examiner.

Documents Fusion GPS filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia had virtually all useful information about the financial transfers redacted, including names, the amount of money, and the intention of the payments.

The House Intel Committee is urging the court to force Fusion GPS to publish banking records connected the payments, the Examiner reports.

For its part, Fusion GPS asked the court for a restraining order to avoid having to disclose further information. "Those requested records involve transactions that are not pertinent to work related to Russia or Donald Trump," Fusion GPS co-founder Peter Fritsch said in an affidavit filed this week.

Obviously, there seems to be a concern by some members of the House committee that Fusion paid journalists to report on the story. Notably, BuzzFeed was among first to publish the salacious document, while CNN quickly followed suit and discussed the dossier's existence on national television. Literally dozens of reporters from Politico and the Washington Post — two publications hardly known for exhibiting a pro-Trump bias — had seen the dossier and dismissed it as not newsworthy because its statements could not be corroborated.

Furthermore, attorneys for the House alleged that Fusion GPS set up meetings between "dossier author Christopher Steele with at least five major media outlets in September 2016, including Yahoo News."

Read more:


I don't know if trump had a pissing rigmarole in Moscow once, but the gist here is that the news is paid for by the "anti-Trump" machine... No a good look... Possibly worse than the manufactured Trump-Putin-gator... 

"a day late and a dollar short"...


The Clinton team’s first strategy was to attack Lewinsky. Sidney Blumenthal, the former journalist and trusted confidant of Hillary Clinton, arranged a lunch with his friend the writer Christopher Hitchens in the hope of convincing him that Lewinsky was an unstable stalker. Appalled by the effort by the president and his team of smear artists, Hitchens filed an affidavit testifying to Blumenthal’s effort. But the whispering campaign was hardly subtle. It was widely enough known that Maureen Dowd wrote a New York Times column headlined “Liberties: The Slander Strategy.”

“Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as the President called Monica Lewinsky,” Dowd wrote. “Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker?” There were limits for even the most ardent Clinton supporters, though, Dowd noted: “At least some of the veteran Clinton shooters feel a little nauseated this time around, after smearing so many women who were probably telling the truth as trashy bimbos.”

The strategy changed. The Lewinsky relationship was next a consensual affair between adults and a matter properly resolved within the privacy of the Clinton marriage.

“It was neither of those things,” Tripp says. “It was not consensual, and it was not an affair. It was a servicing agreement on his part. She was a kid. She may have been 22 and had a voluptuous body and was misguided in her choices, but emotionally, she was 15—a groupie. It reminded me of myself with the Beatles and the Dave Clark Five in the early ’60s. That same obsession. To say that Monica Lewinsky was a woman at that point in her life was a stretch beyond comprehension.”

The record would seem to support Tripp’s assessment of the relationship. Lewinsky’s grand jury appearance revealed that between November 1995 and March 1997, she met the president furtively in a hallway, a bathroom, and, once, while he talked on the phone with a member of Congress. They had six sexual encounters before they shared any meaningful conversation. “I asked him why he doesn’t ask me any questions about myself,” she said, “and . . . is this just about sex . . . or do you have some interest in trying to get to know me as a person?”

Hillary Clinton next shifted the narrative with a memorable appearance on NBC’s Today show in January 1998, where she blamed the president’s troubles on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The Lewinsky matter thus became a partisan political attack, with the real wrongdoing perpetrated by Republicans. When that narrative took hold, Tripp lost purchase on any claim as a straitlaced whistleblower. She became the prying, traitorous villain of a sordid story, an assessment neatly summed by Lewinsky herself at the conclusion of her grand jury testimony, when she said, “I hate Linda Tripp.”

Tripp says she has not spoken to Lewinsky in all these years but understands why she felt as she did. “Monica absolutely had to be seen, not just to others, but also to herself, as a bona fide girlfriend,” Tripp says. “She could not be seen as an orifice or a party to a situation where you call in someone for servicing and send them on their merry way.”

Still, Tripp remembers being stunned by the vilification directed at herself. She received death threats at the height of the scandal, prompting a move to a safe house. Her character was assassinated over and over, as was her appearance. Saturday Night Live had a running sketch in which John Goodman played her as a fat, prying busybody who casually betrays a friendship while gorging on junk food.

Tripp was fired from her Pentagon job on the last day of the Clinton administration. She sued the government, won a settlement, and then set out to start a new life.

She wanted, literally, to become a different Linda Tripp. 

Read more:



Noteworthy: The Weekly Standard was a News Corp creation, described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism". This does not mean that this article is not trustworthy, but it is necessary to cleanse the pavement from the blood of the awful Clintons.


