Mediaboss Marketing

The only problem is she doesnt know what she wants to do. She has already established a super PAC, Onward Together, which will support organizations fighting the Trump agenda. Shes now an avowed member of the Resistance. So, what can she do? Shes already making some Democrats a bit wary since everyone in the Democratic Party, while they still love and respect Clinton, know that new blood is needed, and that her entrance into the midterm race could clog the spot. Second, like with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Republicans can easily turn her into a villain, which means a more energized conservative base pumping cash into GOP war chests. The Hills Amie Parnes, who along with Jonathan Allen, wrote about the former first ladys failed 2016 election campaign, said that the two-time presidential loser might go with the party flow and set her sights on California and other congressional districts that split for her and the current GOP representative during the 2016 election:

She also is looking at the House districts she won in last years presidential contest against Donald Trump as part of an autopsy of her failed campaign, according to two sources who have spoken to the former secretary of State.

Its at least possible shell lend a hand on the campaign trail particularly in the 23 districts held by Republicans where voters preferred her over Donald Trump for the White House.

She's very well aware of how she performed in those districts, said one longtime Clinton confidant who has spoken to the former Democratic nominee.

[]

Democrats are focused on the Golden State as they seek to win back the House majority.

Ellen Tauscher a Clinton ally and former California congresswoman along with a longtime aide Katie Merrill, have started a super PAC focused on seven of the so-called split districts in that state that voted for Clinton but backed a Republican candidate for the House.

[]

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist, added that Clinton, could have a real voice in these places, absolutely.

She can go into those districts and make a case that there is an opportunity to do a course correction and do it in a fairly compelling way, Lehane said, particularly if Democrats strengthen their message and give voters a reason to vote for them.

[]

Even staunch Clinton supporters say that while there is room for her to play a role, she also needs to leave room for new leaders to emerge.

Garry Mauro, a longtime friend of the Clintons who led Bill Clintons 1992 campaign effort in Texas, thinks the House can be won with the help of the Longhorn state, where there are three split districts.

But he doesnt want Clinton to be front and center.

Would she be well received? Of course, she would be. But were not going to win these races because Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi comes to the state and campaigns, Mauro said. Were going to win it because we represent new leadership and new ideas.

The problem is that the recruitment of Democrats who want to carry on this new mantle could have serious issues post-Georgia, where Democrat Jon Ossoff failed to beat Republican Karen Handel. Second, the candidate farming system that Democrats crafted for their 2006 takeover has crumbled to dust; it doesnt exist. Third, white working class voter outreach will make a Democratic takeover much more easier but I doubt the insufferable urban professional progressive cohort that runs the Democratic Party would allow lectures on privilege, police brutality, safe spaces, microaggressions, and cultural appropriation be relegated to the backburner. Last, despite President Trumps shaky poll numbers, its quite possible that we could have a 2018 electorate that mirrors 2016, which benefitted Republicans. An increase in Democratic turnout, even at levels not seen in ten years, isnt enough to win. We saw that in GA-06, which are exactly the districts (i.e. Republican ones) Democrats need to flip to ensure a House takeover. California is not where the Democratic majority will be birthed. To make things more brutal for Democrats concerning their 2018 obstacles is that even if the Democrats are able to get every single Clinton voter who backed a House Republican to turn out in 2018 and flip back over,it wouldnt be enough to win the House. Thats from the left-leaning Third Way think tank [emphasis mine]:

The numbers underscore how different even the 23 GOP-held Clinton districts are demographically. Many are suburban and overwhelmingly white. Others are rural and heavily Latino. Within the broad categories, there are stark differences on income, educational attainment and employment rates. More than half of adults in New Jerseys 7th District, for example, graduated from college. Only 17 percent in Californias 10th District did.

The most important takeaway is that there is no one kind of voter or district that can deliver the House for Democrats in 2018, said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, the vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way. Theres been a lot of focus on suburban districts. Theres no doubt that those are important, but there are not enough of them to win the House.

Hatalsky, who co-authored the report with Ryan Pougiales, emphasized that Democrats still would not win the House even if they could get every single 2016 Clinton voter who backed a Republican House candidate to turn out again in 2018 and cross over.

You cant get to a House majority without winning over Trump voters, she said.

The study also noted that Democrats have to defend 12 districts that Trump carried as well. Once again, weve seen how reaching out to Trump voters is necessary for Democrats to win again. After all, these voters used to form the backbone of the party, which has been replaced by hyper-progressive zealots who are characterized by anti-free speech antics, shunning of white voters, and dogmatic adherence to political correctness. These people care more about whether transgender Americans are able to use the bathroom than job creation. Theres a lot of time between Electon Day 2018 and now, but lets just say the leaderless, divided Democratic Party doesnt look like it has its act together to mount a campaign that clinches Congress for them. Yet, let's not kid around here, we know that Clinton will take the limelight. She'sout for revenge.

