Mediaboss Marketing

White House senior aideKellyanne Conway on Tuesday said if she needed harmful information about Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonLawsuit claims Trump involvement in retracted Fox story on Seth Rich North Korea targeted emails of Clinton advisers: report GOP rep on Trump dictating Russia meeting statement: Best to have maximum amount of transparency MORE she would turn to the Democratic presidential candidate herself, rather than Russia.

Look, I was the campaign manager for the winning part of the campaign and if I needed negative information about Hillary Clinton, I look no further than Hillary Clinton, Conway told Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier.

You certainly didnt need to go to Moscow. You could just see what she was saying everyday. No optimistic economic message for America, Conway said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conway and other Trump aides have pushed back afterThe Washington Post reported that President Trump dictated the statement his eldest son Donald TrumpDonald TrumpHow Polish populism explains Trump and the rebirth of nationalism Lewandowski: Priebus 'ultimately responsible' for White House leaks Ex-Cruz aide: Now Bannon is establishment voice in Trump White House MORE Jr. provided to The New York Times regarding a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign.

Trump Jr., along with the president's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, sat down for the June 2016 meeting after Trump Jr. was told the lawyer had damaging information about Clinton.

The president weighed in because fathers do that, Conway said on the report that the presidenthimself drafted the statement.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered a similar argument earlier Tuesday while disputing that the initial statement contained inaccurate or misleading information.

The aide'scomments largely appeared to confirm the Post report that Trump was personally involved in drafting the statement, potentially opening him up to further legal scrutiny.

Read more from the original source:
Conway: You 'didn't need to go to Moscow' for intel on Hillary - The Hill

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders / Getty

BY: Kathryn Covert August 1, 2017 2:36 pm

A former top Hillary Clinton adviser made it clear on Monday that he will not come around to welcoming Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and his supporters into the Democratic Party.

In an 11-tweet rant, Peter Daou, a strategist and internet director for Clinton's presidential run in 2008, railed against Sanders and his followers, writing that they are "detrimental" tothe Democratic party.

Daou began with a jab at Sanders' popularity before diving into the latest actions that provoked his ire. The Clinton supporter accused Sanders of being a "destructive force." He added that Sanders and his "diehard followers" are targeting rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Sens. Kamala Harris(D., Calif.) and Cory Booker (D., N.J.).

Daou also accused Sanders supporters of continuing to use "rightwing" talking points against Clinton.

The self-described political analyst then dove deeper into the "destruction" caused by Sanders. He said that the Vermont senator spent "two years on a rampage" against Democrats.

Daou then returnedto the issue of Sanders' popularityapparently a sticking point for him. He references a so-called "highly misleading" Harvard-Harris poll, which claimed that Sanders is the most popular active politician in the United States.

Daou disagreed with the polls' results due to his observation that Sanders is not "compared to all politicians," but rather "just a handful."

In an effort to explain why Sanders being the "most popular" politician isin his viewabsurd, Daou said that Sanders did not face nearly the scrutiny that Clinton did during the 2016 campaign.He then gave props to Clinton for her fortitude, commenting on how despite the "smears," her numbers after leaving the Department of State were better than Sanders' are now.

Close to wrapping things up, Daou called for Democratic leaders to "let go" of the notion that Sanders could turn Trump voters to vote for the Democratic party. He said that Democrats have an "exciting field developing" and Sanders is "not one of them."

In a final tweet, Daou clarified that he does not see his actions being in any way likeSanders'. He said that as soon as Sanders and his supporters "stop slamming Dems," he will "stop fighting back."

Prior to Monday's tweetstorm, Daou was an outspoken critic of Sanders.

On Nov. 30, weeks after Clinton lost the presidential election to Donald Trump, Daou tweeted that Sanders had "absolutely no business determining the course of the Democratic Party after the harm he did to us."

On Jan. 6, he repeated those sentiments regarding the "damage" Sanders caused.

See the original post:
Former Clinton Adviser: Sanders and His Followers Are 'Detrimental to the Democratic Party' - Washington Free Beacon

"It might have been" are not always the saddest words. Sometimes, they're the most horrifying.