One of the WS writer was Christopher Hitchens. Strange outlet for this clever man. Having long described himself as a social democrat, a Marxist, and an anti-totalitarian, Hitchens began to break with the established political left after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the Western left to the Satanic Verses controversy, followed by the left's embrace of Bill Clinton and the antiwar movement's opposition to NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. His support of the Iraq War separated him further. His writings include critiques of public figures such as Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa and Diana, Princess of Wales. He was the elder brother of the conservative journalist and author Peter Hitchens (a fully fledged Christian). He also advocated for the separation of church and state.

As an antitheist, Christopher regarded the concept of a god or supreme being as a totalitarian belief that impedes individual freedom. He argued that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of informing ethics and defining codes of conduct for human civilization. The dictum "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has become known as Hitchens's razor.[10][11]

read more:


I have bolded Hitchens support for the Iraq war to highlight the fact that Murdoch welcomed all hands on deck to support the Iraq War. Having Hitchens on board would have been like a nice breeze in Uncle Rupe's sail... We all knew then back in 2002 that the WMDs was a hoax constructed by the CIA, but despite many people, including Gus, pointing this fact ahead of the invasion, no "serious" media would ever consider going with this possibility. The media scribes were deluded and manipulated by "intelligence" professionals better than them and the Media (MMMMM) has not recovered since despite trying to sound more saintly than Mother Theresa by going after the Trump/Putin non-connection...

Here the main subject that Uncle Rupe has been demonising is the concept of global warming. We need to fight him all the way. Contrary to "Hitchens's razor", there is much evidence to show that the science is correct.

read also: 


cheap drivel, shallow fluff and propaganda...


"puritanical wave of purification."

Catherine Deneuve and 100 French women denounce #MeToo 'puritanism'

French star Catherine Deneuve and other artists wrote in an open letter published in daily Le Monde that the wave of "denunciations" in the wake of the #MeToo movement is a threat to sexual freedom and a "witch-hunt."

An open letter has been published in the daily Le Monde on Tuesday, attacking feminist social media campaigns like #MeToo and its French equivalent #BalanceTonPorc (Call out your pig) for allegedly unleashing a "puritanical... wave of purification."

Its around 100 signatories include French actress Catherine Deneuve, author Catherine Millet, publisher Joëlle Losfeld and German film actress and singer Ingrid Caven.

"Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or cack-handedly, is not — nor is men being gentlemanly a macho attack," the letter says. "Men have been punished summarily or forced out of their jobs when all they did was touch someone's knee or try to steal a kiss."

read more:

infidelity of the saxophonist...

A new tell-all book from a Secret Service Officer who protected Bill and Hillary Clinton during the former’s term as president claims that Bill Clinton often snuck out of the White House to have secret rendezvous with “well-known and lesser-known mistresses.”

The book comes courtesy of Gary J. Byrne, a former United States Secret Service Uniformed Division officer who first became well-known for his testimony during the proceedings that eventually led to Clinton's impeachment for perjury.

Byrne's book, Secrets of the Secret Service: The History and Uncertain Future of the U.S. Secret Service, claims that Clinton would order his protectors to ferry him around Washington in an innocuous motorcade so he could meet up with with his mistresses.

Worse, one one occasion a Secret Service agent, referred to as "Reverend" in the book, suffered a traumatic brain injury trying to keep up with the motorcade when another car T-boned his in an intersection.

Byrne wrote that Reverend, along with two others, were severely injured. DC police allegedly tended to the accident, having no idea that Clinton was being chauffeured around Washington incognito.

"Reverend was severely injured, as were another officer and two civilians. The convoy continued on. Metro PD was alerted, and that's when it learned that the Secret Service had been operating throughout DC in such a dangerous fashion," wrote Byrne.

"Reverend was hospitalized with a severe traumatic brain injury. It was significant enough that he was pulled from duty pending his recovery and even then would return only on 'light duty' status."

The Secret Service also tried to block payments to the Reverend, Byrne added, until he threatened to sue and expose Clinton's infidelities.

read more:

the US president is not a feminist...

A tweet by British journalist Piers Morgan, to whom US President Donald Trump allegedly revealed that he is not a feminist, sparked a lot of sarcasm among social media users. Trump's response to rapper Jay-Z calling his presidency "disappointing" added fuel to the fire.

British journalist Piers Morgan revealed details of his recent interview with Donald Trump in his Twitter account.

In particular, he apparently considered it especially important to inform internet users about the "sensational" fact that the US president is not a feminist.

In an attempt to make his tweet catchy, Morgan provided it with a caption: "BREAKING NEWS."

Read from top... see also:


It's time to revisit: Mrs Aphra Behn at


hillary, you screwed up again...

Hillary Clinton has finally offered an explanation as to why she didn’t fire a top campaign aide over allegations that he sexually harassed a female staffer.

Speaking in a lengthy Facebook post on Tuesday night ― which she posted just minutes before President Trump’s State of the Union address ― Clinton claimed that she kept Burns Strider on her team in 2008 because she “didn’t think firing him was the best solution to the problem.”