Original post:
With 2018 Midterm Season About to Begin, Hillary Clinton Prepares Her Offensive - Townhall

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

AFP/Getty Images

Following the revelation of emails confirming the New York Times Monday story about Donald Trump Jr. being told about Russian efforts to aid the Trump campaign, conservatives, Trump backers, and Trump Jr. himself resurfaced the findings of a January Politico story about Ukranian efforts to aid Hillary Clinton, arguing that Clinton allies had been just as willing to work with a foreign power as Trump Jr. seemed to be.

The widely shared Daily Caller post about the Politico story asserts that Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa was involved in an effort by Ukraine to provide Democrats with opposition research on Paul Manaforts work as a pro-Russia political adviser in Ukrainea strategy Trump supporters claim is analogous to the Trump campaigns apparent effort to gather research on Clinton that was potentially furnished by the Russian government.

The first thing to note about thePolitico piece is that it goes to considerable lengths to differentiate the activities of Ukrainian officials during the election and the broad and evidently Kremlin-led efforts to assist Trump. Russias effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the countrys military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials, Politicos Kenneth Vogel and David Stern wrote. Theres little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the countrynot to mention its ongoing strife with Russiawould render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another countrys election.

That said, Politicos story did raise questions about the willingness of Clinton allies and the DNC to work with foreign officials in securing information damaging to the Trump campaign, although the parallels to what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort were involved in are thinner than Trump backers claim.

The Politico story doesnt implicate the Clinton campaign directly so much as it does the DNCwhich, Vogel and Stern wrote, was briefed on Manafort following a meeting between Chalupa, Ukrainian Ambassador Valeriy Chaly, and one of the ambassadors aides at the Ukrainian embassy in March 2016. Its not clear whether DNC officials were aware that Chalupa was working with Ukranian officials at that point. The story does, however, say that DNC officials encouraged Chalupa to ask for a meeting with Ukranian President Petro Poroshenko to gather more information about Manafort, a meeting that never happened:

The story goes on to quote embassy official Andrii Telizhenko as saying that the embassy was additionally working with the Hillary team itself, but the allegation isnt elaborated upon in the piece.

Its important to remember that whats ultimately concerning about Russiagate is the possibility that the Trump campaignincluding staffers now employed in the White House by the presidentworked with a hostile government whose leaders attempted to influence and disrupt the election with cyberattacks. The Chalupa story is about officials in an embassy passing along opposition research to a Democratic operative and reporters. The two episodes are not close to being the same, but that fact obviously wont stop Trumps supporters from deploying the story for yet another round of Clinton whataboutism.

Read the original:
Did the Clinton Campaign Really Collude With Ukraine? - Slate Magazine (blog)

In an exclusive interview with PJ Media, the Libyan National Army (LNA) spokesman, Col. Ahmed al-Mesmari, says that President Obama and Hillary Clinton "abandoned the Libyan people to face these terrorists alone."

He also implicates the Obama administration in supporting terrorist militias -- including Libyan al-Qaeda leader Abdelhakim Belhadj and Muslim Brotherhood militias allied to al-Qaeda.

Rather than backing the LNA and the elected Tobruk-based Libyan House of Representatives (HoR) in the fight against these terror groups, the Obama administration -- along with the United Nations and the European Union -- have been trying to impose a "Government of National Accord" (GNA) that has zero constituency in Libya. Further, it is accused of working with terror-linked militias in Tripoli.

With the continuing crisis between several Arab nations -- including the Libyan HoR and Qatar -- Col. al-Mesmari discusses Qatar's role in arming and financing terrorist militias in Libya. He also connects the Muslim Brotherhood militias that have been fighting against the LNA with al-Qaeda and ISIS elements operating in the country.

Col. al-Mesmari also claims that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade -- hired by Hillary Clinton's State Department to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- cooperated with Ansar al-Sharia in attacking the consulate compound on September 12, 2012.

That attack led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Libyans celebrated last week when, after three years of battle, the LNA finally liberated Benghazi from all terrorist groups in the city:

And over the past month, Col. al-Mesmari has publicly charged Qatar with direct support of terrorist groups operating in Libya:

The following is an exclusive interview I conducted by email earlier today with Col. Ahmed al-Mesmari, official spokesman for the Libyan National Army:

--------------------------------------

1) It's been six years since the U.S.-led NATO intervention in Libya. Hillary Clinton was the leading voice in the Obama administration for the U.S. action. What responsibility does she and Obama bear for that decision?

