SubscribeHillary Claims Supreme Court Stole Election
More outrageous remarks from Mrs. Bill Clinton, culled from last night’s Democrat debate, via MSNBC:
Oct. 30 Democratic debate transcript
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania presidential candidate forum at Drexel
Russert: Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?
Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.
Clinton: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There’s about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.
Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances and processes demand.
Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
Clinton: Well, that’s not my decision to make, and I don’t believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we’re move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.
Russert: Senator Obama, your hand is up?
Obama: Well, look, I’m glad that Hillary took the phrase “turn the page.” It’s a good one, but this is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.
And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem…
Russert: Senator Edwards had his hand up. Then I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond.
Edwards: … I think, that voters have to ask themselves is: Do you believe that the candidate who’s raised the most money from Washington lobbyists, Democrat or Republican, the candidate who’s raised the most money from the health industry, drug companies, health insurance companies, the candidate who’s raised the most money from the defense industry, Republican or Democrat — and the answer to all of those questions is: That’s Senator Clinton.
Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don’t think that’s going to happen. I really don’t…
Russert: Senator Clinton, please.
Clinton: Well, I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since.
I think it is time for us to step up and say we are going to change the way Washington works. I’ve laid out very specific plans about how to do that. I’m going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries, starting with money from the HMOs that are getting too much out of Medicare, starting with the no-bid contracts for Halliburton; starting with the defense industry that needs to be pared down and reined in.
I’ve been very clear about that. And I intend to implement that.
You know, change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to actually make it happen.
In a saner age almost any of these comments from or about Hillary would be enough to disqualify her as a serious candidate for any office, let alone the Presidency.
Think about it. Do we really want a President of the United States who believes that the Supreme Court is composed of criminals?
Or a woman who claims to have “the strength and experience” to change the nation and the world, but who can’t lift the ban her husband imposed on her records at their own library?
It is to laugh.
Related Articles:
16 Responses to “Hillary Claims Supreme Court Stole Election”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
This woman is too much of a threat to our liberties and to the Constitution to EVER be permitted to be president. My fear is with the complicity of the leftist media, enough of the ignorant and stupid will fall for her platitudes and lies that she will gain office. In the case that happens, be prepared for her to take this country into dictatorship…the lies the Traitor Party and its fellow travelers tell of the Bush bunch will become the reality of Hillary’s regime.
Get ready to lock and load, folks…it’s gonna be rough.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
On the “Supreme Court” comment: What irony. The Clinton machine is counting on people not remembering or drawing the connection, but Hillary was the happiest person in the world when the Supreme Court decided in Bush’s favor. And she was even more happy when Kerry went down in flames. If he had won she would have had to wait until 2012.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
In the current harvest season, Hillary last night gave us a very ripe crop of insanity to pick from. For instance:
When asked about the archives and lifting the ban placed by her husband she first said: “And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances and processes demand.” Then, when pressed again, she said: “But, certainly, we’re move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.” Slip of the tongue or a subtle but important difference? Either way, it’s a canned tap dance to be sure. Obviously, 2012 is timed to coincide with the end of a possible first term and if the end of 2012, to possible reelection to a second term.
“….unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since.” Here I believe she left her rehearsed script out of the frustration of being beaten up and cornered by the likes of the lightweights Obama and Silky Pony. I think most, even democrats, would agree it made her look petty and childish. And as patricko said, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out her pleasure with Gore and Kerry’s defeat.
“I’m going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries, starting with money from the HMOs that are getting too much out of Medicare, starting with the no-bid contracts for Halliburton; starting with the defense industry that needs to be pared down and reined in.” First off, is she unaware that she can’t do any of that? That she can only ask the congress or propose to the congress that these industries, defense, health care and she didn’t mention it, but I will, big oil be penalized for making a profit for their shareholders. As they are required by law to try to do? Is she not aware that lowering the Medicare level of payments to drug companies and HMOs will result in these same companies not servicing Medicare patients? Is she unaware that most, if not all private medical insurance companies become a second payer once you become eligible for Medicare and if you can’t find a provider because of reduced payments, your supplemental insurance is useless?