“He needed to be punished, change his behavior, and understand why his actions were wrong,” she wrote. “The young woman needed to be able to thrive and feel safe. I thought both could happen without him losing his job. I believed the punishment was severe and the message to him unambiguous.”

Furthermore, Clinton said that she believes “in second chances” ― and wants to “continue to believe in them” ― despite what others think.

“I’ve been given second chances and I have given them to others,” she explained. “But sometimes they’re squandered. In this case, while there were no further complaints against him for the duration of the campaign, several years after working for me he was terminated from another job for inappropriate behavior. That reoccurrence troubles me greatly, and it alone makes clear that the lesson I hoped he had learned while working for me went unheeded. Would he have done better ― been better ― if I had fired him? Would he have gotten that next job? There is no way I can go back 10 years and know the answers. But you can bet I’m asking myself these questions right now.”

Read more:


Hillary, you are an embarrassment... Actually you are a murderess...


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lambasted Hillary Clinton for her reportedly refusing to fire her adviser accused of sexual harassment during the 2018 presidential campaign.

Commenting on a New York Times report about Hillary Clinton keeping the alleged sexual harasser advising her presidential campaign in 2008 on his Twitter page, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lashed out at what he described as Clinton's "outrageous" step to "cover up sexual impropriety" and reminded her of the sufferings of the women in Libya.

Apparently, Assange was referring to the fact that while serving as US Secretary of State, Clinton backed – and actually praised – the overthrow and eventual killing of Muammar Gaddafi, which resulted in the long-running turmoil in a once prosperous country.


Read more:

hillary, sinking in the polls again...

Hillary Clinton's had a year and half to demonstrate to the American people that they elected the wrong candidate, a message reinforced in every way imaginable by a mournful media suffering from a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Her endless book tour has explained again and again "What Happened" to her inevitable candidacy, including weak-willed women, widespread racism, Middle American ignorance and those sinister Russian bots. So how are Americans feeling about the woman they failed to elect in 2016? Even worse. In fact, a lot worse.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Clinton's favorability rating is even more grim than it was when she lost in 2016. Both Trump and Clinton made history in the election by being the least liked presidential candidates ever. Clinton staggered into the election with a 10-point deficit in her favorability rating (Trump was actually in worse shape). Now, Clinton's at an abysmal -25.

The Wall Street Journal reports on what's happened to public perception of the highly "unusual" political figure post-election:

Historical WSJ/NBC polling shows that recent losing presidential candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry and Al Gore — experienced post-election declines in positive sentiment. But Mrs. Clinton’s dropoff is a bit steeper–her positive rating is at a new low of 27%, compared with 52% who have a negative opinion. That spread of 25 percentage points is greater than President Trump’s, who is under water by 18 points.


Read more:

and this is getting serious... stop laughing...

The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit against the Russian government, Donald Trump’s campaign and WikiLeaks, alleging a widespread conspiracy to help swing the 2016 US presidential election in Trump’s favor.

The multimillion-dollar lawsuit was filed on Friday in federal court in the southern district of New York. The complaint asserts that senior officials within the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in an attempt to damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and seeks damages for the hacking of DNC’s servers.

“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” the DNC chairman, Tom Perez, said in a statement.

Read more:


See also:


an angry shot...

the CIA lies... 

your mission is to self-destroy...

etc. Read from top.


Note: the DNC screwed itself up but will never admit to it. All this might come to Assange revealing the source of the DNC emails and this will not look pretty for the DNC. But I suppose with Assange unable to get out of a hell-hole created for him by the Brits, the DNC lawyers think the coast is clear...

the story behind the her and his story...

According to Starr's new memoir, "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation," Hillary Clinton decided to spin Bill Clinton's ruinous affairs as some crazy conservative conspiracy theory "to avert the nation's gaze from her husband's many crimes."

"I was upset over Mrs. Clinton's performance, and was even considering bringing the matter before the Washington grand jury for possible indictment on perjury," Starr writes in the memoir, released Tuesday.

While Bill Clinton was "always pleasant as he avoided answering" questions with Starr, "in the space of three hours, she [Hillary] claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall' or ‘did not remember,'" the attorney writes. "This suggested outright mendacity."

"To be sure, human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous."

Explaining why perjury charges were never pursued against Hillary Clinton, Starr writes: "[P]roving that someone knowingly lied when they said ‘I don't recall' or ‘I don't remember' is extremely difficult, especially if that person is the first lady. What was clear was that Mrs. Clinton couldn't be bothered to make it appear as if she were telling the truth."

Starr's book arrives at a time when Hillary Clinton and her allies have spent the better part of two years rewriting the history of why she lost to Trump in the 2016 election.


Read more:

the clinton woman does not know when to shut up...

Hillary Clinton got called out for hypocrisy after she argued that sexual harassment allegations against her husband, Bill Clinton, were different from those high-profile Republicans face, as they were thoroughly investigated.

In an interview to CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, former Democratic presidential nominee rejected parallels between allegations of sexual misconduct against her husband and the ones that have been leveled against President Donald Trump and marred the confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

There is a very significant difference. That is the intense, long-lasting, partisan investigation that was conducted in the 90s.

The former Secretary of State added that "if the Republicans, starting with President Trump on down want a comparison, they should welcome such an investigation themselves."

Kavanaugh, who was sworn in on Monday after weeks of bitter partisan bickering, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct from several women, including claims he took part in gang-rape parties and was involved in sexual assault during his high-school years. The most prominent accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Following her testimony and that of Kavanaugh, which both held Americans glued to their television screens for hours, the White House ordered a new FBI probe into Kavanaugh, who had previously undergone six background investigations as part of the George W. Bush Administration and as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Clinton's words did not go down well with Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bill Clinton's most famous accusers. In 1999, she alleged in an interview with Dateline NBC that Clinton raped her in 1978 when he was serving as the attorney general of Arkansas. The ex-President himself has never addressed the allegations, referring them to his legal representative. His lawyer, David Kendall, denied the allegations at the time. Broaddrick's story has resurfaced during the 2016 presidential election campaign and in light of the growing popularity of the #MeToo movement, encouraging victims of sexual assault, including historic, to come out.

As tensions around Kavanaugh's confirmation were gaining momentum, Broaddrick demanded an FBI investigation into her own allegations against Clinton, accusing Democrats, adamant about a thorough FBI probe into Kavanaugh, of opportunism and "double standards."

"It's not politically advantageous for them to circle around me and support me," she told Fox News in September.

Responding to Clinton's fresh interview, Broaddrick did not mince words, calling her a "lying hypocrite."

"My case was never litigated," she wrote on Twitter, reiterating her call for investigation into the allegations.

Read more:


Read from top.

playing the sexophone...

Monica Lewinsky was an adult when having an affair with the US President Bill Clinton, and that absolves him of any responsibility, Clinton's ever-protective wife and failed presidential candidate Hillary has said.

Hillary Clinton was speaking to CBS' Sunday Morning when anchor Tony Dokoupil asked her about Bill Clinton's 1990s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Back then, he lied under oath that he had no sexual relationship with Lewinsky, and the scandal eventually led to impeachment procedures, but Clinton was acquitted in the end. Throughout it all, Hillary remained protective, even calling the entire case a "right-wing conspiracy."

Even though it all turned out to be true, Bill had done nothing wrong, Hillary believes. And when asked whether she believes he should have stepped down, she said: "Absolutely not." Dokoupil pressed the point, arguing that such an affair can be seen as an abuse of power for the sheer imbalance of said power between the US president and an intern.

"...who was an adult," Clinton answered, and immediately cut the line of questioning short, wading into a counter-attack about the sexual assault allegations leveled against Trump – who, most Democrats universally believe, should be impeached.

In the era of #MeToo, when sexual misconduct, or allegations thereof, return to bite powerful men in the backside sometimes decades after, Trump is sailing surprisingly effortlessly through his. At least 19 women have accused him, but he denies and dismisses the claims, at times accusing the women in question of getting paid by his political enemies.


Read more:


Yes, Hillary...

she is not planning to run and she is going nowhere...

Hillary Clinton has ruled out a presidential bid in 2020 but vowed she was "not going anywhere".

Key points: 
  • Hillary Clinton says she told Democratic candidates not to "take anything for granted"
  • Several big names have declared their candidacy in a diverse and crowded field
  • Former vice president Joe Biden has yet to declare his intentions


The former secretary of state, senator and first lady ruled out another campaign during an interview posted on Monday by New York TV station News12 .

Mrs Clinton, who lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, said although she was not planning to run, she would continue working and "standing up for what I believe". 

"I'm going to keep speaking out. I'm not going anywhere," she said.

She said she had spoken with several of the candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, and told them: "Don't take anything for granted, even though we have a long list of real problems and broken promises [from the Trump administration]."


Read more:



Read from top.

madam clinton is upset...

US Senators on Wednesday acquitted Donald Trump of two impeachment charges in a near party-line vote that closed the curtain on the third presidential impeachment trial in US history.

Hillary Clinton has weighed in once again in the Trump impeachment saga – accusing the senators who went against her wishes of betraying the US Constitution and democracy.

“As the president's impeachment trial began, Republican senators pledged an oath to defend the Constitution,” Clinton tweeted on Wednesday.

“Today, 52 of them voted to betray that oath—and all of us. We’re entering dangerous territory for our democracy. It’ll take all of us working together to restore it.”


Read more:


Obviously, when the Senate or the other house (I forgot which one) let Bill, her husband, off the hook, they did the "right thing" by betraying the US Constitution and democracy... Why this women doesn't know when to shut up?  Read from top.

so far the dems have failed at democracy 101...

Democrats Must Bring Optimism and Truth to Counter Trump’s Message of Lies and Distortions

February 5, 2020

The State of the Union speech was the opening of Trump's 2020 Presidential campaign. It was Hucksterism at its best, altering truths about the economy and attacking socialism. Will the Democrats have an answer?


See more:



So far the Dems (Democrats) have failed miserably at presenting a viable alternative. The theatre of Pelosi tearing Donald's speech is amusing but shows nothing towards a better democratic outcome.


Only Buttigieg is smiling presenting optimism, while the other candidates show frustration and despair. As well, the final standing candidate has to be able to work with or even mould the Deep State to his/her Presidency. Only Buttigieg is equipped to do this. He is modern, young and AWARE. He has friends in the Republicans, which does not mean he is a closet Republican, but he is KNOWLEDGEABLE about history and also about the "deep state", having worked in intelligence. He knows bullshit.


Biden is full of it...



Read from top


see also:

we've all been fooled... wink wink...

wink wink

Acquitted by the Senate on both impeachment charges, the US President issued a sincere and almost grovelling apology to the cameras gathered at the White House Rose Garden.

"I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people."

The year was 1999. The president was Bill Clinton.

This morning, appearing at a bipartisan prayer breakfast in Washington, Donald Trump gleefully held up a copy of the USA Today newspaper with the word "Acquitted" scrawled across the front page.

Was this charade a clever set-up by the White House, designed to fool the Deep State, its minions and the Democrats? 
The whole saga revealed many-many things… Was this the intent of the Administration in order to boost Donald against all odds and destroy his enemies — outside and within? 
This affair revealed who was on Donald's side and who wasn’t — even in his entourage. Those who were on Donald’s side would feel reinvigorated, while the others are “out the door”, tails between their legs. It also invited many alternative journal outlets to investigate the previous administration that, with the “Steele Dossier” and the Ukraine-whatever participation of Biden, left a trail of smelly poop. In my view, Donald “took the risk” of being impeached a second time (after having had the rigmarole of the first investigation), fully aware of the consequences, just to flush the dregs and "conquer Rome"... 

Too Machiavellian? Donald is clever enough to push the barrow like this. If a dumb Prez like George Dubya Bush can fool the entire planet to go and invade Iraq, the Trump administration fooling everyone on a fake impeachment set-up, with the “inevitable" outrage, would be a piece of cake…

So now the Democrats, who apparently cannot organise a vote in a two-men pissoir, have to work double the efforts in order to defeat Trump (the vengeful… or is he?). Trump will pummel them in his own style — Pelosi and Schiff — and Romney, who understood nothing of the affair — because Trump can… It’s not a good look, but so what? He’s having fun. The image of him winking is telling of all this. He won his own deception game...

Read from top.

Trump would see him and him as traitors...

Impeachment witness Vindman removed from White House job.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified during the House inquiry into whether President Trump inappropriately pressured Ukraine's leader to launch investigations into Trump's political rivals. Vindman’s twin brother, Yevgeny, was also removed from the NSC, where he worked as a lawyer.

See more at The Washington Post.
Read above comment...

"traitors" annoyed at the "traitor for cash"...

The diplomats and officials who provided testimony about the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine are anxious about what lies ahead, and angry with John Bolton for what they see as him “cashing in” on his knowledge, dangling vital national security information in exchange for a lucrative book deal.

Three former officials contrasted their public testimony to the behavior of officials like former national security adviser John Bolton, “who has monetized a national crisis, parlaying critical insider knowledge about the President’s dealings into a multi-million-dollar book deal even as he avoided testifying publicly,” reported CNN.

Bolton  is “trying to have it both ways,” said one official, “dangling the fact that he knows details about Trump’s actions that have not yet been revealed.”

The former national security advisor  wants to have a continued career in the national-security sector after parting ways with the Trump administration, sources say.

Bolton’s dance earned him ferocious criticism from officials who put their careers on the line in order to testify before the House, CNN reports.


Read more:



Read above... John Bolton might have guessed, too late though, that it was a self-impeachment conceived by Trump to weed out the weak and the "traitors" who were knifing him in the back and stopping him to do what he wanted... "Et tu, Boltonus!" 

did not pass the trump test...

The Trump administration fired Gordon Sondland — who testified against the president in the House impeachment hearing — from his post as the ambassador to the European Union on Friday, hours after axing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, another witness against him.

Sondland confirmed his firing in a statement to the New York Times Friday evening.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland told the newspaper.

The ambassador was a key witness in the House Democrat’s efforts to pass articles of impeachment against the president, paving the way for his trial in the Senate.

In his testimony, Sondland acknowledged there was a “quid pro quo” between Trump and the Ukrainian president in regard to releasing military aid in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said in a House impeachment hearing.

“As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” he added.

His firing came hours after Trump fired both Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny S. Vindman.

Vindman, who also testified in the impeachment hearings, said in a statement through his lawyer that he was “asked to leave for telling the truth.”

Sondland confirmed his firing in a statement to the New York Times Friday evening.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland told the newspaper.

The ambassador was a key witness in the House Democrat’s efforts to pass articles of impeachment against the president, paving the way for his trial in the Senate.

In his testimony, Sondland acknowledged there was a “quid pro quo” between Trump and the Ukrainian president in regard to releasing military aid in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said in a House impeachment hearing.

“As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” he added.

His firing came hours after Trump fired both Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny S. Vindman.

Vindman, who also testified in the impeachment hearings, said in a statement through his lawyer that he was “asked to leave for telling the truth.”

Read more:


Read above: we've all been fooled... wink wink...


vindictive? me? donald?...


12:45 PM

Schiff, Pelosi decry Trump’s ‘vindictiveness’

12:30 PM

Feinstein says firings are ‘as clear a case of retribution’ as she’s seen in 27 years as a senator

11:55 AM

Donald Trump Jr. thanks Schiff for letting his father know who to fire



Read more:


Meanwhile the liberal media forgets who Romney is or was...


Zachary Leeman is a US-based journalist and author of the

novel Nigh.

Mitt Romney is the latest token Republican being hoisted up on the shoulders of the mainstream media thanks to his “courageous” decision to defy Donald Trump by voting with Democrats to impeach the president.

You would think the Utah senator single-handedly defeated Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and then rescued a few kittens out of trees on his way home the way the media is writing about him.

The New Yorker declared that the former presidential candidate “seized” a chance to “rewrite his own place in history” with his impeachment vote.

An opinion piece in the Washington Post deemed the decision “courageous,” and Twitter was full of love for the man once eviscerated by liberal commentators for simply saying “binders full of women.”

The lionization of Romney is nothing new. The mainstream media always keeps a few token Republicans around, and they usually have one they deem worthy of their praises, so long as that person happens to fit with the current agenda, and the current agenda is opposing Trump, so Romney is temporarily safe from the usual scorn his party affiliation and faith receive.

Others have also found themselves walking down that path of praise, past mockery cast aside so they can be deemed heroes for daring to break from Republican ranks and oppose the president.


John McCain

Romney has been crowned the new McCain. 

“Like McCain before him, Romney rebukes Trump,” Roll Call wrote after Romney’s impeachment vote.


Read more:




WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? These guys have betrayed Trump whether they told the "truth" or not...


Was Donald asking the president of Ukraine to investigate the role of Biden in the previous Ukrainian administration wrong?


Well, it could have been "as legitimate or as phoney" as the Democrats organising a Trump Russian pee tape in a Steele Dossier... But.


But the Democrats played right into Donald's hands. Instead of fighting him, why don't they present a decent alternative? Yes I know, they're trying, but so far they're travelling in a clapped-out wooden cart pulled by a couple of old oxen... They have to do better

there was an alternative...


From Chris Floyd


Today the US Senate acquitted Donald Trump on impeachment charges that should have never been brought. Faced with a mountain of open corruption, the Democrats chose to bring the weakest charge imaginable, one that involved subjective interpretations of conversations (some second-hand), the temporary withholding of weapons that Barack Obama refused to give to Ukraine – and the political fortunes of a top Democrat, ensuring that the entire case would be super-charged with partisan wrangling. This was a recipe for failure from the very start — and it is very hard to believe that the House leaders didn’t know this.

There was an alternative. They could have easily impeached Trump for his rampant, daily criminal violations of the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. From the very first hour of his presidency, Trump — who brazenly refused to use even the fig leaf of a ‘blind trust’ but kept direct control of all of his financial interests — has been putting money directly into his own pocket from foreign countries, foreign companies and domestic enterprises who have business with the government. This happens at his many resorts, pleasure palaces and rental properties all over the world, but for efficiency’s sake, the case could have been focused on a single entity: the Trump International Hotel  in Washington, DC. 

To impeach Trump for the largest bribery and corruption scam in U.S. history, the only thing the House Democrats would have needed were the receipts from the DC hotel. These would have proved, irrefutably, in black and white, that Donald J. Trump had committed impeachable offences and should be removed from office. That’s it. No need for witnesses or subjective interpretations — or for trembly, ludicrous claims of fending off a Russian invasion of the United States. All the House needed to say to the Senate was this: “Here are the receipts. These bribes were paid to the president’s business interests and he accepted them. Now vote.”

Would the GOP senate — a gaggle of extremists, dimbulbs and corporate bagmen — have still voted to acquit Trump? Perhaps. But it would have been infinitely harder to muddy the waters  — and infinitely easier to raise public pressure — with a charge of straightforward, crystal clear, undeniable bribery. No “moderates” bleating on CNN: “Well, he probably shouldn’t have been so heavy handed, but hey, no harm done; Ukraine got the weapons and didn’t dig up dirt on Biden, so why be so draconian about it?” No, they would’ve had to stand up and say straight out: “Yes, this is bribery, but I’m not going to do anything about it.” Even thoroughly corrupt figures like Lamar Alexander might have blenched at having to be as blatant as that.

But the House leadership made a very deliberate, very considered decision NOT to impeach Trump for his open bribery. Indeed, they are not even investigating it: no special committees probing government corruption, no public hearings highlighting Trump’s monstrous depredations — nothing. No probes of Trump’s top advisors — his daughter and son-in-law — pocketing millions of dollars from foreign governments (such as China) with a direct interest in influencing American policy. The House leadership has made no sustained, systematic, high-profile effort to use all the powers at their command — or any of the powers at their command — to bring the unprecedented corruption of the Trump administration to justice … or even to the public’s attention. This has been one of the most monumental, tragic and destructive failures in American political history, an outrageous dereliction of duty that will have immense consequences for the nation and the world for decades to come. 


Read more:



Read from top.

managing anxiety 101...


He’s never heard of Prozac?

Bill Clinton waves off his tawdry affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky in a new documentary— by saying it was something he did “to manage my anxiety.”

The ex-president, in the upcoming Hulu series “Hillary” about his wife, likens working in the Oval Office to being a boxer “staggering” around after a 15-round prize fight that’s been extended to 30-rounds.

“And here’s something that’ll take your mind off it for a while,” Clinton, 73, says of his two-year tryst with Lewinsky that began in 1995 when she was 22.

“Everybody’s life has pressures and disappointments, terrors, fears of whatever,” he continues.

“Things I did to manage my anxieties for years.”

Episode three of the one-sided, four-part biography series about Hillary Clinton — which premieres Friday — focuses on the sordid, 25-year-old affair that almost ended Clinton’s presidency and dogged his wife throughout her own political career.

Titled “The Hardest Decision,” the episode leads with footage from the 2016 campaign in which President Trump talks about the scandalous liaison, calling Hillary “an enabler.”

It later cuts to Bill’s deposition in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against him, in which he was asked detailed questions about Lewinsky.


Read more:


Read from top.


Obviously Bill had discovered what the Chinese had known for a zillion years. Read:


The study of Chinese treatises on erotic practices by Western scholars, which began in earnest around the middle of the 20th century, quickly revealed that a lot of said practices dealt with the exchange of energies, Yin and Yang, during intercourse, and its effect on health and longevity, with one legend even alleging that the legendary Yellow Emperor, Huangdi, attained immortality after having sex with some 1,200 women in total.

"When it comes to sexual arts in China, it’s first and foremost about medicine – there was no other aspect", said Aleksey Maslov, professor of the Moscow-based Higher School of Economics’ School of Asian Studies. "Paradoxically, it was believed that sex was needed for healing, not pleasure; it was a purely instrumental approach".

That said, the pleasures of the flesh certainly weren’t completely out of the equation in this sphere, though pleasure was often regarded as an indicator of whether certain "exercises" were performed correctly.

Furthermore, the woman was regarded as medicine, with every "malady" requiring a certain "cure", and with each stage of an "illness" necessitating a proper "concentration" of the remedy.

"Erotic technique was described as the administering of medication: when, how much, and how one was to act before and after", Maslov remarked. "Essentially, it was a prescription".

re-imagining hillary...

From the New York Times bestselling author of American Wife and Eligible, a novel that imagines a deeply compelling what-might-have-been: What if Hillary Rodham hadn’t married Bill Clinton?

In 1971, Hillary Rodham is a young woman full of promise: Life magazine has covered her Wellesley commencement speech, she’s attending Yale Law School, and she’s on the forefront of student activism and the women’s rights movement. And then she meets Bill Clinton. A handsome, charismatic southerner and fellow law student, Bill is already planning his political career. In each other, the two find a profound intellectual, emotional, and physical connection that neither has previously experienced.

In the real world, Hillary followed Bill back to Arkansas, and he proposed several times; although she said no more than once, as we all know, she eventually accepted and became Hillary Clinton.

But in Curtis Sittenfeld’s powerfully imagined tour-de-force of fiction, Hillary takes a different road. Feeling doubt about the prospective marriage, she endures their devastating breakup and leaves Arkansas. Over the next four decades, she blazes her own trail—one that unfolds in public as well as in private, that involves crossing paths again (and again) with Bill Clinton, that raises questions about the tradeoffs all of us must make in building a life.

Brilliantly weaving a riveting fictional tale into actual historical events, Curtis Sittenfeld delivers an uncannily astute and witty story for our times. In exploring the loneliness, moral ambivalence, and iron determination that characterize the quest for political power, as well as both the exhilaration and painful compromises demanded of female ambition in a world still run mostly by men, Rodham is a singular and unforgettable novel.


Read more:




A critique:


What if Hillary Rodham Clinton had never married Bill? What would her life have been like? What would she have accomplished? In her new novel, Rodham, Curtis Sittenfeld imagines she would have become President (of course) in 2016 and would have spent her evenings drinking tea and working on thorny political problems to save the world. It is pure escapism, Laura Marsh argues in her review of the book over at The New Republic, and one that fails to use Hillary’s own flaws in an interesting way—or in any way at all:

More than any other politician of recent years, Hillary Clinton has served as a way of glimpsing what might have been. Screenwriters have been imagining varieties of Hillary for over a decade—in Veep’s Selina Meyer, CBS’s Madam Secretary, House of Cards’s Claire Underwood—while two much-discussed, unproduced screenplays romanticize her early life and potential. The Hillary Clinton extended universe has something for all ages: For children, there is A Girl Named Hillary, as well as Chelsea Clinton’s She Persisted franchise; for teens, there is Hillary and Chelsea’s co-authored Book of Gutsy Women. There’s her memoir on the ordeal of 2016, What Happened, and the four-part Hulu documentary series on the same events, which radiates disdain not only for Donald Trump but also for Sanders’s challenge from the left. Rarely have roads not taken been so obsessively explored.

This is the terrain on which Curtis Sittenfeld’s novel Rodham plays out, the story of an exceptional young woman whose brilliance and verve for leadership are recognized early in life—from her rousing commencement speech at Wellesley, celebrated at the time in LIFE magazine, to her triumphs at Yale Law School—and who wins the prize of the presidency in 2016. As the title suggests, that victory is not the only counterfactual woven into the book. This is an alternate universe, in which Hillary doesn’t marry Bill to become Hillary Rodham Clinton but remains Hillary Rodham, retaining a certain integrity as she’s liberated from this man’s ambitions and catastrophes, and from the many compromises of a life with him. The version of Hillary we get here is a kind of politics nun. ‘In the White House, on a typical weeknight,’ she recalls, ‘I make my nest in the Living Room,’ surrounded by books and papers, sustained by cups of tea and her commitment to public service.

That soothing image makes a stark contrast with the reality of Donald Trump’s evening binges on Fox News. But the way the novel arrives at a Hillary presidency is an unexpectedly tangled one. It is not the story of a woman shorn of a problematic man and finally able to shine. Rather than a fantasy of Hillary’s potential fulfilled, it reimagines major parts of her character, removing from her any of the major flaws or contradictions that could hamper a politician in the MeToo era. Perhaps the strangest aspect of Rodham is that in crafting an exemplary version of Hillary Clinton, the book—apparently unwittingly—presents a harsh critique of the person we know today.


Read more:



Did Hillary learn her deviousness and political nous from Bill or was it something she had in herself, like a desired sociopathic baggage to achieve supremacy?... Who knows, either ways the end result is not good — and we got Trump the idiot instead as well...


Read from top. Below — an old picture of Bill and Hillary:



re-imaging bill clinton...

An upcoming public talk on women’s empowerment between Vice President Kamala Harris and Bill Clinton has kicked off a wave of ridicule online, with observers recalling the ex-president’s indiscretions with women while in office.

Hosted by the Clinton Foundation, the event kicked off on Tuesday and will continue into Friday, when Harris and Clinton will sit down for a “one-on-one conversation” to discuss “the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on women, and empowering women and girls in the US and around the world,” according to a foundation press release.

While the topic itself did not stoke controversy, the decision to have Clinton co-host the sit-down immediately made waves, as netizens pointed to the former POTUS’ reputation as a serial womanizer, largely attained over the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, in which Clinton, then 49, had an affair with a 22-year-old White House intern and later lied about it. He has faced charges of sexual impropriety, assault and even rape from several other women, including Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick.

“There are seven billion people on Earth and they couldn't find literally anyone else to talk about empowering women with than Bill Clinton?”asked the Daily Caller’s Greg Price, who was promptly answered by another netizen: “Why? Bill Clinton LOVES women.”


Others recalled Clinton’s relationship with accused pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead following an apparent suicide in a Manhattan prison cell in the summer of 2019 after he was arrested on child trafficking charges. Netizens suggested that either Epstein or disgraced Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein – convicted of rape and sexual abuse against two women in 2018 – would make equally good candidates for the ‘women’s empowerment’ talk with Harris.


Read more:


We definitely have to send Scomo to this conference as he is the numero uno on the subject in Australia...

See also: 

an epic laughing matter...

Read from top



FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

of rape....


Megyn Kelly Reveals the Truth About George Stephanopoulos' Past Shaming of Sexual Assault Victims







Jesse Watters : This is UNBELIEVABLE







still perfect....




SEE maher vs truth.....


SEE ALSO: 'EIGHT YEAR PUBLIC THERAPY TOUR': Hillary Clinton blames new demographic for 2016 loss