The main responsibility falls on NATO, which interfered in Libya in 2011 to end the Gaddafi regime and destroyed all Libyan army weapons and infrastructure, only to then leave Libya alone to fight the terrorists. They took none of the necessary measures to help rebuild the Libyan Army or even help to reactivate other security facilities.

Follow this link:
EXCLUSIVE: Libyan Army Spox Says Obama, Clinton 'Abandoned the Libyan People to the Terrorists' - PJ Media

The United States Postal Service has been on the brink of complete bankruptcy for nearly two decades, but that didnt stop it from paying out $90,000 to cover for paid employees who took time off to campaign for Hillary Clinton.

According to an Inspector Generals report, 100 USPS workers took extended leaves of absence to hit the campaign trail on behalf of the postal unionthe National Association of Letter Carriers. The union, which had by then endorsed Hillary Clinton, used these same postal workers to supplement their grassroots political operations in swing states.

Technically, postal workers are allowed to take unpaid holidays in order to help the union, but government employees arent supposed to actively campaign for a candidate. The Inspector General is currently investigating whether the postal workers who took time off violated that precept.

Part of the investigation revealed, however, that campaigning for Clinton cost the cash-strapped agency dearly. Workers who covered for the absent, politicking employees were paid overtime to fill shifts. To make up for the 2,776 days lost, the post office shelled out more than $90,000.

In government terms thats barely a toilet seat at the Pentagon, but its still an expense the agency didnt have to incur. The USPS is struggling to make ends meet, and independent USPS office managers have to approve time offincluding union-driven unpaid leavewith an eye to saving money.

But in this case, the Inspector General said, the union appears to have pressured USPS managers to grant their members time off, spending taxpayer dollars in service of Clintons campaign.

For its part, the Post Office claims that they have a long-standing practice of letting their workers campaign, and that they were just keeping with the tradition of wasting taxpayer funds on the most unnecessary things possible.

Follow this link:
Broke US Postal Service Paid to Cover Employees Campaigning for Hillary Clinton - Heat Street

Hillary Clinton. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Although Clintonlost the election, she is still trying to run the Democratic Party by othermeans. The Hillreportedon July 8 that HillaryClintonis planning to campaign and fundraise for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018. The article states that she will use her Super PAC, Onward Together,as a fundraising apparatus. In aninterview shortly after launching the PAC in May 2017, she criticized theDemocratic National Committee(DNC) and implied it was useless during her presidential campaign. I mean it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong, she said. I had to inject money into it. Thus, she essentially told her billionaire donors that the DNC was a liability and they should donate to her Super PAC instead.

She also is looking at the House districts she won in last years presidential contest againstDonald Trumpas part of an autopsy of her failed campaign, according to two sources who have spoken to the former secretary of state, Amie Parnes, a co-author ofShattered: Inside Hillary Clintons Doomed Campaign,wrotefor the Hill. Democratic leadership has continued to useClintons strategies, even thoughDemocratic candidate Jon Ossoff received a smaller share of the vote than HillaryClintondid in the same district in Georgias special congressional election this year. Nationwide, Clintonwonwealthy suburbs in record numbers, including 23 congressional districts that are currently held by Republicans. In an op-ed for Politico, Clintonstaffer Jesse Ferguson wrote, Democratshave to solidify the support of Romney-Clintonvoters if they have any hope of retaking Congress. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)conductedfocus groups on Americans who voted for Mitt Romneyy in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 to incorporate this strategy moving forward. In July 2016, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer infamously said,For every blue collarDemocratwe lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. He was wrong and continuing to rely on this strategy ensures that the Democratic Party will remain in the minority indefinitely.

The Hillstated that Republicans welcome HillaryClintonsinvolvement in the 2018 midterm elections. Her reputation for scandals, corruption and poor leadership provide them with even more political ammunition than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosis unpopularity.Clintonintervening in congressional races by actively campaigning for candidates will feed into Republicans messaging that theDemocratic Partyis the party of the Clintons.

Targeting wealthy suburbs aligns with the will of theDemocratic Partyswealthiest donorsHillary Clintons closest allies. This strategy moves the party away from necessary reforms and ensures that it will remain shaped by the former first familys image. EstablishmentDemocratswould rathershiftto the center and court elites at lavish fundraisers than enact meaningful policies. All the while,working class, middle class and low income voters are increasingly disenfranchised from the party they view as beholden to corporations and the wealthy.

Read more:
Hillary Plots to Revive Clintonism in 2018 Elections - Observer