And all of the above is just a start. This woman has so many holes in her story and her proposals that if the republican candidate that gets nominated can’t kill her candidacy with her own words, he will deserve his defeat. Hell if he needs daily talking points, all he has to do is read S & L daily. He’ll have more than he can possibly use. And they will be factual.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
-’First off, is she unaware that she can’t do any of that? That she can only ask the congress or propose to the congress ‘-
Which begs the point (like the ballyhoo over Walter Reed/VA it was Congress who created the original problem, compounded it with another swipe at WR and of course has been pussyfooting around about DOD money since forever). . .since she is in Congress - why hasn’t she done anything to correct to problem - but heck I thought she was all for Governmental running of medicine, especially that to the poor?
Did I miss something - or is she just reminding the ’stupid’ masses that Bush got this Medicare deal - so it must be evil? Is it just me, or does this not compute.
Hey, I heard someone on talk radio actually say - she lived in the WH for 8 years as a qualifier and/or experience as POTUS - so I guess since I grew up surrounded by doctors - I can be an MD? What a crock.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
To: Hillary Clinton, et al
From: Conservatives
Re: George Bush
Mrs. Clinton, this is to inform you that a course study in the laws of our nation will be offered to you, free of charge of course, so that you can learn that presidents have term limits. It will instruct you how the last president to be in office for more than two terms, and actually was going to run for his fourth term, was a Democrat who by the way, took this nation into war where more than 3,000 American soldiers died.
Since it seems that the Cliff Notes on our Constitution, Bill of Rights and other federal laws have not given you an extended knowledge of our national laws, here is just a sample of those things we will be teaching you:
George Bush is not running for office in 2008. He is limited to only two terms.
Perhaps this course will help you in answering some of the tough questions you are going to face in the debates between you (assuming you do win the primaries and garner the nomination from the New Socialist Democratic Party of America) and the Republican candidate.
The course will not provide you with any excuses for the crimes of your husband while he was president. Nor will it provide you with any example of a “living” Constitution as it is our opinion that there have never been any Democrats who were smarter than the Founding Fathers since the Constitution was written to be understood by even the “common” citizen.
Sincerely,
October 31st, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I refuse to believe that the majority of voting Americans are morons whicj is the only way clinton can be elected.
But if that is the case, it will be time to thin the herd .
Lock and load boys and girls, the next few years could be rather exciting.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
1st…..if you don’t believe there are enough morons of voting age in America to allow this to happen, take a walk around your local shopping mall some day and try having a serious, intelligent conversation with people over the age of 18. Now I do understand that serious and intelligent in this case may be mutually exclusive, but try anyway. You’ll see what I mean. Scary.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Plenty of morons out there, 1st. Have a friend I visited in NC when we were home last - if HRC gets the nomination she is going to vote for HER simply because she’s a woman! A most pathetic reason to vote for someone and I tried and tried and tried to reason with her… I still have time and will e-mail her regularly with the gazillion reasons she should NOT vote for HRC under any circumstances.
The general tone and attitude from “friends” here on our compound is that NONE of them want HRC to be the candidate because they hate her, but they will vote for her - or whoever her party nominates - the BDS is very, very much alive and well in this little part of the middle east, I’m afraid. It matters not that President Bush will no longer be part of the administration; but only that the GOP party in general is a horrific malady that must be cured at any cost. [Oh, and what a cost it will be!] I am not allowed to discuss politics at my house with any gathering… My opinions are much too strong and DH would much prefer that my voice not be heard, given the place/situation we are in. Don’t think that I sit idly without getting my $.02 when necessary, though…
I guess the good thing is that with so many here not willing to see the light and given that most of us will be voting via absentee ballots our votes won’t be counted unless they are needed, right? [Note to self: Schedule one of our vacations next year to be in the States during the first week of November.]
October 31st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Like I say , if that bitch gets elected,
Lock and Load.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Hillary is the troll of all trolls.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I was listening to Hannity today, something I don’t normally do, and he was playing clips of Hillary from last night.
Over and over and over, “George Bush,” this, “George Bush,” that.
Her advisors need to remind her that she’s not running against Bush.
I often wonder if they really believe the stuff they spew, though. I have to believe that Hillary knows the truth about the 2000 election, but she’s counting on her, “followers,” (READ: SHEEPLE) to swallow her lies.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
How can you listen to that
noiseshow? Between all the screaming, people talking and shouting over each other and cutting people off in the middle of sentences, I get a hugh headache. H & C are perfect examples of all that is wrong with civil discourse in this country…..both of them.November 1st, 2007 at 10:34 am
On the not getting an ounce of sense from anyone over 18 - my calm is that voting group is one of the lowest turnouts in the majority of elections. They constantly spew the most idiotic stuff and then finish college, get thrown to the wolves of the real world - and grow up (at least the majority do).
On the woman thing - I still think it is a msm ploy to get the Hildabeast any and all votes - plus you have to look at the Dems of late - it is all about the ‘emotion’ not about ideas, solutions and values. It is a stupid reason to vote for her - fortunately that too is a small group.
The BDS sufferers are going to be the ones - it worked in OH - with our Gov. race last election. Taft & Noe were so bad - that all Reps got painted with that brush and Strickland won - now he is losing as the State House is still solidly Rep. - so at least his worst ideas (complete smoking ban, no schools except public - well I’ll start with no money except for public) are being reined in.
I don’t think that the DNC is admitting - while Bush bashing has been a great sport - and they have some real clever talking points - that the hard left is any more happy with the Dems than the Repubs are. And that can spell disaster - just think if Repubs hold tough and vote Repub and the hard left is po’d enough to vote Green, or whatever - can the Hildabeast win? Probably not without Acorn voter fraud, dead votes, felon votes and illegal immigrant votes - which can be voided or at least should be.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Right On! Patricko, The happiest day of Hillary’s political life was when the Supreme Court handed down their ruling on Gore v. Bush. Hillary’s support for Gore during the 2000 presidential election consisted of speaking at a NOW convention and telling the members that Al Gore is a strong supporter of abortion…..THANKS A LOT, Hillary!
Hillary reminds me of the character in Stephen King’s “The Dead Zone” who runs for president. Everyone loves him, but the main character of the book, using his “abilities”, sees the true monster beneath the veneer. Despite years of analysis and publications, does ANYONE have the faintest clue as to who she REALLY is? And please don’t tell me her husband does….In all likelyhood, the only person who discovered the truth “killed himself” on a park bench.
EVERY voter should ask ask themselves; “Do I really want her to have the nuclear launch codes?” The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:59 am
“On the not getting an ounce of sense from anyone over 18 - my calm is that voting group is one of the lowest turnouts in the majority of elections.”
I wouldn’t be so calm about that. Sooner or later, and I think sooner, the young are going to determine an election and when they do it will surely be in favor of the dems. Don’t know about you, but I’m not taking for granted that this isn’t that election. If enough people and media fill their empty heads with visions of sugar plums and kumbaya, they will turn out to vote and they will vote democrat.
“On the woman thing - I still think it is a msm ploy to get the Hildabeast any and all votes - plus you have to look at the Dems of late - it is all about the ‘emotion’ not about ideas…”
It is all about emotion. Now the women here may want to send large rounds my way, but that’s how the young women of America generally vote. Enough Ophra, Dr. Phil, the perky one on the CBS news and the View prodding them to finally elect a woman, and they will follow like little puppy dogs. Sorry ladies, but you know I’m right on this.
My point is, don’t take anything for granted and don’t assume the logical will happen. Do that, and it will bite you (all of us) in the ass big time.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
WI and all you others are right. She is not running against Bush but keeps bringing him up. Once we have a front runner Republican she’ll be attacking him. Watch for those Clintonian dirty laundry folks to come out in force.
I think there are a lot of women that dislike her, although I’m sure there will be some that vote for her just because she is a woman, just like there are others that vote for someone of the same race, religion, etc… but that hasn’t caused anyone to win a national election that I’m aware of, it works in local mayoral elections, but not national or state. (I always vote for the candidate just like me…. a short, fat, bald, ugly guy.)
I have great faith in Hillary… give her time and she’ll commit one of those catastrophic unredeamables that will sour everyone on her. May not be before the primaries, but if she is the candidate for the demoncrap party, then watch for it.