CHAFFETZ: “Did Hillary give non-cleared people access to classified information?” COMEY (Lying Douchus Maximus): “Yes...I don’t see the evidence there to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.” CHAFFETZ: “I guess I read criminal intent as the idea that you allow somebody without security clearance access to classified information."
Video of the Day
Like politics in the City of Chicago...along with all the politicians it's spawned...this entire family stinks like a whorehouse at low tide. Anyone who says Hillary is suited for anything but an orange jumpsuit is either looking to profit from her presidency or dumber than a box of rocks.
Tales From the Dark Side
Courtesy of Bill Meisen, a video worth viewing if only to see how the MSM silences ANYONE who presents the remotest threat to Hillary's ascension to the White House. Yes, Jill Stein IS an Educated Enviroidiot; so why would her criticism of Hillary require censorship?!?
On the Lighter Side
Former OK Senator Tom Coburn (who we frankly don't think much of given his affinity for B. Hussein) flusters Chuck Todd with a dazzling display of the obvious.
To old friends, we bid you welcome. To those unfamiliar with either our site or, perhaps more importantly, our sense of humor, learn more about us through the "About" link at the top of the page
Our latest offering is below; past editions can be accessed through the "Archive" link in the box at the top of the page. Feel free to participate in our latest poll, located immediately to the right, and be sure to view our video selections in the numbered boxes above.
We appreciate you taking the time to visit, and hope you've enjoyed The Daily Gouge.
It’s Monday, August 29th, 2016…but before we get to it, submitted for your perusal, another titillating tale torn from pages of The Crime Blotter which displays such a level of official indifference and ineptitude it could only originate in Chicago:
“One of the men charged with killing the cousin of NBA star Dwyane Wade was “on his daily break from an electronic monitoring bracelet” at the time of the murder, Chicago police said Sunday.
An exasperated Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson said at a news conference that Derren Sorrells’ ankle monitor wasn’t active when 32-year-old Nykea Aldridge was shot and killed in front of a school on Friday. Sorrells and his brother, Darwin Sorrells Jr., were charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder on Sunday.
Both brothers were known gang members and repeat offenders, Johnson said. Darwin had been out on parole since February and was a “career gun offender,” Johnson said.Derren had six prior felony arrests. Derren’s ankle monitor was inactive from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., ostensibly so he could look for work, Deputy Chief Jimmy Jones said on Sunday. “This individual chose to use his time by killing someone,” Jones said.
Police believe the Sorrells brothers intended to shoot the driver of a vehicle that ferried Aldridge to the school where she was attempting to register her child. The driver, who immediately cooperated with police, was allegedly targeted because he “exchanges looks” with the suspects and was from out of town, Jones said. The Sorrells tried chasing the driver down and fired at him, police said, but instead hit Aldridge, who was pushing a baby carriage…”
“…on his daily break from an electronic monitoring bracelet” at the time of the murder”; does this scenario ring a bell with anyone else?!?
Attacker who murdered Catholic priest under police supervision, wore monitoring bracelet
“One of the two knife-wielding Islamist attackers who slit the throat of a Catholic priest during a morning Mass in northern France Tuesday was under judicial supervision after trying to travel to Syria twice under false names.
Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins told reporters that 19-year-old Adel Kermiche’s bail conditions allowed his electronic monitoring bracelet to be deactivated for a few hours every morning, a period that corresponded with the attack in the town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray…”
As the adamant atheist George Santayana so eloquently noted, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Unfortunately, as is true with the impact of so many Progressive policies, it’s the innocent who pay the price for their folly.
Anyone care to bet any amount of money no one in Chicago’s parole bureaucracy will even get a letter of reprimand for this fiasco, let alone lose their job?!? Yet all Dimocrats can offer in response to the mayhem they’ve created is more and more of the same!!!
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, writing at NRO, Jonah Goldberg offers the cautionary tale of…
Hillary and Her Wheelbarrows
Defenders of Clinton miss the point: Access to her for Clinton Foundation donors was itself the favor.
Do you know the old wheelbarrow joke? It’s truly funny only to grandpas and the grandkids they tell it to, so I won’t bother with the elaborate setup. For years a factory worker pushes a wheelbarrow full of straw past a security guard on his way out. Suspicious that the guy is stealing something, the guard looks in the straw but can’t find anything. Finally, when the worker is retiring, the guard asks, “I know you’ve been stealing something — can you tell me what it is?
The guy smiles and says, “Wheelbarrows.”
That joke keeps popping into my head whenever I hear Hillary Clinton’s defenders say there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in the fresh batch of e-mails released this week. According to many Republican critics, the trove provides fresh evidence that the Clinton Foundation was, in Donald Trump’s words, a “pay-to-play” scheme, selling access to and favors from the secretary of state.
The Clinton team says there’s no proof of that. Both Clinton and many of her critics can get ahead of the facts, though in opposite directions. But one thing is clear: Clinton lied.(And that repeatedly and continuously!)That’s not shocking; she’s famous for doing that.
Just last month, Clinton said, “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.” During her confirmation hearings, members of the Obama administration and Congress extracted assurances from Clinton that there would be a high wall between her State Department and her family’s foundation. It turned out it was more like a turnstile.
Former Clinton Foundation official Doug Band would contact Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest aide, when he needed a “favor” for a “friend” (his words) — and the friend would in many cases be a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Radio host Hugh Hewitt tartly describes the Clinton Foundation as providing “concierge service” to the State Department.
While everyone but ardent Clinton surrogates can agree that the whole thing looks bad, there’s ample disagreement about whether there’s any fire under all the smoke. The Clinton campaign insists that there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in any of the newly released e-mails. In other words, there isn’t an e-mail saying something like, “If you donate $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, you can be ambassador to Kenya. For $20 million, we’ll exempt you from the ban on importing baby elephant ivory.”
To which the obvious response is, “Duh.” Some things just aren’t put in writing.
She may or may not be guilty of selling favors.(Jonah’s too kind; there’s NO QUESTION she’s guilty of selling favors!!!) But if she is, I very much doubt we’ll find evidence of it in an e-mail.
This whole argument misses the point. What we know from these e-mails, particularly thanks to an analysis by the Associated Press, is that Clinton or other State Department officials agreed to meet or talk on the phone with a large number of Clinton Foundation donors. Some of these meetings probably would have happened if the foundation never existed. But clearly somewouldn’t have.
Team Clinton wants to say that even though these meetings and conversations took place, there’s no evidence that anyone was granted a special favor. Fine. Maybe. We’ll see. But even if that’s true, is there any evidence that the Clinton Foundationwasn’t eager to leave the impression that a donation couldn’t hurt your chances with the State Department? This brings me back to the wheelbarrow joke. The meetings (and phone calls) are the wheelbarrows. It really doesn’t matter if there’s nothing “inside” the wheelbarrows; the meetings and conversations alone were valuable.
Being able to say to business partners, creditors, local politicians, etc., “When I met with Secretary of State Clinton last week . . .” is a gift. In America and even more so abroad, possessing a reputation for having friends in the highest places is a priceless asset. All campaigns understand this. Donors could always just send the check by mail. But politicians understand that one of the things a donor is “buying” is the ability to strut like an insider and dine out on your political connections.
When Bill Clinton rented out the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House to big donors, the donors didn’t get to keep the furniture, but they did get to begin sentences, “The last time I stayed at the White House…”
The Clinton Foundation may not have sold any policy changes, but it definitely sold the wheelbarrows.
But, Jonah’s rather inexplicable refusal to recognize the obvious notwithstanding, as this vivid video details, Hillary and her husband are definitelyNOT simply selling wheelbarrows:
Frankly, we continue to be amazed at the number of otherwise-intelligent Conservative writers disinclined to confirm what is as obvious…
…as Barry’s ears or Moochie’s backside: namely, Hillary and Bill are…
As the immortal John Vernon remarked in his role as Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales…
Next up, as Alexandra Descantis details at NRO, The Wicked Witch of the West Wing’s most ardent assassins plan…
“If you live in one of these 30 major cities across the country, be sure to clear your calendar on September 10 for a free concert . . . in support of expanded access to abortion. According to the event website, “All Access isn’t just a concert, it’s a powerful cultural event that unites people of all ages, racial and gender identities to expand our access to abortion and celebrate our collective power.”
Abortion supporters have been dragging this divisive issue into the limelight for many years — albeit previously without the marketing tactic of a nationwide concert glorifying the subject — as the former appeal of the outdated Democratic mantra “safe, legal, and rare” fades to nothing more than a fond memory.
These days, left-wing celebrities such as Lena Dunham dress up as abortionists for Halloween and groups such as NARAL crack jokes about the supposed hilarity of getting an abortion. Radical abortion supporters’ staging vulgar protests or doing victory dances in the public square is nothing new. But a widespread attempt to mainstream abortion as a social good in itself is something else entirely, and the All Access concert is far from the only example of this recent phenomenon.
The Washington Post “Style” section recently published a glowing profile of Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, remarking upon her “immaculately put together” sense of style and “warm authenticity,” as if she were just your run-of-the-mill female executive and not one who makes well over half a million dollars each year from the execution of unborn babies.
…The push to terminate the “stigma” of abortion — and, with it, the idea that anyone could rationally object to public funding of the practice — is a key element of the pro-abortion movement, and central to this effort are groups that proudly trumpet women’s abortion stories on social media and in the news.
Last September, #ShoutYourAbortion was founded to make “discussing abortion . . . as normal as the procedure itself” because, in the words of the group’s mission statement, “the anti-choice movement succeeds in denying women their reproductive autonomy by encouraging shame and silence instead of discourse.”
The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF), meanwhile, recently launched its “We Testify” website with a similar goal:
Every day someone chooses to have an abortion. We are not alone in this decision, however, due to stigma, we’re often made to feel isolated and shamed. Our stories remind us and those around us that we’re not alone. We testify as experts to our experiences. We testify that our spirituality and abortion are one. We testify on behalf of our communities and others who’ve had abortions across the country. When we speak out and share our stories, we demand to be counted.
Yes, you read that correctly: “Our spirituality and abortion are one.”…”
Nothing…NOTHING…Progressives promote bespeaks their utter and complete moral bankruptcy more than their unwavering support for this culture of death. We don’t believe there are any levels in Hell; but if there are, we know…
…those who’ll be occupying the hottest floor.
Since we’re on the subject of the morally bankrupt and utterly ungrateful, courtesy of Newsbusters.org, Dylan Gwinn reports on a story which struck a chord with us:
San Francisco 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem in their preseason game against the Green Bay Packers on Friday night. In a statement to the NFL’s Steve Wyche, Kaepernick said:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game against Green Bay. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
Unclear as to whether or not Kaepernick considers our black President and black head of the Justice Department as in on the racist cabal. That story coming later, probably. Actually, probably not.
Kaepernick’s statement shouldn’t be much of a surprise though, given how his Twitter timeline basically reads like a Black Lives Matter site. Including one instance where Kaepernick retweets someone who is basically saying most white people are racists.
Kaepernick told Wyche that he wanted to wait before speaking out, and learn more about the issue:
“This is not something that I am going to run by anybody,” he said. “I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed…If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right.”
Of course Kaepernick’s football was due to be taken away, in all likelihood, in addition to any endorsements, due to the fact that he’s not good at football anymore. He almost assuredly will be the odd man out in the 49ers quarterback competition. So, Kaepernick’s “learning time” was more than likely a strategic wait until what was likely his final game.Or, second to final game as a 49ers quarterback, in order to minimize any potential fallout prior to making his “brave stand.”
“You racist honkies just adopted me for my future earning potential!”
This is especially rich coming from Kaepernick, who is of mixed race, adopted by two white parents.In addition, he was drafted by a white coach and general manager, replaced a white quarterback, and was paid millions of dollars by an organization that is owned by white people.
However, of more importance, Kaepernick’s Twitter timeline didn’t just start retweeting racists yesterday.He’s actually been at it for quite a while.An inconvenient truth that the sports media will now try to pretend they didn’t realize, and will in no way confront him about.While they “respect his decision, and his right” to not stand for the Anthem.
“As a first amendment absolutist I support Colin Kaepernick’s right to make whatever statement he wants about his political beliefs. But since I’m a full bore proponent of the marketplace of ideas, I also feel very comfortable saying this — Kaepernick is a fucking idiot.
Let me explain. Here is what Colin Kaepernick said about his decision not to stand for the national anthem during last night’s preseason game:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.“
First, who is getting away with murder? That’s a strong accusation. Who in particular has committed murder in this country and not been charged with it?If you’re going to make this statement then you need to give us particulars that motivate your decision and your beliefs.I don’t want bland generalities, I want specifics here.If you feel strongly enough to refuse to “stand up to show pride in a flag,” then you need to have some basis for your decision. So far Kaepernick has shown none. Indeed, his Twitter feed is a hodgepodge of unintelligible retweets of random, often incorrect, Internet articles that have no coherent connection. In typical social justice warrior, PC bromani fashion, Kaepernick has chosen to make his voice heard in a way that pretty much only draws attention to him and does nothing to make any situation better. That’s fine, but what exactly is Kaepernick proving by making this point?
Moreover, why, in his sixth season in the NFL, did he suddenly decide that the country is oppressing black people and people of color.Presumably the country’s black president didn’t make a decision this year to suddenly lead a country into systemic oppression of black people. So what has suddenly changed that made him willing to stand for five years for the national anthem and unwilling to stand this year? He needs to offer a reasonable explanation for what has changed that led to his decision to stop supporting the country’s anthem.
Again, I support Kaepernick’s right to voice his political opinion — a robust and uninhibited first amendment is what makes this country great — but if you’re going to demand that your voice be heard, you better be able to explain why you want your voice to be heard when we give you the attention you’re demanding.Kaepernick’s explanation is a bland and cliche-riddled statement lacking in specificity or direct connection to any tangible goal. This isn’t Ali standing up to the Vietnam War or athletes demanding equal treatment under the law during the civil rights movement, it’s an absurd attention-seeking statement with no substance behind it.
Once you make the decision to enter the marketplace of ideas, in my opinion, you’re obligated to put forward a coherent reason for your decision-making if you want to be taken seriously.Otherwise, I can feel free, thanks to this same first amendment that you’re using to gain attention, to pronounce you a daft prima donna whose football talents have so deteriorated you aren’t even capable of beating out Blaine freaking Gabbert to be quarterback.As if that weren’t enough I can also say that based on yourTwitter feed you look like a lost and psychologically unstable individual.
Second, what does the United States do to oppress black people?I’m not being obtuse with this question, what tangible decisions does the United States government — currently helmed by a black man as president and a black woman as head of the justice department — make that oppress black people and other people of color?I want actual governmental actions that legally treat black people differently in a negative fashion and that Kaepernick feels need to be changed.Again, once you demand that your voice be heard in this fashion, you need to explain what you want changed. I don’t want bullshit generalities, I want specific issues that have so troubled you that you feel the need to stop standing for the national anthem for the first time in your six year NFL career.
Because when I review federal law, what I see is the exact opposite of black oppression. Everyone is treated as equally as they possibly can be by the federal government. There is no systemic racism in our federal government. In fact, affirmative action is actually a governmental attempt to treat black people unequally — that is more favorably than other people — solely because of their race.If anything, the United States government’s laws discriminate in favor of black people based on their skin color. I’m open to hearing what systemic oppression Kaepernick believes the United States government is undertaking and what he believes need to be redressed. But he has provided none of these specifics so far. If you want me to treat your opinions with respect, you need to provide opinions worthy of respect.Not just insipid generalities…”
Kaepernick truly encapsulates the ignorance of so much of today’s Far Left. Black Lives Matter base its offensive against Capitalism and our Constitutional Republic on the myth of Ferguson’s “gentle giant” and “hands up-don’t shoot”:
Yet the rest of The Left’s assault on freedom is every bit as tenuous.
Here’s the juice: after one season, Colin thought he was the next Joe Montana. In reality…
And that, like all the rest of Progressivism’s patent train wrecks, have to be blamed on someone else!
Speaking of Tony Romo, in the Sports Section, FOX Sports describes how…
“When Tony Romo was hurt in Thursday night’s exhibition against Seattle, and Jerry Jones told everyone he wasn’t actually injured, there was one prevailing reaction among Dallas Cowboys fans: Uh-huh.Sure, Jerry.
So it turns out that Romo wincing on the sideline was the result of a fracture in his back, which the Cowboys announced Saturday, giving no timetable for his return. Reports state Romo could miss as much as 10 weeks…”
We have no particular bone to pick with Tony Romo; he’s got a hot wife, beautiful kid and as long as he’s the starting QB for Dallas, we figure the ‘Skins have the best chance of winning the NFC East. But an internet search on his travails led us to composing this humble bit of homage to Romo and “America’s (Losing) Team”:
All of which adds up to why, come the end of the season…
Oh,…did we mention since Tom Landry and Roger Staubach retired and Jerry Jones bought the franchise, we HATE THE COWBOYS?!?
As for any Patriots fans out there:
Then there’s this for all you UT fanatics bummed out about Romo’s season-ending injury: