Wednesday, May 31, 2017

The Treaty on Treaties and the Paris Accord

RUSH: Now the Paris Climate Accord, treaty, whatever you want to call it. For the longest time people have believed that it’s really toothless, that it’s ceremonial. The Paris agreement’s an offshoot of the United Nations international planetary communal BS climate change organization, whatever they call it. There are 197 potential signatories, nations, to this. And we’ve been told that it’s really just a handshake, that there’s no mandate. There’s nothing binding. It actually is more just a statement of attitude, more like a promise to commit to caring about the effects of man-made climate change and a promise to work with other community nations in dealing with it.
It’s far, far from that. It is indeed hideous, and it is deceptive, and those practicing the deception — weaving this intricate web of deceit — are also Americans, as well as others from around the world who are united in their belief that the United States represents the singular target that must be cut down to size in order to further the concept of global community. The Paris climate agreement… I’m being assisted here by a piece written by Andrew McCarthy at PJMedia.com. His column is entitled, “Don’t Stop with Paris.
Let me give you some pull quotes here. The column starts thus: “It is welcome news that President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.” I don’t think that’s happened yet, which is why I’m so focused on this today. He hasn’t done it. All we’ve had is leaks from the White House saying that he’s going to, that the decision’s gonna be announced soon. But there was another obvious leak from the White House in the last couple hours, ’cause Fox has been running a graphic saying the president has not reached a decision on this yet.
We know that there are people in his administration, on his staff, in the White House who are in favor of this tomfoolery and are trying to influence him that he’s wrong in his instinctive feelings about climate change and ought to sign on to this. And there are others who are trying to get him to remain true to his statements, his instincts, and his promises during the campaign. So Andy begins, “It is welcome news that President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.
“The [agreement] promises to damage the economy while surrendering American sovereignty over climate policy to yet another international, largely anti-American enterprise.” That is inarguable, my friends. There’s no debate about this. American sovereignty will be surrendered, and we will cease being a separate and distinct nation. We will cease to have our superpower status, and our climate policy — which incorporates health and economic policy — will be mandated by the terms of this agreement, if we sign it.
There’s literally no common-sense reason to sign it. There’s no scientific reason to sign it for sure. There is no good-vibe reason to sign this. There isn’t a good reason at all to sign this. There is not one even tiny upside to signing this, Mr. President. Some pull quotes: “The Paris climate agreement is a treaty. We are not talking here about a bob-and-weave farce like the Iran nuclear deal. That arrangement, the ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ was shrewdly packaged as an ‘unsigned understanding’ — concurrently spun, depending on its apologists’ need of the moment, as a non-treaty…”
Now, the reason that they’re telling us that the Paris Accord is a nontreaty is because that evades the requirements of the Constitution to ratify it. The Iran deal has never been ratified. The Senate wouldn’t do it. The Iran deal… That’s why it’s not a treaty. This is not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by the Senate. This treaty would never… Obama wouldn’t even present the Paris Accord to the Senate because there is not a senate that would sign on to this. Even when the Democrats ran the Senate, they would not sign on to this.
It is that horrible. Certainly, this Senate would not sign on to it. It’s two-thirds, by the way, folks, of the Senate that must sign to ratify. So they present this as “a binding international commitment” in order to timid the Trump administration into staying in it. Hey, it’s not a treaty! You don’t have to get the Senate involved. You don’t have to go up to Capitol Hill to argue to those knuckleheads. It’s not a treaty; we don’t need to go the constitutional route. You can sign it, Mr. President, and commit us to nothing.
“Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties…” Did you know such a thing existed? I didn’t, either. There is a treaty that we signed on treaties. It would be like a driving license manual on driving licenses. There’s a treaty on treaties. “Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties, once a nation signs a treaty — or merely does something that could be interpreted as ‘express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty’ — that nation is ‘obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.'”
Let me translate: “Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties, once a nation … does something that could be interpreted as ‘express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty,'” that is essentially signing and ratifying a treaty. Real-world example: The Paris climate accords are being talked about and Trump says, “You know, I can see where this thing might have some value. We, the United States, are not willing to sign this, but we’re willing to work with nations on it.”
That would be the same… That’s the equivalent of signing the treaty. All you have to do is express your agreement to be bound by it. A handshake. It’s a trick! It’s a trick in order to get a nation to commit to a treaty without having to go to the Senate to get two-thirds of them to vote for it. Our own treaty on treaties binds us to a treaty when all we’ve done is said we support the elements. It takes the Constitution totally out of the mix!
In other words, the Constitution notwithstanding, once an administration signs or otherwise signals its agreement to the terms of any international agreement, the United States must consider itself duly bound. All it has to do is sign something that’s not a treaty or signal in diplomatic channels that we assent to the terms, that becomes the equivalent of a treaty having been signed, even though the Senate has not approved it, even though it has not been ratified.
And that’s the trick. And that is what’s happening here with the Paris Accord. The reason why this is important beyond the obvious, if a subsequent president wants to get the United States out from under the Paris Accord, it’s not enough to refrain from submitting the treaty to the Senate. The later president must take an affirmative action that withdraws the prior president’s assent. That is why Trump can’t just ignore the agreement.
He needs to openly and notoriously pull out of it He cannot say he likes it. He cannot say he understands it. He cannot say that he agrees with it in principle but isn’t gonna sign it. He can’t say any of that. If he commits to it just verbally by signaling that he understands, that he’s willing to pledge the United States assistance, even though he says he’s not gonna sign it, he doesn’t have to because of the treaty on treaties.
And the reason it’s important that it’s a treaty is that it just can’t be undone with an executive order by a new president. Once it is a treaty, then there is a convoluted process to withdraw from a treaty that does involve going to the Senate and getting two-thirds of a vote and dealing with the international body with whom the treaty is made. It is a mess. It’s also designed as such so as to make it much more difficult to get out of this than it ever was to get into it.
So in summary, the Paris Accord is not a treaty, but yet it could end up being enforced as one because of our own law called the treaty on treaties, which simply says that if we announce support in principle, that if we sign an ancillary document promising to do what we can, that is the same thing as the Senate ratifying it with two-thirds of the Senate voting. It is a trick by globalists to get the United States to sign a treaty — by the way — well, I say trick. The people that voted for this understood exactly what they were doing. Nobody was tricked here except the American people.
I don’t mean to imply that members of Congress or the Senate were tricked. They knew exactly what they were doing. This is like hiring a blue ribbon commission to close military bases so they get the blame for it rather than you in the House of Representatives or Senate actually being on a committee and announcing the base closures. “I didn’t close the base, Mabel, I didn’t do it. I know your son, your family have been working there 20 years and they lost their job, but the blue ribbon panel did it. I did everything I could.” Same thing here. “I didn’t sign that treaty. Don’t blame me.” That got done by hook and crook. It’s nothing more than a mechanism to avoid the Constitution.
It is a mechanism to commit the United States to things that are drastically, horribly detrimental to us without going through the constitutional process that ratifies such treaties. It substitutes verbal consent of agreement in principle, say, as the equivalent of a signature and two-thirds of the Senate voting to affirm. The American people are being told, “It’s toothless.” In fact, here’s the message that’s being used by the media to try to convince Trump to sign this.
“Look, there’s no real commitment here. This thing is just a piece of paper. There’s no force of law. It has no binding agreement. In fact, Trump could probably –” this is the kicker. They’re trying to say Trump could actually gain some ground with people that don’t support him by signing on to this ’cause it isn’t gonna hurt him. “It’s not gonna bother his own fans because his voters are gonna understand it’s a nothing burger. So Trump can really score some points with people that oppose him by signing on to this thing and not harm and not break a promise.”
And that is not true. If he signs on to this, it is a huge promise broken. It is a huge violation of trust. It may be something insurmountable for the president and his base to sign on to this. It is not harmless. If you want to get the details of what happens in this thing, we’ll link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. It’s kind of heavy reading and I’ll summarize it here if I have time in the remaining moments of the program, but it’s a direct assault on the U.S. economy disguised as something else.
It penalizes all these things I talked about in the last half hour, penalizes economic growth, targets improved standards of living as evidence of climate change, evidence of planetary destruction. It’s hideous. The president has no business even thinking about signing this. And anybody in his administration urging him to sign this has a death wish for him. Promise you that.
RUSH: Hey, folks, I committed a small faux error in my most recent monologue about the Paris agreement. The issue is not whether President Trump signs it. That was the wrong approach. Obama already has signed it. The task before President Trump is to literally pull us out of it. Obama has already signed the Paris Accord. The Senate would not ratify it. Which is why the treaty on treaties treats it as a treaty, because the president already signed it. The treaty on treaties is the equivalent of Senate ratification. Obama’s signature is what triggers the treaty on treaties obligation to follow it, even though it hasn’t been ratified.
So the question is whether Trump will pull us out of it. He must make the affirmative step of literally pulling us out of it. If he does nothing, we are still bound not to do anything to undermine it. If he doesn’t do anything, if Trump comes out and says he’s committing to it, Obama’s already done that for us. Obama’s already committed the United States to this.
Trump must pull us out of it. If he doesn’t, if Trump says, “I’m not gonna sign it,” then he’s fooling us because it’s already signed, it’s already in place. And if Trump does nothing we are still bound not to undermine it as a nation. We must make every effort to accede to it. Trump needs to formally announce that he is withdrawing Obama’s consent.
Now, to withdraw, the president just needs to take an affirmative, “We withdraw Obama’s signature.” He doesn’t have to go to the Senate because we didn’t go to the Senate to have it ratified. If the Senate had ratified it, then we would have had to go unratify it, so to speak. Even with a treaty that is ratified after Senate approval, the president can withdraw us without having to go back to the Senate.
Bush 43 did this unilaterally, withdrew us from the ABM treaty with Russia in 2002 on the ground that the party we made the treaty, the USSR, Soviet Union, no longer existed. The left blew up at that. But Trump has to pull us out. It takes an affirmative, you might want to look at it as a negative — it is an affirmative action. He must withdraw, take us out, deny, and cancel Obama’s signature on this thing.
RUSH: Now, this treaty on treaties that you’ve never heard of? Do you know that it hasn’t even been ratified? There’s so much unconstitutional or extraconstitutional stuff that has gone on over the years designed to weaken, to deteriorate, to extinguish the uniqueness, greatness the United States of America before all of these global organizations and bodies — led, of course, by United Nations. It’s been a long-standing objective to chop the United States down to size, to eliminate the whole concept of American exceptionalism, America as a superpower. By law.
They can’t do it economically. Nobody can outcompete us, outproduce us. But by law they can penalize us and restrict us, and the treaty on treaties — which effectively allows treaties to be ratified without the Senate, meaning it’s extra- or unconstitutional? Not even that treaty on treaties has been ratified! So here’s the bottom line with all of this: The Paris climate agreement is a treaty because of the way the treaty on treaties treats these kinds of agreements. Obama signed it; that makes it a treaty, even though the Senate never ratified it.
Once a presidential administration signs or otherwise signals assent to the terms of the agreement, like this Paris thing, the U.S. is bound. Even though the Senate has not approved it, even though it’s not been ratified. If the subsequent president, like Trump, wants to get the U.S. out from under this, it’s not enough merely to refrain from submitting the treaty to the Senate. In other words, Trump just can’t send it up to the Senate and have them de-ratify it since they haven’t been ratified it in the first place.
The president must take an affirmative action that withdraws the prior president’s assent via signature, in this case Obama. Trump cannot just ignore it. It’s not a case of where, “Well, if we don’t do anything, we’re not committed to it.” We’re already committed to this. Which is why they’re trying to calm everybody’s fears by telling them, “It’s not a treaty. It has no teeth. There’s nothing binding! It’s just a statement of goodwill and good intentions by member nations.” It’s not.
It is a hard-and-fast agreement that targets the United States as the primary culprit and requires the United States to carry the primary burden in fixing what isn’t broken, in stopping what isn’t happening: Man-made climate change. So Donald Trump must affirmatively announce we are withdrawing. He can’t say, “We’re not signing it.” If he says, “I’ve chosen not to sign it,” he’s fooling us. It’s already signed. He has to withdraw from it — and I’m here to tell you: The pressure on him inside his own White House must be intense.
You know the names of the people that are reported to be the globalists, the Gary Cohn guy and… Why do I have trouble remembering this woman’s name? Dina Powell. There’s some… I guess… See, I think it’s Nina something or other. Dina Powell and maybe Jared Kushner might form the triumvirate that wants this to remain in force. There’s a lot of money to be made on this, by the way. Look how much money Algore’s made. Look how much Tom Steyer’s made. Look how much these leftist globalists make. Look how wealthy they are.
In addition to the ideological component here, folks, there are trillions of dollars. They talk about the military-industrial complex? The climate complex dwarfs it. It is incredible the amount of money here. Algore is just one example of how it can be made, trading carbon credits, pollution credits. Those are just two of a myriad number of… It means it’s also a cash grab. As I said the other day: Washington, D.C. is the wealthiest city in the world.
Every year, $3.5 trillion pours in there, and it’s the most powerful city in the world, and everybody in the world is trying to influence what happens there, and everybody in the world is trying to get as much money out of that town every year as they can. And the people that have the least access to it are the citizens of this country, because they’re the ones paying for it! They’re the ones who are putting the $3.5 trillion in that pot every year!
And everybody else in the world’s trying to get their grubby hands on it, in addition to American leftists and liberals who’d rather try to siphon a portion of it rather than work. (They probably consider it work.) It’s hideous. Trump must actively take us out. The pressure on him has got to be intense. But to me, this is a no-brainer. Mr. President, if you don’t take us out of this, there is no way you can make America great again. America cannot be great in the ways you define it and the ways you have targeted for rebirth and remaking.
You can’t do it if we’re signatories to this thing, because we become the targets. We become the blame. We become the source of the problem. We must bear the burden, financial, economic, of supposedly addressing this nonexistent issue: Man-made planetary destruction. Don’t forget, it’s not even man-made climate change. What they’re trying to tell everybody is we’re destroying the planet, folks, and they sadly convinced a whole bunch of young people it’s actually in progress and happening. Just take us out! If you want to make America great again, you can’t do it with the United States maintaining its current position in the Paris Accord.
RUSH: You have all heard the name Elon Musk. You know who Elon Musk is? Elon Musk is the founder of Tesla. He’s one of most subsidized Americans out there. Well, I mean, if you look at subsidizes as welfare. I mean, if he hadn’t gotten the subsidies, there wouldn’t be any Tesla. Let’s just put it that way. What is it, how many billions in subsidies has Tesla received? It’s significant.
Anyway, he’s on one of Trump’s scientific or technological advisory committees. Well, Elon Musk, he’s been under pressure from Silicon Valley to get out of that because they hate Trump, and they think Musk is a traitor. They can’t understand why Musk ever signed on to Trump’s committees, so they’ve been razzing him ever since it happened. I guess they finally got to him ’cause Elon Musk has tweeted that he will leave the Donald Trump advisory committees on technology and whatever if Trump withdraws from the Paris Climate Accord or treaty.
I say, “See ya in the rearview mirror, Elon.” So we’ll see. Trump is gonna be under intense pressure on this ’cause this is ball game for the left. This is salvation city. Not to mention the whole Goldman Sachs crowd, I mean, the money to be made here. These people don’t care about the things you and I do when it comes to the state of the nation, the state of freedom and liberty. Those are so old-fashioned and quaint, so beneath us. There’s money to be made here. There’s power to be achieved. There’s a global infrastructure to build and run. Good Lord, you’re worried about freedom? Get with it, man, is what they would say to me.
And that’s the intense pressure Trump’s gonna be under. And in the Elon Musk story here they’re saying: “The pressure being brought to bear on President Trump by his voters, who routinely do not believe in science and who think that there’s no scientific basis for the –” just mock them, make fun of them, bunch of idiots, and that’s who Trump’s loyalties are with, ’cause Trump’s an idiot, too, you see. So this is how they’re trying to pressure him.

REPORT: THOUSANDS of Foreign Citizens Registered to Vote in Virginia

While the MSM and coastal elites complain about unsubstantiated claims of foreign interference on the U.S. presidential election, the reality is that foreign nationals are voting in our elections and there is proof.

Tuesday, a report was released that documents 5,556 voter registrations that were canceled due to citizenship defects. A large number of the individuals canceled showed up on the voter rolls despite the fact on their voter registration forms, they were shown to be alien and not eligible to vote.
Thousands of registrants removed due to citizenship defects cast ballots based on voter history records.
The report documents efforts taken by state and local election officials to HIDE the extent of non-citizen voting. An internal email even revealed that there were efforts to alter public records so that they could hide the fraud.
The 5,556 that were removed due to citizenship defects in Virginia are only the “tip of the iceberg”. The 5,556 were caught by ACCIDENT after the alien told the state agency their citizenship status AFTER registering to vote. If they had not blundered and provided inconsistent answers as to their citizenship status, they would have gone completely under the perceived radar.
Back in 2016, PILF (Public Interest Legal Foundation), the same folks who did this current report, state that they attempted to acquire election records illustrating registrants removed for citizenship defects. Federal law states that maintenance records are “subject to public inspection”. The election officials declined to demonstrate any form of transparency.
J. Christian Adams for PJ Media writes:
[I]t took three separate federal lawsuits — against Alexandria City, Manassas City, and Chesterfield County — filed by PILF to finally obtain the information.
Along the way, other election officials in internal email discussions obtained by PILF contemplated altering list maintenance records to conceal the extent of cancellations for citizenship status.
For example, Arlington County General Registrar Linda Lindberg, in an email obtained by PILF, contemplated providing an altered and shorter list of registrants removed for citizenship problems. Her email stated:
“This group [PILF] has and will interpret the fact that there may be voting credit on the cancelled record as “illegal aliens” registering and voting, despite the voter having subsequently affirmed his citizenship. …  I am going to delete or otherwise notate these names from my report, either by deleting the rows from the Excel version or marking them on the report.”
Lindberg specifically contemplated hiding the full report of non-citizen cancellations from PILF and then producing an abbreviated list that excluded anyone on the list who subsequently cast a ballot regardless of the timing of any naturalization process.
View three examples of those registered to vote despite not having the required citizenship status:

Read the full report by Adams here.

Clapper: We Still Have No Evidence of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And The Russians

President Trump is back from his first foreign trip and the allegations surrounding campaign collaboration with Russian officials continue with little evidence. 
During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper again stated there is no evidence to show officials from the Trump presidential campaign worked with the Kremlin to change the outcome of the 2016 election. Further, Clapper said there is nothing to show the content of routine conversations between the Trump transition team and Russian officials were nefarious in nature. 
"I also have to say that with specific respect to the issue of collusion, as I’ve said before, I’ve testified to this effect, i saw no direct evidence of political collusion between the campaign, the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. 
Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Diane Feinstein has repeatedly stated she too has not seen evidence to prove collusion. 
Over to you, John Sununu: 


What if the Collusion Probe Finds Nothing?

President Trump is back from his first foreign trip, and CBS "welcomed" him back by suggesting again that he can't possibly win a long fight with the media.
On May 28, CBS reporter Errol Barnett quizzed "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson, saying: "Trump is back to tweeting his unedited opinions this morning, telling people among other things, 'Many of the leaks coming from the White House are fabricated lies coming from the fake news media.' Are his supporters still buying that same excuse?" Every politicized story loaded up with anonymous Trump-trashing government officials must be the gospel truth. It doesn't matter that people leaking these stories are unquestionably driven by a political agenda. Time and again, these leaked stories have collapsed. None of that matters.
Dickerson replied in kind: "His supporters that buy that line is a shrinking group. A lot of the things he's calling and has called fake news are now things that have either been supported by officials and members of both parties. The things he said were fake and made up are now the subject of a special counsel investigation. It`s hard to make the case that this is a fake set of inquiries."
This is the kind of weird logic that suffices in Liberal Land. A story is not fake if it's still being investigated. If we tell you it is raining and you set out to investigate that claim and it is sunny, is our story not fake because you're still investigating it? It's not a question of evidence as much as a question of political power and momentum. Ends justify means. Character assassination in order to diminish and hopefully eradicate the adversary is a good thing.
Dickerson did not sound like this when the scandal involved Hillary Clinton. A year ago, he declared her private email server a "stupid issue," a deflection from important policy matters like raising the minimum wage.
The CBS host also wasn't going to pressed by his colleague on whether all of these leaked stories turned out to be true or false. As we've noted before, the Washington Post had two anonymously sourced stories about former FBI Director Jim Comey that were deemed false: one about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offering to resign; and one about the FBI asking for additional resources for its search for Trump-Russia collusion. The acting FBI director testified under oath that the latter is not true.
Democrats from Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Rep. Maxine Waters have admitted there is zero evidence so far of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russian government in a nefarious plot to "hack the election."
But the unyielding spirit of the media was reflected in the ladies of ABC's "The View" begging former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to declare that Trump's impeachment is imminent. Rumsfeld said he hadn't seen any proof of collusion, and Joy Behar yelled back: "If! If! If! If!" Rumsfeld replied: "Why would I want to 'if' that?"
Despite their proclamations that they are the guardians of facts, the liberal elite wants to fast-forward beyond the evidence and see Trump's ruin as inevitable. Sentence first; verdict after. And after that, evidence ... if any.
Former Gov. John Sununu told CNN there was no collusion, and it has looked for months now. When anchor Alisyn Camerota noted that "We're at the beginning of the investigation" because special counsel Robert Mueller has just taken over, Sununu asked, "If Mueller comes out and says that my version is correct and yours isn't, how much crow are you going to eat?" The media refuse to envision that strong possibility.
The latest Washington Post story on senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner pushing the Russians for a secret back channel is falling apart. They'll be saying Donald Trump is making excuses again.

Clinton Whine Tour Part V: NYT Covered My ‘Nothing Burger’ Email Fiasco Like Pearl Harbor And The DNC Screwed Me Over

Hillary Clinton engaged in a Q&A session at the Recode Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, where the former first lady tore in the Democratic National Committee for leaving her more or less adrift, saying she inherited a data operation that was bankrupt. She also said that the Russians weaponized the leaked emails on Wikileaks, and that they influenced voters. She added that the Russians couldn't have executed such an activity without guidance. And yes, former FBI Director James Comey was mentioned in her candid discussion, noting that she started to tank as soon as he sent the now-infamous October 28 letter to Congress informing them that the FBI would review new emails. What she failed to mention is that pollsters disagree with the claim that the letter contributed to her election loss. Data cruncher Nate Cohn of The New York Times even said that we should be skeptical; Clinton began to rebound in the weekend leading up to Election Day. She also said that Facebook has to do a better job weeding out fake news stories. Again, these stories did not play a pivotal role in the election, according to two professors, Hunt Allcott from New York University and Matthew Gentzkow from Stanford.
Mrs. Clinton also tore into the news media, saying that they covered her email fiasco like it was Pearl Harbor. She also said it was “the biggest nothing burger­ ever.” The voters disagreed. If there was one issue that torpedoed her on character issues (i.e. trust, honesty, etc.) it was her email system. It was unauthorized. It was unsecure. And the allegations that she might have mishandled classified information were not absurd. The FBI discovered thousands of classified emails on the server, though many were "up-classified" upon review. Yet, three were marked classified at the time of inception, undercutting the narrative that Clinton did not send or receive any classified information. She also did not turn over all of her work-related emails. The endless trip ups over her email arrangement didn’t help extinguish any fires either. In all, the whole scandal rehashed the many criticisms people had of her and Bill Clinton during the 1990s—that they’re secretive and play by their own rules. That was exemplified with this issue. In June of 2016, a new email was discovered that wasn’t turned over that shows why Mrs. Clinton had the private email system established. USA Today’s Susan Page was on CBS’ Face The Nation to give us the rundown:
“An important disclosure for two reasons; number one it showed she was concerned about letting—she gave a different explanation for why she had a private email server. She was concerned about the personal being accessible; it wasn’t a matter of convenience, which is what she told the world. Secondly, she didn’t turn it over. She deleted this email apparently and it came up because it came through the aide that she had sent it to—so it goes right to those questions about honesty, trustworthiness, and transparency
Hillary Clinton also said that she always knew it would be a close election, despite forecasters giving her 70 or 80+ percent chances of winning, which added to the shock. Everyone can play Monday morning quarterback, but that’s just disingenuous. I think the former first lady and two-time presidential loser knew she was going to win; her staff was popping champagne before the polls closed. And when she didn’t—the utter shock left her enraged, befuddled, and in search of blaming everyone else for her failed campaign.
If there’s one thing that we know about Hillary—and the rest of the political Left—they have this herculean ability to avoid taking responsibility and admitting that Mrs. Clinton was a terrible candidate and a bad campaigner. Telling half the country they’re deplorable for supporting the Republican isn’t a good way to win. Ignoring tens of millions of white working class voters isn’t a good way to win. Having zero economic messages isn’t a good way to win. Also, this email issue wouldn’t have been a major focal point if you just created a government address and abided by the 2009 regulations set by the National Archives and Records Administration, but we know that Clinton thinks that those silly rules are for the little people.
In the end, no one liked her, trusted her, or was even receptive to her agenda. Millions of Obama supporters flipped for Trump, with a decent chunk saying that the Clinton-Democratic agenda favored the wealthy. She was a disaster. Also, it’s not like James Comey, the Russians, and the news media told her to avoid the Rust Belt at all costs. That was all on her.
Clinton will whine some more about losing one of the most winnable elections in recent memory, but it’s still all her fault. At the same time, she has a lot of time on her hands, so expect these candid conversations about why she sucked to continue. There is one silver lining: she said (again) that mounting another campaign is not in her future.
Addendum: The former first lady also said that they tried to warn about Russian meddling, but were ignored. The Obama administration knew about it as well, but did nothing. Seems like she should be angrier with the former president more than anything else—and there are reports that she is.

VILE=>Author of CHILDREN’S BOOKS Ken Jennings Attacks 11-Year Old Traumatized Barron Trump

Another CockRoach from the left.  I wonder if this Piece of Crap will apologize to after this? 

Ken Jennings is a New York Time’s best selling author for children’s books and ‘Jeopardy!’ champion. He took to his Twitter account to attack 11-year old Barron Trump following the gruesome photo shoot Kathy Griffin did holding up President Trump’s severed head.
Jennings penned a series published by Simon & Schuster called ‘Junior Genius Guides‘. Does Simon & Schuster support one of their children’s books authors attacking a child?
11 year-old Barron Trump was reportedly traumatized after seeing Kathy Griffin’s picture holding a beheaded Donald Trump on television.
He thought something had happened to his father!
President Trump even tweeted about his 11-year old son being traumatized after seeing what he thought was his father’s severed head:

This is the left, folks. Leftists even attack children who are the most innocent and precious of society. This guy writes children’s books? Unbelievable!