Hillary Clinton in September will come out with a new book called "What Happened," about her loss to Donald Trump. That got me thinking: What would have happened had she won?

For instance, what if Clinton became president, Chuck Schumer assumed leadership of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi once again wielded a gavel in the House of Representatives?

Sooner than you can say "political payback to Planned Parenthood," the United States would have had taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Don't believe me? I offer as evidence Exhibit A the state of Oregon.

Oregon right now is not just blue, it's midnight blue verging on total darkness. Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and the state's executive branch. And they have just enacted the most radical, inhumane abortion law in the history of the U.S.

The new law, which Democratic Governor Kate Brown has gleefully pledged to implement, forces nearly all insurance plans in the state to include no-cost coverage for any and all abortions. Only houses of worship would be exempt from this abortion mandate a provision that bears some similarities to the Obama administration's HHS mandate, against which Priests for Life and others have prevailed in court. Faith-based hospitals, schools, and other charities are probably preparing lawsuits as you read this, if they haven't already.

But Oregon's law doesn't stop at free abortions for the insured. For women with no health insurance, Oregon has set aside millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for their abortions at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason, no questions asked.

Apparently, for the radicals that lead Oregon's Democratic Party, it was not enough that, prior to this legislation, their state was already the Wild West of abortions. There were no restrictions on the practice, not even rules found in most states such as waiting periods, parental notification, or limits on Medicaid-funded abortions.

But unfettered assembly line abortions were not enough. At least not enough to keep Planned Parenthood afloat.

Abortions in Oregon have been in steady decline. They dropped by 15 percent between 2011 and 2014; since 1980, the number has fallen by almost half. And fewer abortions is bad business for Planned Parenthood. Despite favorable legal conditions, the nation's biggest abortion business (and co-author of the Oregon bill) has had to close clinics in the state in the last few years.

President Ronald Reagan once said, "If you want more of something, subsidize it." Clearly, Oregon's Democrats and Planned Parenthood want more abortions.

So, why is Oregon's story evidence of what would have happened had Democrats seized control of Congress and the presidency last November? I offer as further evidence Exhibit B the 2016 Democratic Platform.

Last year, the Democrats made their platform the most pro-abortion it has ever been. Not content to declare "that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortionregardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured," the Democrats added language calling for the repeal of all federal and state laws that in any way restrict public funding for abortion.

In other words, the Democratic national platform calls for what Oregon has just done.

Aside from Oregon, there are only five other states where Democrats effectively control all the levers of power California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Like Oregon, they're sanctuary states for those who literally rip babies apart.

Delaware this year passed what was, before Oregon's, the most pro-abortion law in the country. In the words of Delaware Right to Life, the measure "codifies abortion on demand for any and no reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy based upon the abortion doctor's good faith medical judgment.'"

Rhode Island Democrats tried to do what Delaware did, but a public outcry caused nine legislators to withdraw their support, killing the killing bill.

California, Connecticut, and Hawaii are also havens for the abortion industry. None have any real limits on abortions and all three use state Medicaid funds to pay for them.

Finally, should there be any doubt about what Democrats would have done had they won the elections, let's look at what they're trying to do now Exhibit C, the "Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) of 2017."

WHPA is pending in Congress and is co-sponsored by 128 Democrats (66 percent of the House Democratic caucus). It would not only impose on every state a scheme of abortion through all nine months, it would also overturn virtually every state restriction on abortion, including parental notification and waiting periods. Further, it would bar any state from setting any health or safety standards for abortion clinics. It wouldn't even let states require abortionists to be doctors.

The Democratic Party's position on abortion is not mainstream; in fact, it is insanely extreme. Gallup has found that only 27 percent of the public thinks that abortion should be legal after the first three months of pregnancy, while only 14 percent say it should be legal after the first six months. That's not a stream of public opinion; it's barely a trickle.

And yet, in the states they control, Democrats are legalizing the abortion of almost-born babies for any reason at taxpayers' expense. There's no doubt that they'd do so on a national level if given the chance.

Those who are pro-abortion may long for "what might have been." For the rest of us, may it never be!

Father Frank Pavone (@frfrankpavone) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is the national director of Priests for Life.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read the rest here:
What would abortion law now look like if Hillary Clinton had won? - Washington Examiner

Over the weekend, Democrats were all party poppers and fireworks over the failure of the Senate GOPs so-called skinny repeal of Obamacare. In reality, the defeat was no huge loss. The proposed repeal wasnt just skinny; it was dangerously undernourished. Waif supermodels from the 90s were shaking their heads and saying, Get that thing a hamburger, stat.

So left-wing media take one day off from calling John McCain a war criminal to call him a hero. Big deal. What we really needed was a McDonalds-for-every-meal, gravy-guzzling, obese repeal of Obamacare. The GOP failure to win the health care victory after seven years of anti-Obamacare hype and despite controlling the White House and both houses of Congress was an epic failure a club-soda-proof stain on the Republican brand going forward.

But even though the Left is shaking its anti-Trump pom-poms while the Right is licking its self-inflicted wounds, things arent so bad in Conservative-land. No matter what anti-Trump dramas the media cook up or which ones he conjures up with his own brand of pot-stirring magic, the American people are always winning because Hillary Clinton didnt move back to the White House.

Heres what the political landscape might look like if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election:

Act 1: The Judicial Branch (Who on Earth is Neil Gorsuch?)

In a world where Trump won the 2016 election, Justice Neil Gorsuch is a household name. Everyone knows the Cliff Notes version of the Trump appointee: Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court justice originalist loves the Constitution The late Antonin Scalia himself couldnt have chosen a better successor created 5-4 conservative SCOTUS majority.

If Hillary Clinton were president (insert full body shiver here), she would have appointed a living constitutionalist to the Supreme Court, and Democrat appointees would have had their first Supreme Court majority in almost 50 years. In a Clinton presidency, conservatives would have been doing back flips if theyd managed to end up with left-of-center, failed Obama nominee Merrick Garland on the court.

The left-wing media love to wax apocalyptic on a daily basis and label President Trumps every word a threat to democracy. But what could threaten democracy more than a Supreme Court majority who believe that the Constitution changes not by the invocation of Article Five and subsequent ratification by three quarters of the states but on its own? President Trumps appointment of Justice Gorsuch stopped that from happening.

And the Supreme Court wouldnt be the only victim. Every day Hillary Clinton would be appointing activist judges to federal courts across the U.S.

Act 2: The Legislative Branch (Clinton Mandate + Malleable Moderate Republicans = R.I.P. Conservatism) Its bad enough having senators like John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski cross party lines to protect the status quo from conservatism. If she-who-must-not-be-named were president, theyd be crossing party lines to boost progressivism, and theyd probably start with an amnesty bill.

Moderate Republican senators would be falling all over themselves to join an amnesty bill. Remember the Gang of Eight Republicans Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham who cooked up an amnesty deal with Democrats to the delight of then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell? No reason to think they wouldnt be on board for another globalist attack on American citizens. For good measure, throw in Collins and Murkowski, who arent exactly poster children for party discipline or conservative values.

Hop over to the south side of the Capitol, and youd find the House of Representatives Freedom Caucus rendered powerless. In Trumps America, they fight to make sure that the presidents agenda is implemented in the most conservative way possible. In Hillarys America, all the power in the House would belong to the Tuesday group a coalition of moderate Republicans that was created to counteract the supposedly too-conservative Freedom Caucus.

On every progressive nightmare of a bill, the Democrats magic number would be 12. Can the Democrats get 12 Tuesday Group Republicans to spend a fortune and grow the federal government? And the answer would always be yes. When Democrats cross the aisle to help Republicans the mainstream media go all Shark Week and rip them to shreds, but when Republicans cross the aisle to help Democrats, the mainstream media call them heroes. Just check out the McCain-is-a-hero headlines the senator scored this week with his big thumbs-down vote on the skinny repeal of Obamacare.

Hillarys agenda would have met with a score of giddy Republicans desperate for a kind word from The Washington Post or New York Times.

Act 3: The Executive Branch (Who Needs Congress When SheHas a Phone and a Pen?) If you-know-who had won in November, the deep state would have become the never-ending-pit state, and there would be no Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, or Mad Dog Mattis fighting it. It would be the same characters we endured for the past eight years, along with a new batch of America Last, globalist warriors.

Since taking office, President Trump has signed dozens of executive orders, from minimizing the economic burden of Obamacareto hiring 5,000 more border control agents, to forcing agencies to slash extraneous regulations.

In short, Trump's executive orders have been focused on putting America first. There's no telling what sort of executive orders Hillary Clinton would have issued, but it's no stretch to assume that they would revolve around taking the status quo and making it more socialist. She certainly wouldn't roll back any of Obama's misguided phone-and-pen, who-needs-Congress, unilateral legislation.

A Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 would have been a mandate for swamp-ism, empowering the globalists in both parties, the special interests, and establishment politics. Whatever Trump drama du jour the media areserving up, every day that Clinton is far away from the presidency is a victory for the American people.

(photo credit, homepage and article images: Gage Skidmore, Flickr)

Eddie Zipperer is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College and a regular LifeZette contributor.

See the article here:
What if Hillary Clinton Were President? - LifeZette

WASHINGTON (AP) Democrat Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to President Donald Trump, but some Republicans in Congress are intensifying their calls to investigate her and other Obama administration officials.

As investigations into Russian meddling and possible links to Trumps campaign have escalated on both sides of the Capitol, some Republicans argue that the investigations should have a greater focus on Democrats.

Democrats who have pushed the election probes have started a war of investigative attrition, said GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Several officials from former President Barack Obamas administration and Clintons campaign have appeared before or been interviewed by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as part of the Russia investigation, along with Trump campaign officials. The GOP-led committees are investigating whether Trumps campaign had any links to Russian interference in last years election.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has continued a separate investigation into whether Obama administration officials inappropriately made requests to unmask identities of Trump campaign officials in intelligence reports.

The House Judiciary Committee, which has declined to investigate the Russian meddling, approved a resolution this past week to request documents related to the FBIs now-closed investigation of Clintons emails. In addition, Republican on that committee wrote the Justice Department on Thursday and asked for a second special counsel, in addition to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to investigate unaddressed matters, some connected to the 2016 election and others, including many actions taken by Obama administration.

The American public has a right to know the facts all of them surrounding the election and its aftermath, the lawmakers wrote.

Republicans want to investigate the unmasking issue and also Clintons email scandal that figured prominently in the campaign. They also frequently bring up former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former FBI Director James Comeys testimony that she told him to call the Clinton email investigation a matter instead of an investigation during the campaign.

Nunes wrote his own letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats last week, saying that his committee has learned that one Obama administration official had made hundreds of the unmasking requests.

Even though he remains committee chairman, Nunes stepped back from the Russia investigation earlier this year after he was criticized for being too close to the White House. Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, took over the leading role.

The committee has conducted bipartisan interviews of witnesses; Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner appeared on Tuesday, a day after talking to Senate staff. But partisan tensions have been evident.

GOP Rep. Pete King of New York, whos on the House Intelligence Committee, said after the Kushner interview that the committee investigation into Russian meddling is a sham.

To me there is nothing to this from the beginning, he said of his committees own probe. There is no collusion ... its the phoniest investigation ever.

Both the Senate and House committees have interviewed or expressed interest in interviewing a series of Democratic witnesses, including Obamas former national security adviser, Susan Rice, and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power both of whom Republicans have said may be linked to the unmasking. Rice met with staff on the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, and Power met with the panel Friday.

Ambassador Power strongly supports any bipartisan effort to address the serious threat to our national security posed by Russias interference in our electoral process, and is eager to engage with the Senate and House committees on the timeline they have requested, Powers lawyer, David Pressman, said in a statement.

Follow this link:
Republicans considering investigations into Hillary Clinton - 13abc Action News