Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Bill Clinton Just Slipped And Made Disturbing Admission, Now He Has Hell To Pay From Hillary

Bill’s in trouble

Published

on

Former President Bill Clinton just cannot seem to get away from questionable conduct and targeting of women. Clinton has been repeatedly accused of being inappropriate towards members of the opposite sex, sexual misconduct, fondling, and even outright rape.

Clinton continues to tour to promote his new book, a joint venture with James Patterson entitled “The President is Missing.” Yet questions continue to arise regarding the repeated accusations of sexual misconduct and rape.

In a Thursday interview with PBS Newshour, the 71-year-old former president offered what ranks as one of the most amazing Freudian slips of the 21st century.  When asked by host Judy Woodruff about former Minnesota senator Al Franken leaving the Senate after sexual harassment allegations were made against him, Clinton replied with that “norms have changed” regarding “what you can do to somebody against their will.”

When exactly did the definition of “NO” change? Does “I’m not interested” mean something different now? Or does that just mean that you were previously given a free pass for being a lecherous, handsy, disgusting, ethically void degenerate and now you are not?

Trending: Cop Pulls Man Over for Best Anti-Obama Sticker He’s Ever Seen – It’s Priceless!

The full context of the exchange was –

Woodruff – I assume you think that what happened with you was more serious than what happened with Senator — former Senator Al Franken. He was driven from office, from the U.S. Senate. So, norms have changed. Do you think that’s a good thing?

Clinton – Well, in general, I think it’s a good thing, yes. I think it’s a good thing that we should all have higher standards. I think the norms have really changed in terms of, what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work. You don’t have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work or at home or in their other — just walking around.”

Clinton then continued, stating with regard to Franken – “I think that — I will be honest — the Franken case, for me, was a difficult case, a hard case. There may be things I don’t know. But I — maybe I’m just an old-fashioned person.”

For the record, Al Franken was never accused of simply “crowding” anyone or simply being in their personal space. Several women state he “forcibly kissed” and groped them. There is also additional pictorial evidence of Franken’s disgusting behavior towards women.

Perhaps Clinton should ask Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Leslie Millwee about his conduct and if they believe the norms have changed.

Clinton continued – “That, I think, is good. I think that — I will be honest — the Franken case, for me, was a difficult case, a hard case. There may be things I don’t know. But I — maybe I’m just an old-fashioned person, but it seemed to me that there were 29 women on “Saturday Night Live” that put out a statement for him, and that the first and most fantastic story was called, I believe, into question. Too late to wade into it now. I mean, I think it’s a grievous thing to take away from the people a decision they have made, especially when there is an election coming up again. But it’s done now and I think that all of us should just be focusing on how to do better and how to go forward.”

Meanwhile, according to a new Rasmussen poll, an astounding 53% of American voters say they believe Clinton is a sexual predator. Rasmussen states – “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters consider Clinton a victim of his political opponents. Fifty-three percent (53%) describe the ex-president as a sexual predator instead. Another 24% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)”

Meanwhile, Bill’s refusal to understand what the word “NO” means has come back once more to haunt Hillary Clinton. During the 2016 presidential election when Hillary Clinton sent out a tweet saying that assault victims deserve to be believed, Hillary was questioned at a public forum when a questioner confronted her asking whether her comment also applied to her husband’s accusers.

“I would say that everybody should be believed at first,” she said, “until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

Last week, Clinton erupted at NBC’s Craig Melvin over questions about Monica Lewinsky. Clinton accused Melvin of giving a one-sided interview. Sources add that Hillary Clinton is furious with her husband as his sex scandals continue to haunt her and cause further embarrassment.

Hillary herself continues to rage at Bill. His behavior continues to haunt her. The Clintons have previously been sued for sexual misconduct. Back in the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton’s impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999.

In the past, Hillary has hired teams of detectives who managed to silence a number of women with complaints about Bill’s unwanted sexual advances. Yet, she now admits there is a different atmosphere in our culture about sexual harassment and she rages it is no longer possible to intimidate most women into silence.  Hillary wants to continue to remain in the public eye as a leader of the resistance against President Donald Trump. She intends to play a major role in politics for years to come, including possibly running for president again in 2020.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading

News

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house

Published

on

A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend